![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
We are all the Übermensch
Aug. 23rd, 2008 03:28 pmThere is something to be said about the "mainstream".
It is easily accessible, doesn't take a lot of thought into understanding what's going on within it and everybody known exaclty where they stand in it.
Hence the bunch of outsiders that actually create it.
The "mainstream" as I see it, is culture at large. It the images that surround us; News, ads, television, magazines (lad, fashion, finance, etc.), movies and best-seller books.
This can easily be reduced into pop-culture, but since the 80's and the true Material revolution, post-modern thought and resistance to the alienation that we all feel with ourselves and with each other.
Beyond being this invidious entity that creates the outsiders, which I've always felt a part of because I could never really feel comfortable in within the parameters the mainstream allows us to exist. The "mainstream" with great ease takes the existence of the culture that lives on its margins, on its fringe and slowly swallows it up and digests it until it is reduced to it's very basic ingredients.
The first thing that comes to mind as an example are the sponsored Pride events that I no longer enjoy as I once did, since the movement has become much more about assimilation than about liberation.
Which is the crux of the "mainstream" - assimilation.
To me the "mainstream" can be easily be replaced with hegemony.
This was a long exposition to the effect of the assimilation process has on one of my favourite sub-genre of literature.
Comic books.
Statistics show that the amount of comic book readers have been slowly reducing over the years - where once you could buy a 25 page issue at any kiosk, you now have to go to comic book stores, meaning that the genre has become even more marginalised than ever before. In the 50's they were considered a public menace, now they're barely even considered.
Not so the heroes of the genre.
The popularity of the comic book characters, specifically Superman (DC), Batman (DC), Spiderman (Marvel) and Captain America (Marvel) has never wavered - Superman and Captain America for their sheer symbolism as the protectors of The Way of Life from the enemies without. Batman and Spiderman for their symbolism as the protectors of our own lives from the enemies within (and within ourselves).
No one can ignore the fact that in the past decade Superhero movies have been on the rise.
This is a double edged sword in my mind - the "mainstream" is a money chaser and it creates the criterion which will enable them to make the most money, that is appealing to the population that has money.
And so the circle turns.
I'm very much a member of this population, by the way, in case that wasn't apparent.
Now there's nothing inherently wrong with the rising of the superhero movie genre from b-movie to blockbuster, what concerns me is the message and the changes the characters have to undergo in order the be in the acceptable criterion that makes them so popular(1).
Warner Brothers has announced a new movie making strategy which will enable them to make a ton of more money - Warner Bets on Fewer, Bigger Movies.
Within this little announcement are these interesting sentences:
And
"Superman Returns" didn't work as a movie, mainly because of the reason I really liked it - Superman/Clark was too alien and one was unable to relate to him as a person, which is kind of what makes him so lovable (though personally, I do not like him as a hero).
"Batman Begins" was a great movie (despite the stupid ninja thing) because in it Bruce Wayne goes through the process of becoming Batman - who he really is - and he confronted his fear, ha ha, symbolism.
In "The Dark Knight", Bruce still in the process of evolution into Batman and has to confront what he has the potential to become - a monster.
I've heard two people say that Batman in "The Dark Knight" represents the American Way.
To me, this is anathema to what Batman is, for him to represent anything other than what the American Way seeks to hide, seems wrong.
But that's what the "mainstream" is about, isn't it. To feed us something that the lowest common denominator can swallow without chewing.
Had the Joker won (though in a way he did. Haha), the unease that the movie would have caused would have created such a backlash that it wouldn't have been able it to become the blockbuster effect it is.
It's why the Joker feels like a much bigger presence in the movie (at least to me) than Batman. Christian Bale, fantastic actor that he is, was a bit short changed when it came to this role, there was no development on his part - though we see the extent he is willing to go in order to win without killing (yeah that sonar thing, no way it's the only one and no way it's really destroyed, Bruce would rather gnaw off his leg that get rid of a gadget that useful).
Batman is the Way of Life (something better represented by Harvey Dent and Gordon, in my opinion) rather than the Way We Are.
The Joker is an enemy to Society at large instead of being the abyss we look into and laughs at us in return.
The "mainstream" made Batman into an Urban Superman.
I can't say I approve.
Notes:
(1) I could really go into the representation of women, people of colour, queers etc. But due to the shortness of space (and to keep y'all from getting bored) I'm focusing on the subject at hand.
It is easily accessible, doesn't take a lot of thought into understanding what's going on within it and everybody known exaclty where they stand in it.
Hence the bunch of outsiders that actually create it.
The "mainstream" as I see it, is culture at large. It the images that surround us; News, ads, television, magazines (lad, fashion, finance, etc.), movies and best-seller books.
This can easily be reduced into pop-culture, but since the 80's and the true Material revolution, post-modern thought and resistance to the alienation that we all feel with ourselves and with each other.
Beyond being this invidious entity that creates the outsiders, which I've always felt a part of because I could never really feel comfortable in within the parameters the mainstream allows us to exist. The "mainstream" with great ease takes the existence of the culture that lives on its margins, on its fringe and slowly swallows it up and digests it until it is reduced to it's very basic ingredients.
The first thing that comes to mind as an example are the sponsored Pride events that I no longer enjoy as I once did, since the movement has become much more about assimilation than about liberation.
Which is the crux of the "mainstream" - assimilation.
To me the "mainstream" can be easily be replaced with hegemony.
This was a long exposition to the effect of the assimilation process has on one of my favourite sub-genre of literature.
Comic books.
Statistics show that the amount of comic book readers have been slowly reducing over the years - where once you could buy a 25 page issue at any kiosk, you now have to go to comic book stores, meaning that the genre has become even more marginalised than ever before. In the 50's they were considered a public menace, now they're barely even considered.
Not so the heroes of the genre.
The popularity of the comic book characters, specifically Superman (DC), Batman (DC), Spiderman (Marvel) and Captain America (Marvel) has never wavered - Superman and Captain America for their sheer symbolism as the protectors of The Way of Life from the enemies without. Batman and Spiderman for their symbolism as the protectors of our own lives from the enemies within (and within ourselves).
No one can ignore the fact that in the past decade Superhero movies have been on the rise.
This is a double edged sword in my mind - the "mainstream" is a money chaser and it creates the criterion which will enable them to make the most money, that is appealing to the population that has money.
And so the circle turns.
I'm very much a member of this population, by the way, in case that wasn't apparent.
Now there's nothing inherently wrong with the rising of the superhero movie genre from b-movie to blockbuster, what concerns me is the message and the changes the characters have to undergo in order the be in the acceptable criterion that makes them so popular(1).
Warner Brothers has announced a new movie making strategy which will enable them to make a ton of more money - Warner Bets on Fewer, Bigger Movies.
Within this little announcement are these interesting sentences:
"Superheroes are more global than ever in today's commercial world, existing in 30 languages and in more than 60 countries," says Paul Levitz, president and publisher of DC Comics. The characters are "a world-wide export," he says.
And
Warner Bros. also put on hold plans for another movie starring multiple superheroes -- known as "Batman vs. Superman" -- after the $215 million "Superman Returns," which had disappointing box-office returns, didn't please executives. "'Superman' didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to," says [Jeff] Robinov [Warner Bros. Pictures Group President]. "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned." "Had 'Superman' worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009," he adds. "But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all."Emphasis mine.
"Superman Returns" didn't work as a movie, mainly because of the reason I really liked it - Superman/Clark was too alien and one was unable to relate to him as a person, which is kind of what makes him so lovable (though personally, I do not like him as a hero).
"Batman Begins" was a great movie (despite the stupid ninja thing) because in it Bruce Wayne goes through the process of becoming Batman - who he really is - and he confronted his fear, ha ha, symbolism.
In "The Dark Knight", Bruce still in the process of evolution into Batman and has to confront what he has the potential to become - a monster.
I've heard two people say that Batman in "The Dark Knight" represents the American Way.
To me, this is anathema to what Batman is, for him to represent anything other than what the American Way seeks to hide, seems wrong.
But that's what the "mainstream" is about, isn't it. To feed us something that the lowest common denominator can swallow without chewing.
Had the Joker won (though in a way he did. Haha), the unease that the movie would have caused would have created such a backlash that it wouldn't have been able it to become the blockbuster effect it is.
It's why the Joker feels like a much bigger presence in the movie (at least to me) than Batman. Christian Bale, fantastic actor that he is, was a bit short changed when it came to this role, there was no development on his part - though we see the extent he is willing to go in order to win without killing (yeah that sonar thing, no way it's the only one and no way it's really destroyed, Bruce would rather gnaw off his leg that get rid of a gadget that useful).
Batman is the Way of Life (something better represented by Harvey Dent and Gordon, in my opinion) rather than the Way We Are.
The Joker is an enemy to Society at large instead of being the abyss we look into and laughs at us in return.
The "mainstream" made Batman into an Urban Superman.
I can't say I approve.
Notes:
(1) I could really go into the representation of women, people of colour, queers etc. But due to the shortness of space (and to keep y'all from getting bored) I'm focusing on the subject at hand.
