THE ROLE OF FILM IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION: PART 2

 

 

III. Films as Hot Buttons:

Continuing from yesterday's post, how do films create and resolve conflict, once we have common scenes for analysis? First,the characters and settings in films often give rise to powerful emotions unconsciously. The case of the classic German director Josef von Sternberg’s The Blue Angel presents these hot buttons quite vividly in The International Dictionary of Flims and Filmmakers vol. 1 : “By choosing a turn of the century setting, von Sternberg placed the story in his own childhood, and decorated it with images of his own adolescent eroticism.”⁸ (Pendergast, et. al, 1997, pg. 130) Von Sternberg, then a married man, had somewhat of a sexual obsession with the actress Marlene Dietrich, for whom she represented his erotic adolescence. Thus, films mirror the dreamworld in that they become a safe venue for expressing previously repressed memories, and “unacceptable” emotions.

     Second, as I have written before with support for this theory by Freud and McLuhan, films likewise represent desires and strong emotions, and some may not come up consciously. These are called "hot buttons". Again, the important question is to ask why some "button" is being "pushed". However, this does not relate to the options for mutual gain, but to explicating conflicting emotions so that both parties can begin to negotiate. To provide a more concrete example, let me return to Star Wars. Luke Skywalker getting his hand chopped off with a lightsaber could invoke a sense of awe or a sense of dread and helplessness. Why? What does the hand mean? As Morton Deutsch states: “It is wise to recognize that you, as well as the other, have hot buttons that, if pressed, are likely to evoke strong emotions. The emotions evoked may be anxiety, anger, rage, fear, depression, withdrawal, and so on. It is important to know your own hot buttons and how you tend to react when they are pressed, so that you can control your reactions in that event.” ⁹(Deutsch et. al 2006, pg. 36) At this point, it is possible that the emotions may be purged, explained, and negotiated. Perhaps one party feels as though its “hand” in the situation is removed. If both parties feel this way, all the better, because they both have an allegory to relate to, and will respond in a style empathetic to Luke’s character when hot buttons are pushed: “It’s okay. Let’s solve this like Jedis.”

There is, of course, a myriad of ways to interpret films, and a huge difference between Luke Skywalker and Leatherface, for example. As Moron Deutsch points out above, it is important to know how to react when hot buttons are pushed. Anger and aggression are hot buttons. So, if a man identifies with Freddie Krueger, and so does the other: Why?

Again, the advantage of films is the ability to create such emotions in an atmosphere analogous to soft negotiation. You have agreed on a film, and explained why. The viewers are willing to be friendly, as the solutions to conflict and the diffusion or expression of hot buttons usually takes place within the film’s narrative. (i.e. “I like when Freddie kills things; he’s so extreme!” means “I wish I could be as powerful as Freddie.”) The emotional nature of films brings out this wish-fulfilling principle, which parties can then identify as coping mechanisms for hot buttons. Typically, these hot buttons in films are in the movie itself. We know Darth Vader is the villain of Star Wars because of the bad things he does in the film. That is, the parties have agreed, in general, what buttons he pushes. Then, is the time for film evaluation, and how the film presents conflict. With the tool of the film as a desirable narrative, parties should be able to identify hot buttons in the film, and explain why they arise.

IV: Films as Desirable Outcomes: Conclusion

The principle of storytelling presented by films provides a context for negotiation to conclude. That is, “How do achieve the best outcome, and both come out as heroes?” The mythic-dream context of the film can be personally applied: “How can we both be bad asses like Scarface? What does he represent?” Though it appears that such answers are Jungian in origin, I believe the symbolic interpretation of film imagery to be fundamentally personal, and not to be taken as literal or absolute^.

This is the beauty of films in negotiation. Once you realize that films have the potential to generate interests in metaphorical, dream-like quests, you automatically have a basis from which to negotiate, to plan strategies for mutual gain, and ultimately for a chance to examine positions and build trust. Behind the magic of movies is the practical knowledge of how to negotiate human desires and conflicts in a friendly, entertaining setting. It is the magic of dreams that enables us to see the positives in other people with whom we share common experiences. The point is that every individual has his own very special problem in this life crisis about what he or she has been doing. Since films speak to us in different ways, the key would be to explain why it speaks to us the way it is does, to mirror dreamworlds. Films merely provide a context and lexicon for conflict resolution; but it is one that is ancient and dream-giving: that of drama and the hero’s journey.

In conclusion, the mythic-dream context of films helps us sort through conflict through identification of emotions, desires, and film events. It is perhaps the most primal and creative and friendly way to express these repressed desires. As the parties negotiate, identification and trust is built through a premise of understanding events in the film and giving them an interpretation them to match the situation at hand. Simply put: It is the magic of movies that McLuhan attests to that glues us together to transform the viewers.

　

Bibliography:

1. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Ed: Lewis H. Lapham. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA: 1994.

2. The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers. Campbell, Joseph. Ed.: Flowers, Betty Sue. Knopf Publishing Group: 1991.

3. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Ury et. al. 1981. Ed: Houghton Mifflin. New York, NY: 1991

4. A Short Guide to Writing About Film: Fifth Edition. Corrigan, Timothy. Temple University Press. Philadelphia, PA: 2004

5. The Birth of Tragedy and The Case of Wagner. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Trans. Kaufmann Walter. Chicago University Press. Chicago, IL: 1967.

6. Wadsworth World Classics in Literature: The Interpretation of Dreams. Freud, Sigmund. 1900. Ed: Hallstein, David. Wadsworth Publishers: London, UK: 1997.

7. Language in Thought and Action 5th Edition. Hiyakawa, S.I. Ed: Hiyakawa, A.R. San Diego, New York, London: Harcourt, Brace, and Company: 1992

8. The International Dictionary of Flims and Filmmakers vol. 1: pg. 130-131 Der blaue Engel. Ed.: Pendergast, Tom. New York, NY: 1997.

9. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. Deutsch, Morton. Ed: Coleman, Peter T. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco 2003.

　

THE ROLE OF FILM IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION: PART 1

Note: In honor of the ReelAbilities Film Fest coming up the first week in November, I thought I’d post some thoughts on film theory and Communication. If I had to write another thesis, it would probably be on using film and pop culture to promote strong images of disability. This one though is about film and conflict resolution, which was another idea I toyed with, but decided not to develop at the time. So, maybe now’s the time, and I hope it makes you think about your favorite movies!

THE ROLE OF FILM IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION:

“The movie is not only a supreme expression of mechanism, but paradoxically it offers as product the most magical of consumer commodities, namely dreams. It is, therefore, not accidental that the movie has excelled as a medium that offers poor people roles of riches and power beyond the dreams of avarice.”¹

- Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man

(McLuhan, 1964 pg. 290)

People all have their favorite movies, and with those movies come strong dreams. Audiences identify with their favorite characters, experience their favorite scenes, and even sometimes recite the dialogue over their favorite film as it occurs, such as: “Luke, I am your father.” What is it about film that is relevant to negotiation? Dreams represent goals, desires, or in the language of Ury et al., interests presented in a psychologically entertaining and mythical story: As Joseph Campbell says in The Power of Myth: “When Ben Kenobi says, "May the Force be with you," he's speaking of the power and energy of life, not of programmed political intentions.”² (Campbell 1988, pg. 145)

That is to say, movies have mythological and metaphysical structures that fulfill interests. (Security, belonging, sense of control.) Hence, egos can now be invested in the movies as the viewers watch and form positions on movies. A decision so simple as what movie to watch can become a contest of wills, as Ury et al. say: "I'm not going to give in. If you want to go to the movies with me, it's The Maltese Falcon or nothing."³ (Ury et al., 1981 pg. 6) But, the wonder of the film is that it brings people together to discuss what they dislike or like about the plot, in an entertaining atmosphere where interests are revealed. In the above example, dialogue is still possible based on the fact that we know that the viewer likes The Maltese Falcon. The key is to ask why.

In that way, because it asks why, many of the steps in Timothy Corrigan’s A Short Guide To Writing About Film mirror Ury et al.’s “Principled Negotiation”. Ury et al. called interests and positions what Corrigan called opinion and evaluation. In evaluation, aim is: “not pronouncing a film good or bad, but explaining why.”⁴(Corrigan 2004, pg. 15) Compared to Ury et al., both have similar methods for determining interests behind positions: “Examine each position they take, and ask yourself "Why?"” the advantage of film analysis in negotiation is that films represent desires, “hot buttons”, provide a context for discourse, which enables both parties to analyze their own feelings corresponding the film’s visual lexicon of characters, scenes, and film technique. (i.e. camera use or identifying themes.)

II. Films as Desires:

“The myth is the public dream and the dream is the private myth.”

 

- Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth (Campbell, 1988 pg. 48)

 

Paraphrasing Campbell, a hero is a person who has looked inside himself or herself and undertaken a quest for something greater than the individual self. Because of the reflective nature of the hero, he or she ultimately returns to realizing that the power that transformed himself or herself. “...if you are following your bliss, you are enjoying that refreshment, that life within you, all the time.” (Campbell, 1988 pg. 113) The power to look inside your bliss and discover your inner power through mythical transformation is the power that film gives to the viewer. This is why viewers identify with characters in movies. Through the experiences of the characters in movies, dreams are presented. For McLuhan, this was a transformation of the “world of display” once privileged only to the rich, as was Greek drama. This world was previously taken from the rich by photography. It has only been transferred to a dramatic medium, which is now widely available to popular culture. The advantage of the use of film in negotiation is this widespread appeal coupled with the drama’s ability to create myth, and the power of the visual media to create dreams. Speaking of Greek drama (which McLuhan transferred to film drama) Nietzsche reminds us in The Birth of Tragedy that art is a“ saving sorceress ”, and that “she alone may transform these horrible reflections on the nausea and absurdity of existence into representations with which humankind may live.”⁵ (Nietzsche trans. Kaufmann, 1872/1967 pg. 60) In just this way, movies arouse emotions by mise-en-scène and take forms with which we can live, such as Luke Skywalker, Scarface, or even Leatherface from Texas Chainsaw Massacre; the point in negotiation being to explain why we identify with the characters or mise-en-scène.

That media create dreams is not a new idea. Freud’s classic example is a glass of water. If I desire a glass of water, but cannot reach it, there is a good chance that the water will show up in a dream as a medium to express thirst: “If I succeed in appeasing my thirst by means of the dream that I am drinking I need not wake in order to satisfy that thirst. It is thus a dream of convience. The dream takes the place of action, as elsewhere in life.”⁶ (Freud trans. Wadsworth 1900/1997, pg. 35) Now, that I’ve established how dreams are transferred through films to the viewer, through mythic structure, visual imagery, and Freudian wish-fulfillment, I can demonstrate the usefulness of negotiating through film. Firstly, film provides the method outlined by Ury et al., namely:

“1. Separate the People from the Problem
2. Focus on Interests, Not Positions
3. Invent Options for Mutual Gain
4. Insist on Objective Criteria”
(Ury et al., 1981 pg. 15)
The first two steps are equivalent to using Timothy Corrigan’s evaluation vs. opinion. That is: What elements of the film do we find agreeable and why? Of course, in separating the person from the problem, film has the advantage of expressing desires in a form which is only a movie, so we cannot blame the person (using evaluation) for identifying with particular happenings in a movie. Films are emotional configurations that mirror the metaphorically-based dreamworld. Emotions are necessarily far-fetched, and include our deepest fantasies.

Another advantage of films in explicating emotions during conflict is the ability of film to invent options for mutual gain. First, the film sets up a soft negotiation “context”, in which the parties have come together for entertainment, but still leaves room for principled negotiation because the options for mutual gain are presented in the film itself. For example, we might say that one party identifies with the conflict of Luke Skywalker, and the other with Darth Vader. Why? From here, the options present themselves through narrative. Perhaps one side feels downtrodden and so gives itself power through Luke. What wish does he fulfill? At the very least, the parties have come together to watch Star Wars, and that will build trust. In believing film debate to be a source of cohesion, I am also supported by S.I. Hayakawa’s notion that the function of chit-chat reveals social cohesion. “It is the togetherness of the talking, then, is the most important element on social conversation; the subject matter is only secondary.”⁷ (Hiyakawa, 1992 pg. 58) The subject matter of conflict is enhanced by the cohesion of viewing films together. Finally, the objective criteria are given by the film, its history, and its narrative. (Tomorrow, I’ll talk about how films, according to me, both create and resolve conflict! See if your favorite characters are mentioned!)

Empowering Dialogue and The Nature of Power

Empowering Dialogue and the Nature of Power:

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you.”

- Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil¹

(Nietzsche 1886/Kaufmann 1963:89)

Many people believe that effective dialogue is about peaceful agreement, and conflict resolution; that if an attempt to gain power or address control comes into a dialogue, there must be some partisan or repressive agenda at hand. Only one side can have power. This is false. Anything can be effective communication if it accomplishes its goal. Insulting can be effective communication if it influences the listener negatively. Lying can be effective if it deceives the receiver. The core of interpersonal communication and dialogue is power because it affects and influences actions. By openly examining the nature of power rather than avoiding the abyss and sinking in, I intend to look back into it, and show how power can be used to gain resources for, and direct two or more parties toward dialogue.

Power is, as Nietzsche suggests, a reciprocal (though not always equal.) creative force. Power sharing is the most important aspect of interpersonal communication, because power is the ability to influence or control events. It is not negative. It is beyond good and evil. It can only be used for negative means. Power depends on resources parties can employ to influence and attain direction. The effectiveness of a power resource　used depends on “endorsement” by another

　group. So, power exists in the interpersonal relationship-interaction. For effective interpersonal communication, use power for attaining mutual goals, and disregard ideology, which is more of an abstraction that does not exist outside the mind. One can tell the use/effectiveness of power through the outcome it produces. In interpersonal communication, we want to aim for mutually empowering communication that is whatever enhances the ability of both parties to create and control events. In this perspective, my three biggest influences have been political science, mythology, and mindfulness. (In order: Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Thich Nhat Hanh.)

First, when I include political control, I do not mean domination. Domination is not a mutually accepted relationship. In that way, I mean the French and Raven definition of legitimate authority (trust), based on increasing power; whether legitimate, expert, or referent (never coercive power; which French and Raven include.) Paraphrasing Friedrich Nietzsche: If you want to be a friend, you must be willing to risk being an enemy. Nothing can get done if you are too soft, and avoid real issues. The most important thing is that you attain mutual goals, dealing with the persons or parties themselves, not whether or not you think a person likes you. This includes attitudes and events about which you share the same ideas and perceptions. Trust should be reliable, repeatable, and efficient. The danger of sacrificing interests in a power sharing relationship is that the sacrificed concerns are not addressed or viewed as legitimate: Openly discuss power in relationships. Doing so will help increase power in life and the lives of others as well as direct both powers toward a goal, the higher aim of the relationship.

Heroes have goals such higher aims, and heroes are motivated by mythology. Giving himself/herself to the Greater Good, the hero follows his/her bliss, and becomes immortalized by spiritual/physical heroic deeds beyond self-interest. This Greater Good that attains bliss is called mythology. Mythologist Joseph Campbell states that: “Wherever you are - if you are following your bliss, you are enjoying that refreshment, that life within you, all the time.”² (Campbell and Moyers 1988:113)

　

Myths are stories designed to instruct and uplift the listener and storyteller. We are commonly used to thinking of myth as meaning lie. But the importance of the myth has for centuries been its inspirational or instructional value. For example, ancient Greece was rich in myth. We can hear the stories of Odysseus, Hercules as well as Jason and the Argonauts, and still find qualities and lessons that inspire us. Modern psychology has proven to benefit from the mythological format. (In diagnosing Oedipus complex, schizophrenia, and forming the archetypal tragic plot.) In each case, psychologically or interpersonally, these myths are dramas that are goal-oriented and instructional. As long as you have that inner power, power sharing becomes a matter of seeking external power sources, and negotiating.

Sources of power come from people who wield influence, or groups of people who have influence. These are present in goal-oriented power structures, namely hierarchies, and determined by who has access to the top of the hierarchy. People can increase power by using skills to get up the hierarchy, or by arranging coalitions of shared power, or gathering allies to obtain their goals. Successful power sharing mythological hierarchies interpersonally include King Arthur and his knights, or even Batman and Robin. In the aphorism of J.W. von Goethe quoted in Benjamin Jowett’s The Dialogues of Plato: “He is dead in this world who has no belief in another.”³ (Goethe 1832/Jowett 1937:182) Power needs to be divided and shared if it is to be set on a path.

Often it is necessary to reform these power negotiations and to rename them. For example, instead of being in a battle with an enemy, think of dancing with a partner, and cooperating. War is not the only power metaphor. In fact, it is a bad one for power sharing, because it is based on absolute ideology, which is an abstraction of the mind. As Mark Juergensmeyer stated in his textbook Terror in the Mind of God: the global rise of religious violence: "A satanic enemy cannot be transformed. It can only be destroyed."⁴ (Juergensmeyer 2000:220) The previous quote would be a warning to those who would use the war metaphor. If you believe you are in a war, then war is bound to follow from it. Another way to reexamine the problem is to remember what Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh says: “Human life is more precious than any ideology, any doctrine...[I]f you have an ideology, and stick to it thinking it is absolute truth, you can kill millions.”⁵ (Nepstad 2004:268)

The mention of Thich Nhat Hanh brings me to the concept of mindfulness. As he is quoted in the textbook Bridges not walls: a book about interpersonal communication: “There are two ways to wash the dishes. The first is to wash the dishes in order to have clean dishes and the second is to wash the dishes in order to wash the dishes.”⁶ (Shafir 2009:219) Rebecca Shafir has also called mindfulness one-pointedness; it is the ability to concentrate and be in the moment. This seems to abolish the notion of attaining goals, but it does not, because the goal will emerge from the communication itself. Without the ability to listen, dialogue (and so interpersonal communication) becomes powerless. It is important to focus your intention on the collaborative trajectory of power: power is always creating something and always in dynamic play, it can only be noticed and given direction. The creative and dynamic play of power means that power is productive and formless. It takes shape in things. It can result in the production of order and reality, including hierarchical authority. It even extends the body. To quote Foucault in Discipline and Punish: the birth of the prison: “We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms: it ‘excludes’, it ‘represses’, it ‘censors’, it ‘masks’, it ‘conceals.’ In fact, power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. The individual and the knowledge that may be gained of him belong to this production.”⁷ (Foucault 1974/Sheridan 1977:194) It is through power that the individual creates knowledge for himself or herself, discovers truth and the realm of objects. Only when two parties seek to harm their opposites, cling to ideology, or otherwise repress another’s voice is power a negative instrument. Nietzsche’s twin abysses are always staring each other down. The point is to fight back against the abyss. But, in the process do not become what you are fighting against. This is what I mean when I talk about power sharing. All communication is in essence a power struggle, or a sharing of power. It is not limited to self-disclosure. Once you grasp the formlessness and one-pointedness of power, your interpersonal skills will become more powerful. As it was put by semanticist S.I. Hiyakawa in the context of conversation: “It is the togetherness of the talking, then, is the most important element on social conversation; the subject matter is only secondary.”⁸ (Hiyakawa 1939/Hiyakawa 1992:58) Powerful people make powerful relationships. In Goethe’s Faust, this notion is explored quite explicitly when Faust sells his soul to the devil in exchange for love. By following the power of love, a power evil cannot understand, Faust overcomes the Devil’s bargain. It is his following of bliss that makes him stronger than the Devil. The Devil is: “part of that power that which would do evil ever more, and yet creates the good.”⁹ (Goethe 1832/Kaufmann 1963: 158) In conclusion, power is a creative force that makes things happen and frames reality. As such, it is the basis of all communication, and power sharing is the essence of the interpersonal. Power can be pushed toward something, and pushed away from something. Thus, powerful people set their own paths, and then pursue them. The intention of the power will attract the kinds of obstacles and allies in your path. Thus, communication is a power struggle. There will be many obstacles to your bliss, but if you steel yourself, surround yourself with resources, friends, and courage, nothing stands in your way. In short: there is no wrong way to communicate interpersonally. Only conflicting ways; Conflict builds courage: “What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.”¹⁰ (Nietzsche 1895/Kaufmann and Hollingdale 1967:xxxii)

Reference:

Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1886) Trans. Kaufmann, Walter. (1963) Beyond good and evil: prelude to a philosophy of the future. Chicago: Chicago University Press

Campbell, Joseph. Bill Moyers. (1988) (1991) The power of myth with bill boyers. Ed.: Flowers, Betty Sue: Knopf Publishing Group

Plato. Trans. Jowett, Benjamin. (1937) The dialogues of Plato: Translated into english with analyses and introductions. New York: Oxford University Press American Branch
Juergensmeyer, Mark. (2000) Terror in the mind of god. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press

Nepstad, S. E. (2004) Religion, violence, and peacemaking. Journal for the scientific study of religion, 3(43), 297-301

(2009) Bridges not walls: a book about interpersonal communication. Ed.: Stewart, John. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education Publishing Inc.
(1995) Foucault, Michel. (1975) Trans. Sheridan, A.M. (1977) Discipline and
punish: the birth of the prison 2^nd edition. Ed: Rainbow, Paul. New York, NY: Random House Publishing Inc.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von (1808) Trans. Kaufmann, Walter. (1963) Goethe’s Faust. Chicago: Chicago University Press
(1992) Hiyakawa, S.I. (1939) Language in thought and action 5th Edition. Hiyakawa, S.I. Ed: Hiyakawa, A.R. San Diego, New York, London: Harcourt, Brace, and Company
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1900) Trans. Kaufmann, Walter and Hollingdale, R.J. (1967)

The will to power: a new translation by walter kaufmann and r.j. hollingdale.

. Chicago: Chicago University Press

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

Short Story "Codename: Wolf Virus"

Author's intro: Here's a little sci-fi story I wrote in my spare time. I was trying to prove that you can turn any story into a sci-fi epic simply by setting it in Space. I suppose I was inspired by Avatar and Prometheus. (I thought of getting these stories I have published, but then I thought: I have my own publishing space!)

CODENAME: WOLF VIRUS

First, she looked around the bleak metal hull of the Wolf Base, then she drew out her force field tube, and generated the energy necessary to capture the brain-like entity codenamed the Wolf Virus. She stepped onboard her ship.

Shelley Shepherd, Commander of the science vessel Copernicus, was ordered to take the viral being to the nearest military lab. “Roger that.” she said over her sleeve comm. She placed the growing viral being in a force field bubble, and into a little observation slot. Strange, she almost felt a little sympathy for it, even though it had killed millions. Like a rabid dog being put down. But, off the ship went, blazing through hyperspace. In the total silence of the ship’s autopilot, she often felt compelled to check on the little bugger. She tapped on the forcefield bubble.

“Two eyes appear to function…” she said in fascination. Shelley felt a cool pulse in her brain, and then a stab as the creature responded.

“They are fine.” It said in garbled vocals. Telepathic communication! Shelley turned to go to bed, but then figured as they were all alone she might as well talk to the trapped brain-like puppy-thing.

“What planet are you from?” She asked it.

The thing glowed. “Kurs’zi. A planet of warriors.”

Shelley had heard of the destruction of the Wolf Base, but from this thing? She tapped on the field again. Surprisingly, the viral being did the same. Shelley couldn’t suppress her amusement. “Your jaws are fantastic. They change in size according to…what?” she asked.

“Prey!” The creature bit down on Shelley’s face, breaking through where she had tapped on the forcefield with its gigantic maw. The ship went into red alert, and robot security teams rolled in line by line with plasma rifles, but the little alien was gone, slurping around the lab. As it absorbed Shelley’s mind, it bit her briefly. In shock, she threw herself into the laser fire until she lie there in the aftermath. Her spacesuit took the laser's impact.

But, Shelley obtained a link with the being. She knew what it wanted. After all, he was a scared viral being from a race of warriors. He wanted a body to eat with. In animals, she noted, there is only basic instinct: hunger. In warrior cultures, only the hunt: he needed a weapon. She deactivated the red alert alarm and the robots fell silent. She gasped, as the viral being bared its teeth.

“You wanna eat me, do it now!” she yelled, summoning all her strength.

“Hold still!” the being growled and lowered its teeth to clamp down on her leg. But, with one free hand, Shelley opened the airlock, and knocked the creature into the robot chassis, sending it hurtling violently through space. In her spacesuit, Shelley survived. In its robot chassis, the being did not. But, it died of starvation having tasted food, and with a rifle in its robot hand. She honored it, but lived on.

ANNUAL PAWPAW FESTIVAL ‘12, ATHENS OHIO

ANNUAL PAWPAW FESTIVAL ‘12, ATHENS OHIO:

So, last week, about the same time I wrote the Avatar post, I went to the pawpaw festival in Athens, OH. For those of you who don’t know, like I didn’t, a pawpaw is a fruit like a pear, that has a soft texture like a banana. Everything there has to do with that fruit, except for some arts and crafts. I looked at some jewelry, and some cups that people had made. I love homemade crafts! But, also there were t-shirts, and beer, and the burrito buggy, and an open air concert.

As far as the people that were there, I saw hippies and hipsters of all ages. So, at the risk of being crass, a lot of tie dye and flannel shirts. And that’s cool! Even I self-identify as a hipster: I just really like art. Te whole thing was open air, and you could hear acoustic bands hawking alternative energy sources. The music was very mellow, except for some upbeat rockabilly thrown in. I must admit it wasn’t really my taste, but it’s Appalachian culture, and I was glad people came together to celebrate the American pawpaw fruit.

After I got tired of the music, I headed over to the dog park and played with some dogs. There were a couple German Shepherds (Eva and Jazz) doing obedience training behind a fence. The trainer let me pet them. I also met a cocker spaniel, a big black great Dane puppy named Peter, and an especially endearing three-legged pitbull named Stitch. Stitch actually approached me, and the owner said, “Oh, he likes you!” So, it was kind of a special disability relationship. To me, the dog park was the main attraction! And of course that pawpaw beer! I’m 26 and still look young enough that they ask for ID.

I must take issue though, with the parking. The parking took me the longest to find and there was no place to park even though it was an open air festival. But, the workers were helpful, and we parked on a hill, and let the ramp down. I think about half the population of Athens, OH was there. Pawpaws are a big deal there, apparently! I spent some time talking to shop owners. They were all self-supported artists!

It was a fun time in the Ohio sun. Nice opportunity to observe Athens, OH culture, and pick out fashion trends in music and clothes. I’ll remember Stitch for a long time, because he came up to me. And hey, I learned what the heck a pawpaw is! I must say, it was very refreshing. I know I’m all about sci-fi and technological progress, but when you get down to it, I like the woods, and the natural creativity that it inspires in me. I always feel like an alien, but wooded areas are like my home planet. Heck, the woman making the cups was a Trekkie, who gave me the Vulcan salute! We’re everywhere!

It felt really good. The atmosphere in the festival is busy, but very relaxed. It was the Pawpaw Fest’s 20^th year celebration, so it’s actually a cultural tradition hitherto unknown to me. Great for me as an ethnographer. And everyone participates, so you can just relax, have a pawpaw beer (or juice.); people were very open to questions, and friendly. It’s a nice chance to get together with artists, bands, pets, etc. and just have a good time in honor of this unique American fruit!

A BRIEF CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF AVATAR‘S PANDORA AND FUTURE EARTH

A BRIEF CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF AVATAR‘S PANDORA AND FUTURE EARTH:

“Everything is backwards now, like out there is the true world, and in here is the dream.”

- Jake Sully’s vidlog

James Cameron’s 3-D blockbuster Avatar is a perfect example of everything this blog is about: disabilty, cultural analysis and sci-fi. Through Alien Eyes is an expression of how I view myself as a person with a disability and the world around me. When the paralyzed marine Jake Sully looks at the world, he looks at it through alien eyes literally. Now, I know Avatar’s overall message gets mocked for being Pocohantas in Space among other things, but I need to discuss how well it crafted its fantasy world, exhibits culture shock, and shows the human world of the future.

The visuals in Pandora are amazing. They have depth, beauty, and make you feel as though you’ve transported into that Na’vi alien avatar. But the culture shock actually happens before Jake is in that body. he has to relearn everything through Neytiri, who calls him a moron. (Since I don’t speak Na’vi, I won’t attempt a spelling.) She makes him see the beauty and literal interconnectedness of the planet.

Now, rave reviews and bad reviews have already been written about Avatar’s visuals: this is an intercultural review. So, the first thing that I noticed when I watched it was that the culture shock process happens. Twice. In reverse. So, it is backwards, as Jake says. Let me explain.

The first scene is a monologue in a bar as he explains that he has fallen on hard times, and no matter how good his dreams are, he wakes up. He is recruited for the Avatar Program after his twin brother is killed and they need him to replace his twin. That gives him a second chance to give his life meaning, but immediately he is marginalized again by the RDA soldiers and called “meals on wheels” and “cripple”. Even after he meets the team of anthropologists, and learns about the Na’vi way of life, he’s not sure he can “do the science”. So, where he once had a new chance at a fulfilling life, he again feels dejected, as evident in his statement that it feels backwards. But, when he gets into the Na’vi body, he’s exhilarated and full of life. Also, when he meets Neytiri, he instantly feels a bound with her and tries to apologize for hurting the other animals. This can be said to be out of love, but he goes further and actively peruses membership in the culture by taming the turok, learning the Na’vi language (which he becomes fluent in!) and harmonious worldview. So that when he is out of his Avatar, he again feels out of place.

Culture shock has no “stages” in actuality, but we can often tell to what degree a person has adapted by the degree of participation that he/she chooses and why. From there we may proceed to model a “stage” of culture shock. Even when Jake encounters competition from other tribe members such as Neytiri’s suitor Tsuteh, he is not deterred. He goes out of his way, even questioning his mission (to gain Unobtainium, and move out the natives.) to become a tribe member. I think it’s the Na’vi way of life that attracts Jake as well as Neytiri. The communicate with their planet electrochemically, so that everything has a voice and stability. Which is ironic since the avatar literally is a shell.

They see their environment as connected as the body, in a way as just a shell. That appeals to Jake because it allows increased physical participation. Back at the RDA, he is tired of the selfish moves of the company, and even devises a plan to evacuate the tribe before the military moves in. The anthropologists seem on board, which is perhaps his second cultural adjustment. He has to act as a negotiator. But, when Col. Quartich unexpectedly gases the tribe out of their home tree, he fights against the military. So, that’s the second switch again. Quartich tries to stab Jake’s Avatar, but he’s rescued by Neytiri. The concluding action scene is awesome, but raises a question for me: Why does Jake have a manual chair in 2154, if the army has giant robots? A minor detail, but it makes up for the superficial Pocahantas plot, which is still too long in my opinion.

After that, he and Neytiri defeat the invasion force. The colonel dies of Neytiri’s toxic arrow. Jake announces on the vidlog that he won’t be coming back to the RDA and is transferred permanently to his Avatar. The humans are expelled from Pandora. Say what you will about the plot and its similarity to Pocahantas, it is a potent look into a different world. When you take the time to make an almost entirely 3-D movie, hire a linguist to invent a language, and populate it with alien plants, animals, and natives, you’re going to end up on an alien planet. That’s what James Cameron did, and that’s why the movie works. Because everything is beautiful and new.

Neytiri is in a sense, not only Jake’s love interest, but his guide through the new world. Though she’s resistant at first, she teaches him to “see” the world around him, as interconnected. As not just a body, but “seeing” through it, and recognizing that he is one of their own. She grows to love him precisely because he actively learns and participates. More important, Jake is able to more actively participate as the avatar, in spite of his trials. On Earth, he is more limited, and socially isolated. I predict that soon, more humans will try to understand the Na’vi and come back, perhaps in Avatar 2. Jake will no doubt become torn between defending what he considers his home now, and understanding a culture that he has become alien to as time passes.

In the end, my model for avatar’s culture shock is based on increasing active participation. And he participates not only because he’s more able, but because he wants to learn, and is completely unhindered by disability stigma. Though, he may have human stigma. And the human culture became foreign and strange. Because he understood the Na’vi values and way of life more than the RDA’s greed. The adjustment period was similar, he found someone to understand him (the anthropologists) and the source of the shock was different in both cases. Nevertheless, the more Jake understood the culture, the more he became accepted, but it was his defense of Pandora that identified him perhaps finally as Na’vi.

Active participation is a crucial part of cultural identity. I think this film demonstrates that quite well. It is full of living sci-fi cultures, and because we see through Jake’s eyes, the dream becomes reality. It literally happens through alien eyes. But, those eyes become his own. He will learn to see “both” ways, I predict. The James Cameron Earth of 2154 is full of good people as well as evil. After all, he is dependent on Earth technology to maintain the avatar. I’d like to see Earth be that beautiful and new alien planet to Jake!

REELABILITIES FILM FESTIVAL COLUMBUS 2012

REELABILITIES ARTS FESTIVAL COLUMBUS NOVEMBER 3RD-7TH 2012:

Super Early Preview: Come experience the ReelAbilities Film Festival with me in Columbus! Whether you’re disabled in any way or not, come join VSA Ohio and I as we explore the inner world of disability through film in theatres throughout Columbus! The single greatest thing that film has to offer, in my mind, is that you can pour out personal experiences, images, and souls right onto the screen! And where else can one find such a passionate expression of disability art? Why, only with VSA Ohio and the ReelAbilities Festival in Columbus!

Do you wish you could talk about, or just share your experiences with others? Do you want to see a personal perspective of disability? Well, fear not! The ReelAbilities Festival will feature discussions after each of the films. ReelAbilities will have nine movies playing throughout the week of Nov. 3-7. Each theater will have some fantastic films playing, which are ALL made from the viewpoint of disability culture and lifestyles. Most have disabled directors! Why, I’m popping out of my power chair just writing about it! Yes folks, if you’ve ever felt the burning desire to create AUTHENTIC meaning of a disability experience, or just let your mind take you into it: then you won’t want to miss this chance to make your mark! But, don’t take my word for it: See the awesome international lineup of films, as proof disability culture knows no bounds!

Sunday, November 3 @ Columbus Museum of art
Warrior Champions - documentary, US & China

Saturday, November 4 @ arena GRAND THEATRE
Shameless: The Art of Disability - documentary, Canada
Ben X - drama, Belgium

 

 

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5 @ osu urban arts space


Crooked Beauty - documentary, USA
Among the Giants - documentary, USA

Tuesday, NOVEMBER 5 @ king ARTS COMPLEX
White Balance - drama, Israel
My Spectacular Theater - drama, China


WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6 @ Ohio HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Praying with Lior - documentary, USA

Special People - comedy, UK

And as if that weren’t enough: I’ll be reviewing the films I can get to on this blog! VSA is trying to get the directors and maybe even the movie’s own actors involved! (For US releases.) I cannot stress enough that this is a rare opportunity to express ART WITH DISABILITY through film! As a person with a disability myself, I strive to create lasting monuments to my life experience that go BEYOND THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION. There is only one word to describe this opportunity to be represented and have fun: Amazing! I welcome everybody to come and see this.

Why, I’ve given out many Save-The-Dates myself at OSU, and I plan on going to a few films. It promises to be fun and spectacular! If you love art, you’ve got no better place! Just look at the range of venues and countries up there! This is simply too big to miss. I hope to see you there! And remember: That’s ReelAbilities, a festival about real abilities! Able-bodied or not, you have to be there to see these films!