smelly marxist

Some Thoughts on “The Whale” (2022)

I just finished watching “The Whale,” and am unsure how I feel about it.

It is a deeply uncomfortable movie by design about a man slowly killing himself and trying to redeem his past mistakes. The film is made more discomforting by the 4:3 aspect ratio it’s presented in, trapping us in a claustrophobic box from which to view. It gives the film this sense of closeness to our characters, and has us feel like we are observing this from within the apartment all the events take place. This claustrophobia is a good thing, but I feel will be lost once the film is out of theaters and onto home screens for the most part. This feeling of being trapped; isolated with our characters will erode and become more of a “I see what you’re doing there,” afterthought than an experience you have with the film.

There’s nothing quite like seeing a movie in a theater. The experience cannot be replicated, just like the physicality of a live performance of music cannot be replicated. This in-authenticity will likely make the film unmemorable or otherwise unnoteworthy, defeating one of the main themes of the film: honesty. I felt the inauthentic way which Brendan Frasier’s character, Charlie’s students speak about the essays he’s making them write. These canned responses which talk about the intended theme of a novel rather than the authentic emotions and feelings which the novel makes you feel. This movie is nothing if not for emotion, and it shines in its melodrama, even when that same melodrama pulls you out of the experience, if only briefly. There’s a point where everything comes crashing down which feels almost too pathetic or too heightened, only to send us back with the positivity of Charlie's character.

Any message of the film must be looked at through that lens: emotion, and authenticity. On the one hand the film presents unbreaking nihilism for the majority, while giving us a message of positive redemption. No one in the film is without redemption, but the people who see through the bullshit are not rewarded, but told to stop. At one point, Charlie sends his students a call to say something honest, and is promptly fired for it. This is presented as the college firing him for teaching authenticity rather than the fundamentals to writing in his 101 class. This dichotomy on its face seems understandable, as often academic pursuits seem at odds with authenticity, but rather than providing a resolution to this, the film simply states that the world will dislike you for being honest. Rather, I’d like to urge us to analyze this from a perspective that this dichotomy doesn’t exist. You can learn fundamentals of “how to write,” and still be honest and authentic. This is a point that the film harps on quite often, and feels bitter, while still being understandable, and relatable.

Charlie’s redemption is one that feels satisfying but as of writing this also doesn’t guide me to feel the grand emotion that the film wants me to. This is not to say that the movie is not interesting or worth a watch, but rather that I’m unsure how to feel after being told that everyone can be redeemed, and that good writing or storytelling is writing and storytelling which is honest. It becomes a lecture at a certain point, where the film’s idea of a good story is very well written, but falls flat due to the melodrama of the characters themselves. I don’t know how to tell you that you’ll enjoy a movie. I don’t know how to tell anyone that a movie isn’t worth seeing or is. Charlie’s eventual redemption comes in the form of him forming a human connection with his daughter. He is the only one that believes that she can still grow up to be a good person, and help others.

People are worthy of redemption, even if you cannot stand to be around them anymore. That is the final message the film leaves us with, and one that is good. As Marxists, it is tempting to forget that individual interactions with one another are less important than the state of the world. We’ve all met a person who thinks this way. Someone who believes that every interaction they have with another human is indicative of the greater sociological drama which is unfolding in our world. Films like “The Whale” bring us that individual interaction, and the foulness that makes us human and isn’t going away. It’s in the search for answers to this depressing thought that differentiates our characters (one finds comfort in God, one finds comfort in booze, one in eating, one in caring) and presents the broader issue at hand. The accuracy with which the film portrays the way depression can strike people differently is the strongest part of the film. “The Whale” affirms that in every cultural showing, whether it’s a movie, play, or book, there is something to be gained and something to enjoy.

-Smelley

There Can be No Proletarian Art Under the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie: A statement of intent

Marxist analysis of not only current events, but of media is necessary for the framing of the world. The lens which we see the world of media, be it visual art, film, literature, or otherwise has been taken under by the right wing bourgeois interests which run the United States. As of typing, the Marvel cinematic universes, as well as the Disney amalgam of properties have as close to a monopoly on popular media than has been arranged in my lifetime. The Disney corporation has swallowed media properties the world over and has a stranglehold on what is produced and seen by the populace of the United States and the world at large. Outside of Disney, there exists competition which is equally corporate and steeped in bourgeois values. There exist filmmakers, authors, poets, and artists of all stripes who oppose this strangulation of media production, but good luck finding them thriving or even able to publicly publish their work to a platform which enters the popular consciousness on the level of one Marvel film.

In his seminal and necessary work, “Myth Today,” Marxist theorist Roland Barthes states that there is no true proletarian art which can exist in the modern French world. This text was published in 1957, and still applies to the US in 2022. The bourgeoisie have won, however temporary their rule may be, and they have effectively stamped out counter-cultural media which serves the masses. No proletarian art may exist as, culturally, the bourgeoisie have wiped out any semblance of what that may look like. This is a necessary fight to win after the revolution. A revolution cannot win without another equally brutal and necessary cultural revolution. It is because of this that we must analyze the bourgeois art form as it is today and recognize it as the reactionary force it is. The United States will fall, whether due to the will of the people or the will of the climate that it is destroying, and with it must also fall its bourgeois domination of art and cultural matters.

We must as Marxists oppose this dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over culture. We must recognize this world as one where the proletariat is not allowed to create art without the oppressive thumb of capital at its throat. This blog will be house to articles deconstructing the bourgeois media which we are inundated with every day, rather than envisioning a fantasy world which has not yet come to pass. The goal is to understand what we must fall in opposition to, rather than go through our fiction of what the world might be like after an idealized revolution. This vision of proletarian art would be flawed, and incomplete due to the total domination of culture by the bourgeois class. Such matters also seem individualistic and selfish to propose in a time where many of the ranks of proletarian cannot still eat, or have adequate housing for themselves or their children. It would be selfish to dream a dream of art while the question of feeding the masses goes unanswered.  This is why this blog will house current Marxist analyses of art, and showcase genuine standouts in artistic merit which seek to oppose bourgeois dominance as much as they can in a world so thoroughly dictated by the bourgeois class.

The bourgeois class even has a stranglehold, though this is a proxy consequence to the strangulation of artistic merits, on the generation of personal projects such as blogs, YouTube videos, Twitch streams, and all other independent content creation. This is not to say that attempts are not made in these fronts to oppose capitalism on their platform, but the domination of the bourgeoisie causes each of these platforms to require artists to participate in their own exploitation. Artists on Patreon, for example, must spend time not just promoting their work, but their benefits and perks for joining the ranks of a patron. They are forced to do this by the need for housing, food, clothing, and the necessary safety which capitalism commodifies. Commodification in this way necessitates a gig economy for artists, filmmakers, and writers who choose to eschew traditional capitalist modes of production of their art by means of self publication. This necessitates not only the participation in the capitalist goal of wealth accumulation, but also alters content in a way which is still able to be sold. To be clear, this is not a moral failing of the artists, filmmakers, and writers themselves, but rather a necessity of living under the oppressive thumb of capital. We cannot blame these creators for this process which they are forced into in order to have the life that they would like to live. Similarly, we cannot ascribe the domination of culture by bourgeois interests to these individuals, though some of them within the same space may prefer to lick a boot to pay their rent. On this note, we must avoid the classification of art in this way which segregates the art into sections of “good and bad” politics. Every piece of art, whether intended or not, is produced under conditions of the bourgeoisie. This is what Barthes means when he says that no proletarian art can exist.

We must oppose bourgeois dominance in this way by seeing their art for what it is and calling it as such. As Marxists, we will not apologize for the displacement of our cultural relics. We must oppose capitalism on all fronts, including cultural.  The corporations monopolize what we are served, and capitalism is the mode by which we are kept not only in our lives and our work, but our cultural interests as well. This domination of the bourgeoisie over every portion of our lives must be fought with the same fervor which we fight against the tools they use to oppress us. Above all, we must remain optimistic. One day the bourgeoisie will be hung with the rope they sold us, and once this happens, we must forge a new culture forward for the proletariat by any means necessary.

-Smelley, September 24th 2022