Thursday, February 5, 2015

Imagining the Death of the Kim: In Defense of The Interview

Today I'm excited to bring you a guest post by my husband the Southern Baron, who shares my passion for snarky film reviews. He's currently finishing his dissertation about martyrdom, execution, and the media in 17th century England, and keeps finding ways current events aren't too different from that time. 

In 1681, an English carpenter named Stephen College was executed for treason. He wrote a poem
that “imagined the death of the King,” which by law was just as bad as assassination, since “imagination” meant a lot more than make-believe. The poem suggested that he actually wanted Charles II dead, and that was beyond the pale, especially since “imagining” Charles I’s death had led to his beheading back in ‘49. And the poem said, specifically, “like father, like son.” It didn't take an English Lit PhD to know what that meant. So the carpenter was drawn and quartered publicly in London: not a good way to go.

College had bad luck—writers got off fairly often back in the 1680s because the publisher was the first guy the government went after. And this is a key link between that old case and the whole mess around the late 2014 film The Interview and the now-infamous hack of Sony Pictures by, presumably, North Korea. But this time one state went after a “publisher” in another state. This is like printing a poem imagining the death of the Pope, and having the Swiss Guard ransack your London shop. (Or that scene in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.) Charles II wouldn't have let that happen. Although Sony was hacked, our “king,” President Obama, rightly said that this couldn't intimidate theaters and moviegoers. And while The Interview is literally guilty of “imagining the death” of Kim Jong-un, it doesn't really encourage viewers to kill him. The film’s underlying message is that the pen beats the sword, though you should keep your sword ready in case they launch the nukes. The movie really just attempts to start a revolution “with nothing more than a camera, and some questions,” as James Franco’s character, Skylark, tells his TV audience, almost too self-referentially. But if it is possible to imagine Kim dead, we could also imagine his regime gone, period.

This is not a great film. But as my advisor told me in our very first meeting, there are a lot of bad poems in history that English majors ignore because they are, well, bad poems—even though they are absolutely important for understanding politics and culture. Bad poems destroy governments. And North Korea knows it.

One of the most important running jokes in the entire film is classic Seth Rogen bathroom humor: the purported belief among North Koreans that Kim Jong-un lacks an anus because, in his awesomeness, he has no need to use the bathroom. This is finally dispelled (spoiler!) when, in the climactic and titular scene of the film, the Supreme Leader literally “sharts” on camera. Ha. A bit childish. Overgrown boy that I am, I admit, I LOL’d. But allow me to defend this scene, and this plot point.

The discovery, as Skylark tells him onscreen, that Kim is “just a flawed man with a big old butthole,” who “has to pee and poo just like the rest of us,” is rather profound—it destroys the constructed majesty surrounding Kim. And since it appears on live state sponsored television, all the people have to see it. The joke is similar to a case I found in which a man was in trouble for saying “The King knows no more about salvation than my arse.” The King is as dumb as a butt. And Kim, to his people’s surprise, has a fully functioning one. They are struck with disbelief—it must be a joke, they think—there must be some mistake, they say—Kim is not like us, Kim does not go to the bathroom, Kim would never soil his trousers on television! But as they see Kim weep about a Katy Perry song, in the kind of news segment that would embarrass everybody involved (demonstrating some of the dangers of live TV), they realize that he is as capable of error as anyone else. Kim, of course, still does not believe it, and from here we work our way to the infamous uber-climax, the death by exploding head of Kim, as he attempts to destroy our heroes—escaping in a Soviet tank from Stallone, er, Stalin—by helicopter, while making obscene gestures and launching nukes at the United States. That primetime celebrity gossip show just got serious like 60 Minutes.

Other details silently comment on deeply valid points about how North Korea and the US see each other. The opening scene has a smiling child, adorably dressed, singing about how “arrogant and fat” Americans should “drown in their own blood and feces.” A guard in Kim’s palace watches the interview at a security desk with a mural of an exploding Statue of Liberty behind him. This shot appears within a broader montage of people watching the interview in the two countries. Skylark’s staff are in their sleek New York office, wearing expensive suits; the CIA agents are in theirs in D.C. These shots are interspersed with North Korean viewers, who are depicted in grim, dusty rooms, wearing dull clothing, and—horror of horrors!—watching on old CRT monitors, even one with a manual dial, instead of the flat screens that have been a mark of western progress since the early aughts. Clearly North Korea is impoverished because its people lack western goods!

And while this may be an overly materialistic view, it’s one that Americans get, and it continues a timeworn but valid tradition of contrasting communist and capitalist worlds by who has cars that run. (Notably, Kim’s collection, in the film and in reality, consists of Audis and other luxury imports—the only commie car is that Soviet tank, and Kim drives it for fun while listening to...Katy Perry’s “Firework.” The entire movie might be a riff on the song.) Kim, of course, loves western goods and western entertainment, which is why he brought Skylark to his country in the first place. Skylark even shows Aaron (Rogen) on his Wikipedia app that Kim likes his show. Seeing this on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and on a phone, is a clever contrast with the state-imposed knowledge that North Koreans receive.

But the most obvious example of this dichotomy is the very real shortage of food in North Korea. When Skylark discovers a false grocery with wax vegetables, just after a lavish dinner with the generals, and realizes he must have seen a “fake fat kid” outside it the day before, it drives our hero over the edge, convincing him that his newfound margarita-and-babe-enjoying buddy Kim is really just, well, the male version of “honeypotting” him and screwing over his country.

Again, this is not a great film; as one review noted, Dr. Strangelove it ain’t. There are more F-bombs than nukes. It is easy to forget the prescient butt jokes because there are so many others that exist solely for the purpose of being butt jokes. Some scenes are pure filler. It is heavy on classic American male “yellow fever,” objectifying Asian women. It reinforces the idea that happiness is determined by having lots of stuff. Skylark’s excessive interest in partying is not questioned (besides his belief that the CIA’s plan to “take out” Kim must mean dinner and drinks), only the North Koreans’ limited access to the New York club scene. But culture doesn’t consist only of great art. Most people don’t see that every day, but they do see stupid shows like Skylark’s, thinking a lot more about which celebrity slept with whom than which foreign leader is oppressing his country. The film effectively challenges that preoccupation, since first Aaron and then Skylark realize they have to convey something more significant, which they are doing by the epilogue.

So, to have a Rogen-Franco flick take juvenile humor and apply it, in a surprisingly intelligent way, to the serious subject of human rights failings in North Korea, is impressive, and important. The possibility that the movie might make its way via bootleg into the North is also important—indeed, that nauseatingly self-aware implication that a revolution had started with a camera could come true in time, as Pyongyang’s control over the minds of its subjects is constantly undercut by cross-border DVD smuggling (depicted well in the 2014 Frontline episode “Secret State of North Korea,” by the way). When all you have is state-controlled television, The Interview can have some impact; and when leaders are portrayed as gods, the first step is to demonstrate that they aren’t. The subtext to all this is that propaganda is still crucial—Kim’s own propaganda minister, Aaron’s love interest, has to support them, or the plan won’t work. The TV—and not the original CIA assassination plot—is still the medium through which minds are shaped.

Back in 1681, that carpenter died for “bad art,” and in December North Korea threatened that people might die for “bad art” again. The unrelated Charlie Hebdo murders demonstrate that it remains a possibility. The Interview is guilty of imagining the death of the Kim, but Rogen and Franco don’t deserve drawing and quartering in the public square (even if they really don’t deserve an Oscar, either). That the North Korean government and its cyber-allies think Sony should suffer is all the more reason that we should watch the movie, and keep making ones that undermine injustice, even if the methods are a bit juvenile. Thoughtcrime is doubleplusungood. Be sure to try some today.

Monday, February 2, 2015

How About a Shot of Reality with That Juice Box?

Let no one have contempt for your youth, but set an example for those who believe, in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity. - 1 Timothy 4:12
Earlier this month congressional Republicans cancelled a bill restricting abortions after 20 weeks, a law that would have been a huge victory for the pro-life movement. The recent fallout has seen Catholics assessing their loyalty to the GOP and pondering strategies for the future. Recently Crisis published the latest installment of this, a long rant by Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) leader Austin Ruse entitled "Abortion, Torture, and the Juice Box Theologians."

Ruse treads familiar ground, worrying that Catholic disenchantment with the GOP will dilute what little political clout we have. He raises a fair point, about torture debates creating "single issue voters." Mostly, though, he channels his political disappointment into personal internet feuds, bringing up 2010 debates about the morality of waterboarding. Although some Catholics are increasingly disenchanted at how neither political party fully represents their values, he denounces those who put too much emphasis on the death penalty or a living wage over the pro-life cause.

Sadly, Ruse talks about abortion like it exists in a vacuum. It's a comic book villain holding America in a tractor beam, and if pro-lifers can finally deal it a death-blow with their unreliable laser guns, everyone will shake off the hypnosis and society will live happily ever after. His personal solution to America's moral woes is the repeal of various taxes coupled with "a national campaign out of the White House encouraging people to finish high school, get married, go to church, and have babies."

How exactly would a nation of high school graduates working low minimum wage jobs afford to feed their babies or pay for child care while they work multiple jobs? That version of the Culture of Life doesn't sound very flourishing, let alone sustainable. Such a short-sighted approach ignores the multitude of social and economic factors that make women think abortion is their best option, none of which will magically disappear if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Unless we address the challenges that make parenthood seem impossible, legal pro-life victory will be superficial and fleeting. As one Catholic mom wisely put it, "Want to save the babies? Save their mothers."

Ruse puts his faith in procreation propaganda rather than a nuanced sense of morality and ethics. Instead of taking a holistic outlook that considers respect for any human life beneficial, whether prisoners or laborers or babies, he insists Catholics should only have a one-track mind. If he had been alive in the 1830s, would he have told people to shut up about the Trail of Tears or working conditions at the Lowell mills because Slavery? Would he have considered a White House campaign saying “Be nice to black people” sufficient for post-Civil War reconstruction?

If Ruse wants an intelligent debate about political loyalties, that's fine, But he doesn't offer that here, just an ad hominem screed. Dredging up an obscure beef with group blog Vox Nova, he calls them "Juice-box theologians, that is, mostly young newly minted but largely unemployed PhDs." Apparently these whipper-snappers too incompetent to handle full-time jobs or adult beverages are somehow also at the heart of a vast and dangerous conspiracy to lure Catholics away from their GOP alliances.

Someone hold my earrings because I need to throw. Down. This kind of name-calling is uncalled for, and I can’t believe the editors of  Crisis were willing to print it. I don't know the terms of Ruse's dispute with Vox Nova, but even if the site is in the wrong, this is a terrible rebuttal on many levels. Saying "my opponent is young and underemployed, and therefore incorrect" is just campaign spin. Such smug self-importance supports the old liberal saw that pro-lifers only care about people until they are born; after that you’re on your own. But that's the thing with babies - after their mothers choose life, they learn to talk, read, and write.

Here’s a group of people who have done exactly what Ruse thinks Americans should do: they finished school, and cared enough about churchgoing to spend years studying theology. But that’s not good enough, because they dared to be born decades after him and enter the workforce during a broken economy and academic system.

My husband and I are among many young Catholic couples who fit this category. We’re church-going, contraception-eschewing people who thought pondering the Good, the True, and the Beautiful was our vocation – and now low-paying adjunct gigs are among our only options. Through blood, sweat, and tears, we’re working hard to build fulfilling lives for our little families. If middle class financial security is the barometer of spiritual legitimacy, please let us know and we can call ourselves radical Calvinists to save time.

This is the dilemma facing my Millennial generation: even if we followed all the rules, we've run into unexpected economic challenges and then are told it’s our own fault and we should know our place. People bemoan how the Kids Today aren't devoted to the Church, but then don't fully engage with those of us who have stuck around. If some of us don't share his political ideas, Ruse would rather we just disappeared into the wilderness. "Let’s have a modern day land-rush for all those Distributists out there who are just itching to fish, farm or make cheese—though one suspects they’ll stay exactly where they are, blogging and adjunct teaching."

While he retains his own career as an online journalist, I presume? Apparently Ruse thinks the generations after him don't deserve to aspire to his urban intellectual life. Considering that he once proclaimed that liberal academics "should be taken out and shot," he’s letting us off pretty easy. Still, his pompous attitude makes me question his moral judgement and frankly, feel a little betrayed.

Once upon a time, when I was just a juice box historian in high school, I wrote a report on the Holy See's permanent observer status at the United Nations. Ruse's articles were a major source for the project, and I looked up to him as a Catholic intellectual. I dreamed that one day I would be like him and get my words published on the internet. Now I realize he'd probably mock me for the 18 months I spent working temp gigs while I endlessly searched for a job in my MA field. Since he doesn't even want me here unless I’m drinking his Kool-Aid, I’ll stick to whiskey. Every grad student knows it's an important tool for surviving a PhD program.