Strong Reading

Ezra Klein objects to efforts at a politicized reading of Transformers on the grounds that "This is a movie about GIANT ROBOTS some of whom want to DESTROY THE EARTH" and therefore "may not, in fact, be a commentary on the righteousness of Operation Iraqi Freedom." This is, I think, naive and wrongheaded. It would be odd for a film like this to have been self-consciously conceived as a commentary on political events, but lots of films can nonetheless contain ideological content.

Indeed, it's the very shallow nature of Transformer's plotting that makes it so pregnant. The standard format for a not-very-original action movie pits a Hero against, of course, a Villain. But beyond the Villain, the Hero must also do battle with the Faceless Institution whose inability to grasp the true nature of the situation imperils the entire situation. This Institution comes in, roughly speaking, two guises. In some films, like Bad Boys, the Institution is portrayed as comprised of feckless bureaucrats who don't understand the Hero's need to Get Things Done. In other films, like Transformers, the Institution is portrayed as comprised of power-mad authoritarians who can't tell the good guys from the bad guys.

Now, of course, better, more sophisticated stories can have more nuanced ideological content (the Terminator films, for example, provide both a critique of the military industrial complex and a statement of the security dilemma), or else possibly none at all, or, perhaps, an ambiguous message (First Blood) that'll be read according to pre-existing prejudices. The key in all cases, though, is not to look for specific commentary on the passing tide of events (i.e., the SecDef in Transformers kinda looks like Don Rumsfeld) but for what broad values the film appeals to and endorses.

Comments

"It would be odd for a film like this to have been self-consciously conceived as a commentary on political events, but lots of films can nonetheless contain ideological content."

Good for you!

Posted by Jonathan | July 12, 2007 9:07 AM

Matt, but in transformers there are two institutions. The NSA/Defense Department which is actually shown as hard working (if not competent in a difficult situation), and Sector 7 which fits the "power mad authoritarians" mold.

Except that half way through the movie everyone ends up working together. The "institutional archetype" in this film is rather muddled.

Posted by Chad Okere | July 12, 2007 9:25 AM

It would be odd for a film like this to have been self-consciously conceived as a commentary on political events, but lots of films can nonetheless contain ideological content.

Also, lots of bloggers can find political content where it either a) isn't or b) has been larded in with the intent of attracting a viewership which sees itself as more "intellectually advanced" than the 12-year-old boys who comprise the primary market of the work in question.

See also "Battlestar Galactica."

Posted by James Gary | July 12, 2007 9:32 AM

The transformation from First Blood to Rambo: First Blood Part II is as shocking as the use of London Calling as a Jaguar ad. To me, First Blood was a damning indictment of the treatment of Vietnam veterans who were warped to the extent that they could not survive in contemporary society and then abandoned by the country that sent them off to war. Remember, the first scene in First Blood is John Rambo discovering that the last surviving member of his squad has died from Agent Orange exposure. John Rambo is then casually abused and berated by the local cops for (1) walking through town and (2) wearing an American flag patch (as if he did not have the right). He is imprisoned for defying the local police, power washed (which brings on the Vietnam torture flashback) and escapes into the woods. This was an indictment of small town Reagan country. Rambo's soliliquay at the end, when he declares "Nothing is over. You just don't turn it off," was a part of his lament that he knew how to function in Vietnam ("Over there, I flew million dollar helicopters. Here, I can't hold a job"). Even as a 12 year old, I understood that this was not a call to re-launch the Vietnam War.

Five years later, when Rambo: First Blood Part II came out, the message had clearly been flipped 180 degrees.

Posted by Ephus | July 12, 2007 9:32 AM

Also, lots of bloggers can find political content where it either a) isn't or b) has been larded in with the intent of attracting a viewership which sees itself as more "intellectually advanced"

You seem to be actively misreading Matt's post.

The point here is not that political content is something that people "put in" to movies. The point is that movies, in order to have a basic coherence, always play on cultural tropes and norms. We can watch how they do so for the political content of a film - it's not about "parallels" that can be drawn such that character X is "really" actual person Y, but about how a film is a product of its time in particular ways that always give it politcal content.

Posted by DivGuy | July 12, 2007 9:40 AM

All of which I'm quite sure Ezra (the original target of Matt's post) would entirely agree with. Ezra just said it's not about Operation Iraqi Freedom -- i.e. not a direct allegory to current events. I'm sure he wouldn't deny that films have ideological content in the vaguer sense that Matt describes.

All of which is to say that Matt seems to be wilfully misreading Ezra's post and being, frankly, kinda rude to him. ("Naive and wrongheaded"?) But since they're friends and Matt is irony-soaked, maybe that makes it OK or something.

Posted by Ryan | July 12, 2007 10:08 AM

Yea, when I saw that "Transformers" was taking the "president is a moron; one of his cronies is really in charge" line, I just sort of assumed that the Jon Voight character would turn out to be a villain. But no, he was just one of the 15 good guy human characters.

Posted by Steve | July 12, 2007 10:46 AM

The point is that movies, in order to have a basic coherence, always play on cultural tropes and norms.

Yes, I agree completely. But my point is that it's important to condsider whether a particular movie plays on cultural tropes and norms in a way that's relevant enough to merit discussing in that context.

To pick a random example from the past: whatever merits "Silent Running" has as a film, it would be silly to use it as the basis for a discussion about environmentalism.

Posted by James Gary | July 12, 2007 11:07 AM

While it goes without question that lots of films (all films?) can contain ideological content, the more interesting question is the source of that political content. Is the source of the political commentary in the Transformers an intentional statement? Or is it formed by the mechanical assembly of the plot? I suspect it is the latter.

At least for now, even the most CGI-inspired extravaganza requires at least a semblance of a plot. And that plot requires conflict. A writer can either be creative and develop conflict situations that arise organically from the character and context in the story--or the writer can cling to cliches. We're talking about a Michael Bay movie here.

Obviously, the big cliche sources for action movies are the red-tape brigage and the authoriarian cabal. These archetype/cliches have been around for decades (centuries?) (millenia?), and, like all cliches, they carry a kernel of truth. But they also carry a sense of expedience when it comes to plotting out a story.

I serioulsy doubt that Mr. Bay intended any social commentary by his film. I suspect that, instead, he just wanted to blow stuff up. Because of this, any political commentary is a means to this end rather than an end unto itself. What then is the effect of this mindless recitation of universal truths? Does it degrade the universal truthfulness or does it enhance it?

Posted by duck duck goose | July 12, 2007 11:17 AM

Matt's just expressing a currently fashionable principle of academic criticism. We're supposed to judge the work as if the author is dead. You're supposed to analyze the cultural and political attitudes a film expresses to the viewer, not what the fimmakers intended the work to say.

Of course, this is occasionally problematic when the author is not only alive, but also has a blog.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 12, 2007 11:56 AM

Oh, it's about robots? I like Ezra's summary, but suspect the movie may appeal to some wingers with the ability to appreciate crude analogies, who could rephrase Ezra's line thusly: "This is a movie about [ISLAMOFASCISTS] some of whom want to DESTROY [AMERICA]"

(and yes, I thought about leaving "THE EARTH" as the object of destruction, but I think that would require an admission that America is a part of the world, and that America contains only a fraction of the worldly people/items/etc. that are worth saving)

Posted by Chris | July 12, 2007 12:36 PM

Perhaps some perspective from the screenwriter who wrote the first draft would be useful here. He has a blog.

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2007/07/hey-libertas.html

Posted by drew | July 12, 2007 12:41 PM

Bah, turns out Ezra already links to Roger's in his post, that's what I get for commenting before reading all of the clickthrough.

Posted by Nick | July 12, 2007 12:49 PM

I was about to post that Drew. All the monkeys on the right have weak kung fu. All of them.

Posted by jg | July 12, 2007 1:37 PM

It seemed like Transformers somehow managed to combine fuzzy-headed-anti-establishment-conspiracy-theorizing with rah-rah-let's-blow-things-up-militarism. Quite an achievement.

I don't think Kung Fu Monkey's comments are the final word on the matter. If he's responsible for a significant portion of that abomination of a script I doubt he has the self-awareness to notice its ideological slant.

Posted by blah | July 12, 2007 3:21 PM

blah,

Did you bother to read any of the other entries on Kung Fu Monkey? I mean, come on. If you did, then your slam about self-awareness is simply trolling. Rogers has some interesting things to say about politics and discourse in between his talk about 4G media and Hollywood screen writing and the occasional post on geek stuff.

Posted by drew | July 12, 2007 4:13 PM

Sometimes politics and an agenda is something that is "put into" a movie. Star Wars -- to pick on something as geekily souled as Transformers -- began life as a critique of America in Vietnam.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 13, 2007 10:08 AM