Perhaps one of the best, most popular comedies of 2013, We’re the Millers stars, most namely, Jason Sudeikis and Jennifer Aniston as they serve as parents in a thrown together ‘family’ that travels across the US-Mexico border to retrieve what is originally referred to in the film as “a smidge of weed”, but later turns out to be of a greater capacity. The film progresses further even, as this dysfunctional, diverse ‘family’ later discovers that they were in fact stealing this weed from a Mexican drug lord, who will be mentioned a bit later. Now I don’t know much about the director of the film, let alone his name off the top of my head. All that I remember is that he is male, in fact, but any significant details past that are merely an internet search away. The details don’t seem to matter for the sake of this essay, however, and that lone detail that I can recall (of the director being male), I have come to think, seems to be enough at this point.

Getting back to the film, the different pieces of the family, I think, are worth briefly touching upon, just to get a sense of their dynamic and our perspective on them as viewers. David, played by Jason Sudeikis, is a single-man, yet more importantly, a local drug dealer in Denver. That seems to be his main source of income, until all of his money and weed is stolen by thugs. In contrast, Rose, or who later comes to be known as Sarah, played by Jennifer Aniston, is a stripper in the Denver area in much need of cash and housing, due to the actions of her ex-boyfriend. Kenny, an uptight, nerdy teenager who lives in the same building as David and Sarah, frankly just seems to be a kid who is in seek of company, as his mother hasn’t returned to the apartment in days, even weeks. And lastly is Casey, a runaway kid, who is portrayed as living on the streets and in desperate need of money. These four join together and become the Millers, all just so David can receive a major payday from a much larger, wealthier drug lord in the area.

The humor and personalities that each and every individual brings to this film varies between them, and ultimately, helps structure the obscure dynamic that the Millers create. There’s a little more to this film, however, that is, hidden through this humor and the distraction that each and every individual in the film proposes, a strict and imposing male lens and mindset behind the camera and in the production and editing throughout the entirety of the film.

Right from the beginning we are led to see Rose as a stripper, that is part of our first impression of her. Yes, we do see her expression of her own disappointment in her occupation, yet she still continues to use her body, for male pleasure, in order to receive some degree of income; in fact, it isn’t until she is asked to have sex with the clients that she actually gives up the job. And that’s just the beginning. David, well aware of Rose and her occupation, goes to the strip club in seek of bringing Rose with him, and the others, to make this trip down to Mexico, a trip that she originally denies, until she recognizes her desperate need for finances. Suiting to the male eye, while receiving a lap dance, as if Rose is not being objectified enough, David literally says that he is asking to “rent” her for this trip, as if there is no problem with that, that it is perfectly acceptable, especially using the terminology in which he chooses. David takes her occupation as a stripper and shoves its reputation back into her face, merely acting as if it defines her own self-worth, while further reinforcing a scene that accepts male dominance and female subjugation.

Switching gears, Kenny provides us a bit of a different personality and different viewpoint than that of Rose. Kenny meets a girl on their return trip home, Melissa, whom he’s interested in; but he’s initially inhibited by his lack of experience kissing women. However, the ‘family’ helps resolve that lack of experience. The scene eventually arrives at Kenny trading off makeouts with Casey and Rose, practicing; all the while David is looking on while eating a bag of chips, as if an innocent bystander looking in on the spectacle and taking in its full effects. I mean, he even takes a picture of Kenny and Casey kissing. Aside from the fact that these two women are kissing Kenny back and forth, the fact that David looks onto the scene in the interested and encouraged way that he does makes it almost seem pornographic in a sense, as if he’s looking in on some kind of incestuous sexual scene in a voyeuristic fashion, just as Melissa sees it (not voyeuristically, of course, but rather disturbing) as she enters through the door of the RV. To make matters even more obscure, as Melissa runs out the door, David slams his chip bag down on the counter and says a frustrated “fuck”, almost as if he’s irritated by her disruption of the scene, rather than his concern for Kenny. But, we don’t initially come to see the scene (in its entirety) as improper or frankly even that crude, we just take it as justified for the improvement and betterment of a man, so that he can further intrigue another woman, which nearly serves as a reinforcement for male influence, and further normalizes a male perspective in the film.

Coming back to Rose, the pinnacle of the male lens is displayed in times of desperate measure for the Millers. Trapped by Pablo Chacon, the drug lord whom they stole the weed from, Rose offers to “show her worth” by captivating him, by stripping. Yes, she makes one final return to her prior occupation, exposing her body to the pleasure of male eyes. The scene itself, at times, attempts to even make it seem glamorous, with assistance of the sunlight, a shower, and sparks. You can nearly sense the intention of a male gaze as David looks directly into the camera and shrugs, raising his eyebrows, almost as if the mere exposure of Rose is not only invaluable to him, but acceptable as long as they are safe, not to mention the fact that it may be visually pleasurable to him, as well as Kenny, as he adjusts his pants in what looks to be a nearly unbreakable captivation. All this is displayed in the scene as if it is simply not enough that Rose is showing that she’s valuable by the use and spectacle of body. Does the film do anything to show this to us as viewers, to show that Rose is more than a stripping teaseful distraction in order for everyone to be safe, to escape? Not really. The assistance of the music, editing, and lighting further draw the viewer in to the movements and body of Rose, as the cuts and focus of the camera shift between the spectators (watching intently) and Rose’s body (in some cases, in close-up fashion).

One scholar argues that “It’s when filmmakers run out of or run from creativity that they retreat to the economic safe haven of sex, violence, car crashes, and jiggling bodies” and that is the exact case in this film. The action and sexual displays appeal to the male eye, and they don’t seem inappropriate, or even unnecessary, in the film, but pivotal to us in maintaining that gaze and level of captivation in what we are seeing (just like the men in the film during Rose’s strip scene).

Aside from these moments that either objectify women or reinforce male dominance and influence, David tends to make comments that either result in women being furtherly objectified or that would be seen as disrespectful towards women in any usual circumstance throughout the entirety of the film. But the film creates something different for us. The movie normalizes these jokes and it allows and guides us to accept them through our laughter, no matter how wrong, crooked, and disrespectful that they may be. Due to that normalization, a male perspective is built up further, as males are practically given a more dominant role, due to the subjugation of women. Also, another scholar argues that “film has become a mirror of society’s view of the female body”, but rather, that view may be inflicted upon us as individuals, just as it is inflicted upon the viewers of this film. It is not necessarily generated through the viewer, but rather through the way the viewer is led to see and interpret the film. We come to recognize the strip teases and near nudity as almost acceptable and necessary, nearly against our own will; it’s practically imposed through the lens of the camera and editing of the scenes in which we see close-ups of the female body.

In the end, David does, in fact, grow to care and respect these people, but that may be laid out to us to keep viewers on his side, to let him off and reside with him, as we begin to realize his selfishness. We easily forgive him. The somewhat crooked way of seeing the ending of this film, as the four of them move into a home together, under a witness protection program, is that David ends up actually changing the lives of those who came with him (maybe even for the better). David, the, at one time, self-concerned, money-seeking individual, comes to change the lives of Sarah (now ‘stripped’ of the name Rose), Casey, and Kenny. He gives them a home, whether it’s in the most literal sense, for Sarah, the most figurative sense, for Kenny, or in both, for Casey.

All the visual matters and jokes that support male empowerment and female objectification, are really somewhat trivial, they only support the true major source that is the problem with the whole male lens in its own right. The biggest problem is that the male lens of these films makes the objectification and subjugation of these women appear normal, it makes it appear okay and acceptable. The views of women exposing themselves normalizes that scene to us as the viewers, we come to see it, maybe even expect it. The film provides us that belief, we don’t have to work to find it, or, for that matter, feel too guilty for seeing it. The true danger is when these false beliefs can carry over into the real world, when people accidentally, or subconsciously, forget that some of these things are unacceptable, that women shouldn’t, in fact, be objectified; and that has become a problem in Hollywood today, not only in films, but in the actual tangible world.

 

An earlier draft of this essay was read by Cory Lund.

I have written this essay in the style of Chuck Klosterman.

Main proposition influenced by Laura Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”

Works Cited

Durham, Meenakshi Gigi, and Douglas M Kellner (ed.). Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.

Thurber, Rawson Marshall, director. We’re the Millers. Warner Bros, 2013.

One of Marvel Entertainment’s newest films for action-seeking viewers is Logan and that is what it may look like on the surface, a film for thrill-seeking Wolverine, and more generically, X-Men fans that are looking for their satisfactory dose. However, this film also displays a general conclusion from Richard Dyer’s chapter “Entertainment and Utopia” in the book Only Entertainment. The conclusion from Dyer’s chapter is that entertainment exemplifies facets of a better world to us as viewers. The movie does seem to underscore something that is entirely unrelated to the slashing and killing of Wolverine’s usual victims, individuals that are typically against and trying to takeover human society. This film provides a bit of a twist though, rather than the dignity and prominence of humankind being in jeopardy, it is the mutants who are condemned, strictly because of their differences from humans.

Logan is a film that stars Hugh Jackman as an old, washed-up version of Wolverine. Initially, he is trying to live a fairly normal human life, aside from his occasional trips across the border to aid Professor Xavier, as old age is taking its toll on him as well. The trick to this film is that there are new mutants that are ultimately genetic descendents of those prior, like Wolverine. Though these mutant children are held captive in the confines of the hospital that they are ‘engineered’ and raised in, they still retain many basic human qualities, as they are practically a family, which leads one nurse to want to spare their lives. This is what really leads to the chaos that ensues throughout the remainder of the film. These mutant children are released into the world, they’re given a sense of hope, they just need to get to Eden, which is where they seek to congregate prior to achieving safety. Before I go on, I want to recognize that their are religious resemblances in this film, but those are deserving of a different exploration entirely.

Continuing on, what really sets the movie in full swing is one girl in particular, Laura, who is genetically similar to Logan. She’s the ‘person of interest’, using the term in its most literal sense. Those tracking her, as well as the other mutants, act as if they’re going to save the world by recapturing them, as if they’re saving the world from some utterly destructible force(s). They make themselves seem like they’re the heroes and once they realize that Laura and Logan are linked, that’s when all hell breaks loose.

To any novel Marvel fan, this may seem like the next great film, a film of continuous and inescapable action-packed fighting. Honestly, that isn’t necessarily a false statement. The question I then ask though is, who are they fighting against? It is clear that they are fighting for their own survival, as one would expect them to. Right from the beginning of the film, we are instantly led to side with the mutants, pulling for them for the entirety of movie. But do we recognize who we are pulling against? The answer to these two previously asked questions is humankind, our own kind. And what do the mutants represent? They represent those people who are different from the mass population. Logan, who is clearly still mutant, provides a simplistic example of how they differ from the general population right at the beginning of the film when he’s awaken by men trying to remove pieces from his car. Initially he tries to handle the situation humanely, but these men fight back, which cues the inevitable… out come the claws … and the rest is history.

The journey for Logan, Laura, and, at least for some time, Professor Xavier begins as they begin their trek towards Eden, a trek that Logan himself is skeptical of and initially doesn’t see as worthy. His human-side has taken a toll on him. Mentally, he has shifted out of the mutant mindset, going off of the idea that few, if any, mutants even exist anymore. That’s one of the reasons he doubts that Laura is even worth their time from the beginning. His human side, and his want for normalcy, leads him to move away from seeing himself as a mutant, as Charles Xavier is really his remaining point of connection, while it also guides him to conform to their standards; I mean, why would a ‘former’ superhero become a driver for people? Other than that, he seems disinterested in his mutant past and the possibility that there are still mutants who do exist.

As the movie progresses, however, Logan realizes that he may be the last sense of hope that mutants have. He may be the only one who can help save them and prevent them from being extinguished from society, from being removed and dictated by humankind. After all, many of the remaining mutants are only children, who lack the leadership and brute strength to fend off their oppressors. The injustice shown towards certain people is no stranger to the real world as well and, unfortunately, for some, the world would be a better place without a particular race, religion, or social group.

In our world today, including the past, there are plenty of examples of social and religious extremist groups that seek to get rid of certain populations and cause disruption entirely. From their perspective, the world is a better place without these people or they see them as some kind of threat to their ideal society. They’d rather live in a world, bluntly, where these people don’t exist, which is part of their own personal utopias. As is the case in Logan, humankind is trying to restrict and maintain mutants, seeing them as a threat to their states of ideality. Think about the Nazi’s for example. In the mid-1900’s, they believed, or at least some believed and others followed suit, that the extermination of the Jewish population would resolve many of the issues of their world, which is incomprehensible in its own right. But a similar situation is prevalent in Logan as well. Humans act as if the world would be a better place if mutants were extinguished. But is that what the film is really showing us?

In Mikhail Lyubansky’s article “The Racial Politics of X-Men”, he states that “the viewer is expected to ultimately accept the assumption that it is the mutants (and, by extension, gays, lesbians, and people of color) who must somehow make themselves fit into mainstream society”. Keep in mind that this is regarding prior X-Men movies before Logan, but as they are predecessors of the film, you’d think some themes would still apply. However, as viewers of Logan, this doesn’t necessarily seem to be the case. Interestingly enough, Logan does initially seem to conform to societal standards, but that doesn’t explain his eventual return to his mutant side. If we, as viewers, were expected to interpret this movie in the fashion that Lyubanksy argues of the other X-Men films, then why would they even put up the fight? If these are the last remaining mutants, then why don’t they succumb to ordinary society and their oppressors? It’s because they shouldn’t be expected to.

Lyubansky also argues that, “Xavier’s mindset would’ve blamed Jews in Nazi Germany and Blacks in the antebellum South for their victimization–and would’ve expected them to make accommodations for the sake of peace”. If that were the case in this film, however, then why would Xavier want Logan to take care of and help Laura, especially if he could anticipate that it would cause further disruption, the opposite of peace.

What really throws this whole idea for a spin is that the mutants are the ones who prevail. They fend off those who have an ideal world where mutants don’t exist, those who seek more power and control. The mutants do this in defense of the continuation of their own selves. So then, what is the film really showing us? It clearly isn’t that the removal of different types of people is the answer. If that was the case, then humankind would’ve simply defeated the mutants. We, as viewers, are then proposed an entirely different set of utopian standards and expectations. Through the success of the mutants, who I remind you are the ones being oppressed, just as white supremacists attempt to oppress African-Americans, we can see an entirely different answer to this film’s image of a utopian world. Logan, who serves as the leader in the fight against those who are trying to rid the world of mutants, is a Martin Luther King Jr. esque figure in this film. He eventually comes to realize the injustice that is being shown towards mutants and conjoins with the others to fight it together. That pushes us as the viewers to see something much different, a world that is built and structured off of equality and justice, where no one should be subjugated due to their uncontrollable differences from the overarching masses.

As the battle concludes and ultimately Logan himself is killed and buried, many of the kids, whom he has touched through his leadership and will to fight, including Laura, hold a burial ceremony. Initially, they create and place a cross at the head of his grave. But, as everyone proceeds to leave the scene, Laura emotionally turns that cross to an ‘X’, signifying that their fight as mutants for respect continues, that the fight must continue, even if their most trusted leader has been defeated. One thing I didn’t initially realize but was introduced to through Ignatiy Vishnevetsky’s critical analysis of Logan titled “A cross on its side: Logan gets religion” is that Logan’s “relationship to Laura could almost be called a religious relationship. She’s Logan’s afterlife”. He sacrificed his own self for the mutant children, especially Laura, considering all that he went through for her, so that they could live there lives and have their own experiences in the world, so that they could carry on the mutant ‘species’.

From the mind of an oppressor, the extinguishing of a different culture, religion, class, race, etc will lead to a better world, or else why would they be so driven to try and get rid of these people? But Logan shows us something else. The mutants, who symbolize those different cultures, religions, and races succeed. They fend off their oppressors… and that’s the nice way of putting it. What Logan really displays to us is that a utopia can be achieved by standing up to the cultural, racial, and religious oppressing mindsets, that a better world is achieved through consistent unity between individuals, ignoring whatever differences that they may have. Ultimately, Logan shows us a different way that we can see the world, a way that the world can be made more utopian. I mean many of us were cheering for the mutants right from the beginning, cheering for the outsiders. We wanted those who had differences to succeed and defeat those who were treating them unjustly… and claws aren’t needed to do that.

*This essay was read by Cory Lund. It is not a first draft.

Works Cited

Dyer, Richard. Only Entertainment. Routledge, 1992.

Lyubansky, Mikhail. “The Racial Politics of X-Men.” Psychology Today, Sussex

Publishers, 5 June 2011, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines

/201106/the-racial-politics-x-men.

Mangold, James, director. Logan. Marvel Entertainment, 2017.

Vishnevetsky, Ignatiy. “A Cross on Its Side: Logan Gets Religion.” Film,

Film.avclub.com, 7 Mar. 2017, film.avclub.com/a-cross-on-its-side-logan-gets-religion-1798258715.

Ernest Hemingway once said, “Every man’s life ends the same way. It is only the details of how he lived and how he died that distinguish one man from another”. Hemingway not only realizes something that many in our world today have seemed to miss, but he also exemplifies it through his story, The Old Man and the Sea. That misunderstanding is our society’s view of success. When I refer to society, I’m not referring to those who are perceived as superior due to their political prowess or superior economic status, but those who look up to these people, who strive to achieve and be what these people have become. Society does’t realize that they’re blinded in multiple ways by the stardom and publicity that these ‘successful’ people have, while there are really many other things to it. The underlying word in this debate is success, and, ultimately, the way that we perceive it as a general public is deeply flawed, creating a social crisis that few want to address. When referring to social crisis, I’m not referring to gun control and immigration, but rather our understanding of our own self-value and personal success as a society. Hopefully I can redeem the many who read this and allow you to understand a little something that is misunderstood by many.

Ernest Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea is a story that revolves around persistence and faith, at least that what’s it seems like from the surface. In this story, an old man has gone days without catching a fish, so many days that the other fisherman have deemed him as unlucky and, frankly, unsuccessful. The old man, on the contrary, doesn’t care about the perception that the other fisherman have of him, he’s faithful, having high hopes as he begins his journey out to sea. As time passes, the old man finally hooks the fish that he has been waiting for and demands of himself to stay with it, not giving up. The fish pulls his boat for hours on end, dragging him further and further out to sea. Days pass and the man sticks with the fish, refusing to let his pain and tiredness lead him to defeat. This eventually allows him to complete this great catch, getting the fish to the surface and attached to his boat. He then begins his journey back home, having to deal with various sharks, who tear the fish down to its head, tail, and bones. On this journey home, the old man begins to regret killing the fish and sticking with it for so long. He learns something about himself. The big prize he has been seeking doesn’t seem worthwhile to him anymore, it doesn’t provide him with the happiness and joy that he anticipated. He returns, stumbles off to his shack, and eventually falls asleep. Meanwhile, many of the other fisherman see the remnants of the fish still strapped to the side of the old man’s boat, astonished at how big of a fish it must’ve been.

It is amazing how the old man had the opportunity to catch the fish of a lifetime, and get all of the gratification and praise that he would’ve earned through the public eye, but yet he restrains from seeking this. He initially wants to gratify himself, not those who see him as unlucky and unsuccessful. He doesn’t care about the public opinion, but rather pursues self-gratification. As is stated in the poem “The Man in the Mirror”, “But your final reward will be heartache and tears / If you’ve cheated the man in the glass”. This is the contrary to what many in the world strive to achieve. Everyone wants to be perceived as successful by others, we have a craving for this, but how long does that level of gratification and satisfaction truly last? I’d go to say, not that long.

Success for the old man came from catching the big fish and that was originally what he thought would lead to happiness, joy, and all positive emotions. However, it is not until he caught this fish and was returning home with his prize, that his perspective changed. Similarly, the common perception that we have of someone who is successful is a person who has achieved great wealth, as well as attained many grand achievements. Grand achievements meaning those that people dream of conquering, such as being the world’s next business mogul or becoming the next star athlete, or being like the old man and catching the big fish. People have a craving for attention and the bigger the stage, the greater the craving. It’s amazing how we are drawn more towards those who are on ‘the bigger stage’, yet we believe that being in that position will provide us all of the gratification that we need. Mark Cuban, known for his wealth, as well as his role on ABC’s Shark Tank and owning the Dallas Mavericks of the NBA, was interviewed by Steiner Sports, where he said, “The definition of success is waking up in the morning with a smile on your face, knowing it’s going to be a great day. I mean I was happy and felt like I was successful when I was poor, living with six guys in a three bedroom apartment, sleeping on the floor”. He later goes on to say that “if you really love what you do, you’re not working”. So what do people that the general population look up to view as success? It seems that happiness is a common theme.

I’m sure you’re beginning to think that this is easy for them to say considering all that they’ve accomplished, as well as their material possessions. But I challenge you to think a little bit more about this. The old man, after catching the big fish, was viewed as successful by the other fisherman, but he himself didn’t feel successful, and, frankly, wasn’t happy. What’s the value in that? If fame and fortune don’t supply you with the joy that you’re seeking in life, it is up to you to find what does make you enjoy life and, really, that is what we should be pursuing.

This isn’t to say that wealth and accomplishing great things can’t provide you with the happiness that you seek in your life. But how long does this happiness last after you achieve these things? After an NFL player is part of a Super Bowl winning team, does that single event supply them with enough joy and happiness to live for the rest of their lives? No, it may act as something that they can reminisce upon, bringing a smile to their face, but that enthusiasm that you see as the confetti falls only lasts so long. Players return the next season, start right where they were before, seeking out the same objective even after completing it already. This fact alone shows that they simply aren’t satisfied with that lone Super Bowl win. In fact, at least for some, wealth isn’t entirely what these men are seeking, they are pursuing their love of football, something they enjoy. If you don’t believe this, one example is Peyton Manning, just go ahead and watch his retirement speech. Yes, achievements are a part of playing the game, as well as defeats, but there is more to it than that. It is the passion and enjoyment that a person gets from working and doing something they love that allows to really immerse themselves in that gratification, the achievements just supply them with moments of great satisfaction.

Stories around the globe provide us with lessons and acknowledge issues that need to be acknowledged, whether we want them to or not, and often supplement us with solutions. The Old Man and the Sea, which serves as an example of this, is definitely a story that is deeply defined by faith and persistence, but there is more to it than that. Catching a fish that would put him to fame amongst fellow fisherman is something that many would dream of, just as today, having achieved grand accolades in the business, political, or athletic realm would lead others to view someone as being more successful. But, the old man comes to discover that what he truly thought would provide him the greatest satisfaction, is ultimately what breaks him and causes him to understand that there is more to life than just getting the ‘big catch’, just as people should realize in our world today. The old man’s unhappiness supplies us with our answer regarding true success … that happiness itself is what we should be after.

***Main proposition influenced by ENGL 117 class and Frederic Jameson’s Political Unconsciousness