Materialism and film

Many films deal with the idea of 'materialism' and how we tend to define ourselves with the objects which we own. The two films which I am going to be discussing are Fight Club (mainly) and Trainspotting.

As we know, Fight Club satirises society's (and our own) attitudes towards the world and the narrator, Edward Norton, almost mocks us in our ways. Initially, he too lives in a materialistic reality... until he blows up his own apartment.

Here are some of my favourite quotes from Fight Club which encapsulate the ideology of the film:

"Man, I see in Fight Club the strongest and smartest men who’ve ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see it squandered. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables – slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don’t need. We’re the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our great war is a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives. We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars, but we won’t. We’re slowly learning that fact. And we’re very, very pissed off."

"You are not your job. You’re not how much money you have in the bank. You’re not the car you drive. You’re not the contents of your wallet. You’re not your fucking khakis. You’re the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world."

The main character later adds: "I am Jack's wasted life".

I feel strongly that the way our world functions is severely fucked up. Edward Norton is correct in the sense that the large majority of us work endless, monotonous 9-5 jobs...for what? So we can receive a pay check? So we can buy things? So we can 'make a living'? So we can try to feel 'normal'? Whilst Fight Club may be a slight generalisation of all members of society (as some of us may actually enjoy our jobs, maintain happiness and not depend upon material things to fuel our egos), it still holds a valid point and reveals our sheer hypocrisy. Whether the route which Jack takes in an attempt to reject convention is sustainable or not, is a different matter.

Similarly to Fight Club, the 1996 film Trainspotting also sets out to undermine society's values:

Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. I chose not to choose life. And the reasons?

The irony in the narrative stems from the the word ‘choose’; as mere products of society, can we ever truly choose? Must we face that our entire lives remain governed by social, financial and political structures?

If you have ever watched Trainspotting, you will be aware that (in the end), the main character Renton eventually buys into society after he has stolen a large sum of heroin profits from his 'friends'. However, it can be sensed that he is not entirely comfortable with his new stance: causing us to doubt its authenticity and predicting that his attempt to be 'normal' could backfire.

The freeze frame which we see of Renton echoes the opening sequence of the film, yet is entirely ambiguous. It may now seem that he is lonely in existence, which is perhaps a necessity of the first steps towards buying into conventional society.

For practical reasons, it seems that we MUST buy into our materialistic world...to some extent.

Presidents of the USA

All of the previous presidents of the United States of America all have one thing in common. Every single one of them have been characterised as a Christian. All have also used their faith within their election campaigns. Many have been 'accused' of being atheists and it baffles me that the word 'accused' has been used in such a context, as if not being religious is an immoral thing. The voting citizens of America do not seem to have any concern for their president's intelligence, qualifications, rationality or knowledge on fundamental matters. Their only concern appears to be that their glorious president believes in mythical tales which have been 'documented' in the 'good book' and that they make multiple references to God during their public speeches.

The most evident acts of hypocrisy are made by George Bush. Apparently, he is very concerned with 'morality'(his idea of it), so much so that he stated he was against abortion. Firstly, the act of abortion cannot be categorised as either moral or immoral- each case is different. It is most certainly immoral to use abortion as the equivalent of contraception, or to repeatedly cover up an affair. However, how can any empathetic human being label a 13 year old girl who was a victim of rape 'immoral' for CHOOSING to have an abortion? How can an abortion be 'immoral' if the Mother has the knowledge that her child will be severely deformed and suffer physically as well as mentally?

Anyhow, Mr Bush seems to be extremely 'pro-life' in this case. However, he contradicts this with the act of war which he instigated against Iraq. When asked how many Iraqis had been murdered by the US forces he replied with a sense of apathy and estimated it around 1 million, expressing that this number should rise and that he wasn't really 'keeping track'. Previous to this, he stated: "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

Clearly, Christianity does not equate to morality, nor does any other religion. No president thus far has been an atheist, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh or an 'adherent of any specifically non-Christian religion'. However, many glorify the idea that Obama is the first African-American to hold down the president title and feel that their world is progressing in the sense that we are moving towards 'equality'. Ethnically- yes, perhaps. But there still remains prejudice against any leader which is not Christian yet this is dismissed as a trivial issue. It's still discrimination, but on other grounds.

The Final Girl Theory

For my Film Studies AS, we briefly touched upon the 'Final Girl' theory whilst studying the Slasher films Halloween (1978) and Scream (1996). The Final Girl theorist Carol J Clover noted that this figure within the Slasher genre is typically: intelligent, maternal, androgynous, insightful and has equal masculine/feminine traits. Many would interpret that the final female survivor as 'empowering to women'; I find it quite the opposite. The 'Final Girl' often dresses masculine, has an ambiguous name and is afraid of sex- quite often they are a virgin. Now, if we look at the typical MALE protagonist they generally resemble the highest, optimum idea of masculinity. They do not require feminine traits to allow them to survive or out run a psychotic murderer. So, this leads me to ask: why is an assumption made that a female is somewhat 'incomplete' if they embrace their femininity? Why do they require equally masculine traits to live whilst a male does not require any sense of femininity?

The school system

Recently, I've come to notice something very significant about the education system. It's always been visible to me, but more so in the last few months. As a person, I am not judged upon my sense of morality, my self-esteem, my perception of the world, my mental health nor my physical health, in particular. I am judged solely on a few GRADES on a piece of paper. And these grades are a product of a few exams or pieces of coursework which mainly test my ability to regurgitate information back into my 'own words'. For example, yesterday I got handed back my Theology mock exam. My teacher was satisfied that I 'thoroughly knew the syllabus' but criticised a certain paragraph I wrote which had 'too much originality' and 'wasn't on the specification'. Now, what I'd essentially done is THOUGHT about the question, explored it, and come up with a point which was different to what we'd done in class. It just displays that individuality is suppressed whilst conformity is encouraged. Shouldn't it be the other way round?

Furthermore, our grades do not define us as individuals. We only have to observe a few examples to see this is the case. The obvious one is of course, Lord Alan Sugar; he left school without a single GCSE- now he has an entire business empire and is said to be worth over £1,000,000,000. Another example (a favourite of mine) is Stanley Kubrick. He performed extremely poorly at school and left at age 15. Kubrick has an IQ of over 200, one of the highest recorded. His films are intelligent, sophisticated and hold deep subliminal meanings. He is an all round genius, in my 'humble opinion'.

I'm not trying to say everybody who fails school is an absolute genius because, arguably, there are a lot of less intellectually capable people in this world. But what I am saying is that the school and grading system does not truly measure ability. It's a mere generalisation of the idea of intelligence. Whilst revising, I revise information which I have been given, and I revise through 'memory techniques' as opposed to broadening a spectrum of various ideas. It seems that I am not being encouraged to 'think' which seems particularly fitting with the principles of our government and society.

females and sex

I feel like if I admit I have sex for pleasure, and nothing but that, society will label me with derogatory terms. Surely it's instinctive? Would males be as criticised for admitting that?

Me in 2 sentences

“I am a lover without a lover. I am lovely and lonely and I belong deeply to myself.” - Warsan Shire

Nature vs. nurture: psychopathology

Psychopathology: the study of mental illnesses/abnormalities

I'm really torn in the 'nature vs. nurture' debate with regards to psychopathology so I'm going to try and hold as much of a holistic view as possible. We've been studying this in Psychology and I've been pondering on it a lot.

Essentially, many psychological abnormalities are caused by an imbalance of neurotransmitters/hormones in the brain. For example, high levels of dopamine= potential schizophrenic. There is also no doubt that medication can relieve the symptoms of certain mental disorders. However, can drug therapy really be defined as a cure?

I'm more drawn towards the idea that, in some cases, these abnormalities can be triggered by our cognition/thought processes alone: leading to a change in our very biology. The potential for depression is there within us all, it surfaces through our environment, our experiences, external processes. For example, an individual may be regarded as psychologically healthy, then something traumatic happens to them, causing them to become depressed, or have bipolar. The predisposition for that mental state already existed, but the world around them simply revealed it.

Biological methods for managing depression do work... whilst you're taking them. If a person is to cease taking their medication, it is highly likely that they will relapse. I feel that, sometimes, cognitive therapy is the only way which an individual can take the first steps towards becoming healthier and happier. Issues must be discussed. And if you do not wish to do that, it is essential that they must at least be expressed otherwise they will simply build up, repressed, and surface in much uglier ways.