We're off to see...

Before I get too into The Wizard of Oz specifically, allow me to say this: Haroun and the Sea of Stories, the novel Salman Rushdie wrote inspired by Wizard, is fucking incredible. One of my all time favorite books actually. Check it out.

Anyway! Onto the program - in this case, a cute little clip of some Indian schoolchildren singing along to music from the The Wizard of Oz. A sign of globalization if there ever was one. Even the singing (which appears to mostly be in Hindi? Not sure, but then again, I am deaf after all) is proof that language barriers are a thing of the past in our "information superhighway" age, if you want to call it that. Just as Rushdie himself was inspired to pick up a pen from the moment he saw The Wizard of Oz, perhaps one or more of these children will end up inspired in the same way: "[It] was my very first literary influence” (9). To see children imitating a film in which "the weakness of grown-ups forces children to take control of their own destinies and so, ironically, grow up on themselves" is interesting because it is a rather cynical but ultimately beneficial message for children. The performance seems loose enough that it's at least somewhat improvised, and I don't see anybody conducting them, so perhaps it is a literal, real-world example of how children can learn from Dorothy. These cute little munchkins (sorry couldn't resist) are also dancing in front of a picture of Jesus on the wall, which is unusual given Rushdie's appreciation of the atheist nature of Oz. Anyway, the other bit that stays with me the most whenever I reread Rushdie's essay - and it is very reread-able - is the assertion that the fantasy is indeed better than reality, even if the film tries to show otherwise through the dialog:

Thanks to Miss Gulch, this cinematic Kansas is informed not only by the sadness of dirt-poverty but also by the badness of would-be dog murderers. And this is the home that there’s no place like? This is the lost Eden that we are asked to prefer (as Dorothy does) to Oz?

A valid and also a bit sobering question indeed. Kansas is indeed a dull depressing backdrop, literally. No wonder these kids like acting out the make-believe and sing along to Dorothy to escape from the dull reality of a classroom, even if only for a few seconds. Like Rushdie, I'll take the fantasyland any day.

Jameson vs. Groening

From Frederic Jameson's Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism comes this little barb:

"...The complacent (yet delirious) camp-following celebration of this aesthetic new world (including its social and economic dimension, greeted with equal enthusiasm under the slogan of “postindustrial society”) is surely unacceptable."

Whoa now, them's fightin words! Jameson essentially goes on to argue that postmodernism is a systematic destruction of modern art. Tying postmodernism with late capitalism and commercialism, Jameson explains that - at least, in his opinion - postmodernism is a global phenomenon that completely rewrites and thus devalues the content of previously original artwork. The "victim" of postmodernism, in this case, is Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, now reinvisioned as a Simpsons character:

Many of the characteristics of post-modern art are there. One is the commercialization evident in the change from the dreamy landscape of the original into a dull-colored suburban sprawl of convenience stores (note the Kwik-E-Mart in the lower right corner). Another is the revision of the actual character of the Mona Lisa. Jameson might argue that all the things that make the original fascinating - or, like Benjamin, the aura - are elements that are lost in the translation to simple cartoon animation. Gone is the subtlety of her "enigmatic" smile, now replaced with a distinct grin, gone are the details in her hair and asymmetrical face that showed the artistry in Da Vinci's brushwork. In its place, Jameson might say, is an oversimplification that loses its original meaning.

Postmodernism is indeed a sound rejection of original artistic and aesthetic values that had developed up until approximately 1950-60. Jameson does note that this has led to an irreparable shift in contemporary art, in which "we cannot...return to aesthetic practices elaborated on the basis of historical situations and dilemmas which are no longer ours." While The Simpsons has become a pop-culture phenomenon in which elements of our day-to-day culture have been transformed into thinly-veiled parodies (who hasn't, for example, been to at least one party in a place called "Bowlarama" or something like it?), it is not, however, in line with Jameson's arguments for the preservation of classical art. He seems to take a stance acknowledging postmodernism's irreversible effect on modern and pre-modern art and culture, as if to say, "While these things might not be going away anytime soon, ..." At the same time he critiques postmoderism as essentially "low" art, fraught with capitalist values and unoriginality.

Strapping Jack Bauer onto a shrink's couch

I would probably best describe Jack Bauer as a chest-thumping, hot-blooded American soldier - the kind of guy who would give you a sucker punch for looking at him funny. This reminds me of a joke in the spirit of all those dumb "Chuck Norris" one-liners:

Once somebody told Jack Bauer that he was played by Keifer Sutherland. Jack Bauer shot him in the face. Nobody plays Jack Bauer.

But joking aside, what makes Jack Bauer such an in-your-face masculine testosterone train? If Freud were to pop up and start stroking his goatee at 24, he would probably reach far back to look deep into Bauer's upbringing. Looking at Bauer's unblinking aggressiveness and quick (if highly questionable) moral compass, our favorite Austrian psychoanalyst would likely start scrutinizing Bauer's development of his infantile sexuality, possibly citing some very deep-rooted parental issues. As someone who represents the sole dominant figure of his family, with his marriage imbalanced and his daughter perpetually stuck in predicaments, Bauer constantly displays a need to assert himself over his family and others around him, perhaps suggesting latent insecurities and feelings of lack of control. Interestingly enough, no matter how hard Bauer tries, the one aspect of his life that he seems to have the least control over (at least compared to the job he handles at CTU) is his home life. This need to assert himself over others also displays a desire for Bauer to conform and assume the typical dominant male role, since his wife and daughter are often out of the scope of his ability to assert himself.

Yet Bauer does not simply assert his dominance over those around him. He pretty much slams it in everybody else's face. There is no doubt a constant urge and struggle for Bauer to outdo those around him and, as Freud might say figuratively, establish himself as the guy with the biggest penis size in the room. Bauer cannot stand for a masculine threat in his path, and usually overcompensates in his efforts to maintain control in situations, resorting to torture and coercion when grossly unnecessary. This suggests that his violent nature is a form of channeling sexual aggression and repressed desires, those of which were perhaps heavily suppressed in his child years. So if, in some theoretical, Sopranos-like world in which Bauer was in a counselling session with Freud, Freud would likely be interested in deconstructing the source of Bauer's overpowering masculinity, perhaps finding his dominance to be the result of childhood neuroses stemming from a lack of dominance or control with either of his parents.