Book 66
INFLUENCE (46-55)
BOOK 66: INFLUENCE
46. On Woman
Perhaps, inadvertently, and unknowingly, the history of woman has been traced by film director, George Miller through his post-apocalyptic Mad Max series. In Mad Max (1979), women have no agency and no power. They are subjugated within a social context that is dominated by roving male gangs. They are rape fodder. Max’s wife cannot mount a proper defense against Toe Cutter’s biker gang, and she is wholly reliant on a male figure (Max) for protection. This movie encapsulates early women of hunter-gathering society.
In the direct sequel, The Road Warrior (1981), we are introduced to Virginia Hey’s character – the Warrior Woman. She has no real name, but she contributes to the culture of work which in this case constitutes being an armed guard for a base of survivors isolated in the wastelands. The Warrior Woman cannot compete with the onslaught of male opponents from Lord Humungus’s fleet, and she falls; however, she makes important contributions to her community through hard work. The Warrior Woman has agency, even if ultimately, she remains powerless. This sequel is a fair representation of how women increased their social capital during the Agrarian Revolution after communities were settled.
By the end of the trilogy, with the third installment in the series, Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdome (1985), we can see the effect that industrialization has for the status of woman. Women now have agency and power, as represented by Tina Turner’s character “Aunty Entity”. However, women only have power when they are corrupt, entirely self-serving, and worse behaved than men. The Mad Max trilogy brings us to the contemporary historical moment.
In 2015, George Miller came back to the series after a thirty-year hiatus. Mad Max: Fury Road presents a female protagonist (first for the series). Undoubtedly, Charlize Theron’s character, “Imperator Furiosa”, has power – it’s in the name itself. However, she has lost her agency, and must now escape patriarch Immortan Joe’s community where she had once had social capital and status. Furiosa relies on Max as a co-protector, and they reconvene with a posse of females who are forced to survive in hiding at the fringes of the colonized apocalyptic wastelands.
It seems that in the world of Mad Max, after women had attained some measure of agency and power, they had worn out their welcome and landed back at square one. Has George Miller accurately prognosticated on the fate of women in some sort of “cycle” of historical gender relations? Only time will tell.
46. On Woman
Perhaps, inadvertently, and unknowingly, the history of woman has been traced by film director, George Miller through his post-apocalyptic Mad Max series. In Mad Max (1979), women have no agency and no power. They are subjugated within a social context that is dominated by roving male gangs. They are rape fodder. Max’s wife cannot mount a proper defense against Toe Cutter’s biker gang, and she is wholly reliant on a male figure (Max) for protection. This movie encapsulates early women of hunter-gathering society.
In the direct sequel, The Road Warrior (1981), we are introduced to Virginia Hey’s character – the Warrior Woman. She has no real name, but she contributes to the culture of work which in this case constitutes being an armed guard for a base of survivors isolated in the wastelands. The Warrior Woman cannot compete with the onslaught of male opponents from Lord Humungus’s fleet, and she falls; however, she makes important contributions to her community through hard work. The Warrior Woman has agency, even if ultimately, she remains powerless. This sequel is a fair representation of how women increased their social capital during the Agrarian Revolution after communities were settled.
By the end of the trilogy, with the third installment in the series, Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdome (1985), we can see the effect that industrialization has for the status of woman. Women now have agency and power, as represented by Tina Turner’s character “Aunty Entity”. However, women only have power when they are corrupt, entirely self-serving, and worse behaved than men. The Mad Max trilogy brings us to the contemporary historical moment.
In 2015, George Miller came back to the series after a thirty-year hiatus. Mad Max: Fury Road presents a female protagonist (first for the series). Undoubtedly, Charlize Theron’s character, “Imperator Furiosa”, has power – it’s in the name itself. However, she has lost her agency, and must now escape patriarch Immortan Joe’s community where she had once had social capital and status. Furiosa relies on Max as a co-protector, and they reconvene with a posse of females who are forced to survive in hiding at the fringes of the colonized apocalyptic wastelands.
It seems that in the world of Mad Max, after women had attained some measure of agency and power, they had worn out their welcome and landed back at square one. Has George Miller accurately prognosticated on the fate of women in some sort of “cycle” of historical gender relations? Only time will tell.
BOOK 66: INFLUENCE
47. On Socialization
At the extremes of the concept of entertainment are the two forms of its abuse – politics and exploitation. A superhero movie might be intended to entertain us with fantastic landscapes, epic battles, and wild creatures, however, if that movie starts to preach the importance of cleaning your room, listening to your parents, and taking out the garbage, then the movie as a text has shifted from entertainment to politics. Conversely, if every shot in the movie fabricates a reason for the sexy superheroes to take off their shirts and fight half-naked, while taking breaks between punches to French kiss, then the movie has shifted from entertainment to exploitation.
There are other ways that the movie could shift away from entertainment. For example, if the superhero movie had only super-villains that were olive-skinned, spoke in a guttural language, and attacked through suicide bombing, then there would be an “Islamploitation” which is both exploitative and political, thematically.
In the 1970s, cinema studies got rolling on its push for “counter-cinema” which was a Marxist concept that affirmed the work of the Frankfurst School thinkers who had contentiously claimed Hollywood and national cinemas of the 1930s were geared only for exploitation. Counter-cinema promoted making all audiovisual entertainment a politically-engaged experience to avoid the possibility of exploitation through entertainment.
Counter-cinema theorists, such as, Jean-Louis Comolli, suggested that we watch movies in well-lit auditoriums because the dark theater was simply a way for movie producers to lull us into a passive state and then exploit us. The claim sounds idiotic to the average person, however, decades later, Alexander Galloway ran with that fumbled ball by suggesting “counter-gaming” – video gaming where everything is politicized, and our engagement is entirely political-based.
These glorified wet blankets who call themselves media scholars cannot understand that politics and exploitation are two sides of the same coin. They are equally bad as filtration systems for spectatorship of audiovisual entertainment media. However, the issues of bastardizing entertainment into either politics or exploitation persists, especially through social media.
Social media services such as Reddit, or whatever Twitter is calling itself this month, have been riddled with shill pundits and irate mobs motivated by their political agendas. We all know that those services lose some of their entertainment value as you find yourself confronted with unfiltered political content while surfing. Additionally, Instagram, TikTok, and other “scroll” apps have implemented algorithms for feeds that subvert free choice and thus exploit the user rendering them to a state of hyper-passivity. When I watch my nieces using popular scroll apps they appear as zombies, flicking through the posts accepting all the images as personalized, and never questioning whether they should develop new ideas for personal taste. Scary times.
47. On Socialization
At the extremes of the concept of entertainment are the two forms of its abuse – politics and exploitation. A superhero movie might be intended to entertain us with fantastic landscapes, epic battles, and wild creatures, however, if that movie starts to preach the importance of cleaning your room, listening to your parents, and taking out the garbage, then the movie as a text has shifted from entertainment to politics. Conversely, if every shot in the movie fabricates a reason for the sexy superheroes to take off their shirts and fight half-naked, while taking breaks between punches to French kiss, then the movie has shifted from entertainment to exploitation.
There are other ways that the movie could shift away from entertainment. For example, if the superhero movie had only super-villains that were olive-skinned, spoke in a guttural language, and attacked through suicide bombing, then there would be an “Islamploitation” which is both exploitative and political, thematically.
In the 1970s, cinema studies got rolling on its push for “counter-cinema” which was a Marxist concept that affirmed the work of the Frankfurst School thinkers who had contentiously claimed Hollywood and national cinemas of the 1930s were geared only for exploitation. Counter-cinema promoted making all audiovisual entertainment a politically-engaged experience to avoid the possibility of exploitation through entertainment.
Counter-cinema theorists, such as, Jean-Louis Comolli, suggested that we watch movies in well-lit auditoriums because the dark theater was simply a way for movie producers to lull us into a passive state and then exploit us. The claim sounds idiotic to the average person, however, decades later, Alexander Galloway ran with that fumbled ball by suggesting “counter-gaming” – video gaming where everything is politicized, and our engagement is entirely political-based.
These glorified wet blankets who call themselves media scholars cannot understand that politics and exploitation are two sides of the same coin. They are equally bad as filtration systems for spectatorship of audiovisual entertainment media. However, the issues of bastardizing entertainment into either politics or exploitation persists, especially through social media.
Social media services such as Reddit, or whatever Twitter is calling itself this month, have been riddled with shill pundits and irate mobs motivated by their political agendas. We all know that those services lose some of their entertainment value as you find yourself confronted with unfiltered political content while surfing. Additionally, Instagram, TikTok, and other “scroll” apps have implemented algorithms for feeds that subvert free choice and thus exploit the user rendering them to a state of hyper-passivity. When I watch my nieces using popular scroll apps they appear as zombies, flicking through the posts accepting all the images as personalized, and never questioning whether they should develop new ideas for personal taste. Scary times.
BOOK 66: INFLUENCE
48. On Radicalism
It has been noted that young leftist ideologues receive their marching orders from university professor masters. The university does appear to be the place where socialist hatred and intolerance have free reign. However, thinking back to the development of comic books in the early 1960s, some new understandings come to light.
In 1963, Stan Lee, who had been working as an editor at a leading comic book publisher, decided to redefine the industry through his proliferation of comic book titles all focused on events in a single fictional universe – Marvel. The world was introduced to the Incredible Hulk, Spiderman, Professor X., and many other characters who have become household names. Marvel comics started with a dozen titles, and the editors attended to the process of attrition whereby popular villains, such as, Magneto, received more appearances across titles, and unpopular heroes, such as, Thunderbird, were killed off almost immediately.
By the early 1980s, Marvel comics boasted over a hundred titles. A decade earlier, comic book enthusiasts may have had a dozen new comic books to read each month, but each individual reader didn’t necessarily identify with the main characters of all those comic titles. For example, the X-Men were an often-misunderstood brooding lot, whereas Spiderman was an easygoing dude who gave the benefit of the doubt, Thor was an arrogant hero most concerned with his Norse homeland, Dr. Strange was a mystical egghead battling wild cosmic creations, and The Fantastic Four were modelled off of a nuclear family. No single reader necessarily had affinity for all those characters with their disparate demeanors and varied motivations.
So, began a new attrition for Marvel comics whereby they diversified their titles according to feedback from readers. If all you wanted was Spiderman then you could now read, Amazing Spiderman, Spectacular Spiderman, Web of Spiderman, along with crossover stories in titles such as, Marvel Team-Up. If a reader had once found the saccharine Fantastic Four or sullen X-Men unappealing, now they could bury their nose in nothing but Spiderman.
This proliferation of comic titles for Marvel was an outgrowth of unfettered laissez-faire capitalism, generally. However, catering to tastes in this way for the sake of maximizing profits also had the adverse side-effect of encouraging intolerance. People went into echo chambers with their media. Cable television began creating specialty channels, and then the internet fostered fan cultures. In fact, all media followed this echo chamber model as it facilitated capital gain.
I question whether the intolerance fostered through echo chamber formation in media is not the underlying origin of what we see now with young radical Marxist agitation. Through laissez-faire capitalism, culture has developed whereby you are not required to immerse in other discourses other than your preferred ones, and you become intolerant of opposition which is literally alien to you. This two-way ostracism breeds radicalism.
48. On Radicalism
It has been noted that young leftist ideologues receive their marching orders from university professor masters. The university does appear to be the place where socialist hatred and intolerance have free reign. However, thinking back to the development of comic books in the early 1960s, some new understandings come to light.
In 1963, Stan Lee, who had been working as an editor at a leading comic book publisher, decided to redefine the industry through his proliferation of comic book titles all focused on events in a single fictional universe – Marvel. The world was introduced to the Incredible Hulk, Spiderman, Professor X., and many other characters who have become household names. Marvel comics started with a dozen titles, and the editors attended to the process of attrition whereby popular villains, such as, Magneto, received more appearances across titles, and unpopular heroes, such as, Thunderbird, were killed off almost immediately.
By the early 1980s, Marvel comics boasted over a hundred titles. A decade earlier, comic book enthusiasts may have had a dozen new comic books to read each month, but each individual reader didn’t necessarily identify with the main characters of all those comic titles. For example, the X-Men were an often-misunderstood brooding lot, whereas Spiderman was an easygoing dude who gave the benefit of the doubt, Thor was an arrogant hero most concerned with his Norse homeland, Dr. Strange was a mystical egghead battling wild cosmic creations, and The Fantastic Four were modelled off of a nuclear family. No single reader necessarily had affinity for all those characters with their disparate demeanors and varied motivations.
So, began a new attrition for Marvel comics whereby they diversified their titles according to feedback from readers. If all you wanted was Spiderman then you could now read, Amazing Spiderman, Spectacular Spiderman, Web of Spiderman, along with crossover stories in titles such as, Marvel Team-Up. If a reader had once found the saccharine Fantastic Four or sullen X-Men unappealing, now they could bury their nose in nothing but Spiderman.
This proliferation of comic titles for Marvel was an outgrowth of unfettered laissez-faire capitalism, generally. However, catering to tastes in this way for the sake of maximizing profits also had the adverse side-effect of encouraging intolerance. People went into echo chambers with their media. Cable television began creating specialty channels, and then the internet fostered fan cultures. In fact, all media followed this echo chamber model as it facilitated capital gain.
I question whether the intolerance fostered through echo chamber formation in media is not the underlying origin of what we see now with young radical Marxist agitation. Through laissez-faire capitalism, culture has developed whereby you are not required to immerse in other discourses other than your preferred ones, and you become intolerant of opposition which is literally alien to you. This two-way ostracism breeds radicalism.
BOOK 66: INFLUENCE
49. On Self-Satisfaction
Would action taken for the purpose of self-satisfaction also be rooted in strong principles and impressive character?
What comes to mind here is that feminists have rejected certain gendered job designations, such as, “steward/stewardess”, and they substitute the title, “flight attendant” as a gender-neutral designation. The feminization of the word “actor” to “actress” has also cause abrasions, culturally. Somehow, the title being feminized is a stigma which marginalizes the female status within the binary designation. I suppose we should be grateful for the glass ceiling which spared us the indignity of titles such as, “doctorette” or “engineeress”. Yet, we have failed to flatten the distinction of given names, and “Justine” has not become “Justin” for its female name-holders. To quote the strong female character, Regan, from The Exorcist – “in time”.
But when will the feminists launch their campaign against the offensive gendered designation, “garbageman”? Perhaps, “garbageperson” would be a more appropriate title, although, it sounds more like someone loitering around Burning Man. When will feminists argue on behalf of all women who are kept out of the garbage collection role and who are then maligned within that profession through the patriarchal naming convention?
My sarcasm occludes the important point related to my disdain – there is inconsistency in activism. Activists pick and choose battles to suit themselves more than they focus their time and resources on solutions for the most important and urgent social problems. Can someone be considered righteous if their campaigning is based in this kind of self-satisfaction? Should it be on your CV that you fought for “stewardess” being changed to “flight attendant”? Has this accomplishment had any impact on the breast ironing phenomenon in sub-Saharan Africa? Has it curtailed child prostitution in south-east Asia?
When it comes to activism, we should be probing the motivations for particular platforms and exposing activists who agitate for no other reason than self-satisfaction.
49. On Self-Satisfaction
Would action taken for the purpose of self-satisfaction also be rooted in strong principles and impressive character?
What comes to mind here is that feminists have rejected certain gendered job designations, such as, “steward/stewardess”, and they substitute the title, “flight attendant” as a gender-neutral designation. The feminization of the word “actor” to “actress” has also cause abrasions, culturally. Somehow, the title being feminized is a stigma which marginalizes the female status within the binary designation. I suppose we should be grateful for the glass ceiling which spared us the indignity of titles such as, “doctorette” or “engineeress”. Yet, we have failed to flatten the distinction of given names, and “Justine” has not become “Justin” for its female name-holders. To quote the strong female character, Regan, from The Exorcist – “in time”.
But when will the feminists launch their campaign against the offensive gendered designation, “garbageman”? Perhaps, “garbageperson” would be a more appropriate title, although, it sounds more like someone loitering around Burning Man. When will feminists argue on behalf of all women who are kept out of the garbage collection role and who are then maligned within that profession through the patriarchal naming convention?
My sarcasm occludes the important point related to my disdain – there is inconsistency in activism. Activists pick and choose battles to suit themselves more than they focus their time and resources on solutions for the most important and urgent social problems. Can someone be considered righteous if their campaigning is based in this kind of self-satisfaction? Should it be on your CV that you fought for “stewardess” being changed to “flight attendant”? Has this accomplishment had any impact on the breast ironing phenomenon in sub-Saharan Africa? Has it curtailed child prostitution in south-east Asia?
When it comes to activism, we should be probing the motivations for particular platforms and exposing activists who agitate for no other reason than self-satisfaction.
BOOK 66: INFLUENCE
50. On Evidence
The stubborn atheist will often challenge the devout person of faith on the confounding logic for the value of miracles on Earth. It would seem that all miracles that have involved supernatural acts also happened prior to the development of the technology which might have been able to record those miracles and verify them.
There were no video cameras to capture Moses parting the seas, nor did Jesus take a selfie post-resurrection. The “true” believer will claim that such evidence would ruin the point and purpose of the miracle – to develop faith without hard evidence. Ah, I guess free will is all important then and people must experience conditions where they don’t have to believe, but rather, they choose to believe.
This strikes me as odd, however, because we wouldn’t know of the miracles but for witnesses who then reported the supernatural acts. So, were those important witnesses not entitled to free will? I mean they had no choice to believe as it was staring them right in the face, presumably. It is a provocative double-standard to probe.
50. On Evidence
The stubborn atheist will often challenge the devout person of faith on the confounding logic for the value of miracles on Earth. It would seem that all miracles that have involved supernatural acts also happened prior to the development of the technology which might have been able to record those miracles and verify them.
There were no video cameras to capture Moses parting the seas, nor did Jesus take a selfie post-resurrection. The “true” believer will claim that such evidence would ruin the point and purpose of the miracle – to develop faith without hard evidence. Ah, I guess free will is all important then and people must experience conditions where they don’t have to believe, but rather, they choose to believe.
This strikes me as odd, however, because we wouldn’t know of the miracles but for witnesses who then reported the supernatural acts. So, were those important witnesses not entitled to free will? I mean they had no choice to believe as it was staring them right in the face, presumably. It is a provocative double-standard to probe.
BOOK 66: INFLUENCE
51. On Dystopia
For a million years, human beings developed hunter-gathering culture. Only ten thousand years ago did we shift to agrarian lifestyles. Less than three centuries ago launched the Industrial Revolution. In the 20th century, the advent of commercial technology brought about the rise of the service industry.
The service industry has provided women with greater opportunities to gain political and economic power because for the first time in industry, the most valuable contributor could be a woman because service work is not based in physicality.
However, Western white strong women got a taste of power, and they wanted more. Their only obstacle was Western white strong men, and so they worked hard through industry and culture to demonize Western white strong men and have them demoted in the workforce, in culture, and in life.
Today, in the West, men and women are more adversarial than ever. A key to Western white strong women undermining the authority and control of Western white strong men has been to promote activism, especially activism headed by Western white weak men (such as, Marxists).
Here is the rub. Technological advancement is a juggernaut and we have already promoted the next phase of industry – automation. However, we must curtail that development and instead promote the next phase of industry as being the epoch of engineering. This must be achieved soon to avoid humans being rendered useless with respect to work culture. Work culture breeds rationality and sanity, and we cannot afford to lose that.
The citizens of the City of Domes in Nolan & Johnson’s Logan’s Run had stopped working and subsequently lost their rational minds. They were pathetically hopeless and had a child-like mentality even into their adult years. Engineering is inherently rational and linear-minded work whereas activism is inherently irrational and wildly discursive agitation. If engineering isn’t privileged soon as the next phase of industry, then we can expect to have a future society resembling many dystopic visions that have flowed from the imagination of creative science fiction authors, like Nolan & Johnson.
51. On Dystopia
For a million years, human beings developed hunter-gathering culture. Only ten thousand years ago did we shift to agrarian lifestyles. Less than three centuries ago launched the Industrial Revolution. In the 20th century, the advent of commercial technology brought about the rise of the service industry.
The service industry has provided women with greater opportunities to gain political and economic power because for the first time in industry, the most valuable contributor could be a woman because service work is not based in physicality.
However, Western white strong women got a taste of power, and they wanted more. Their only obstacle was Western white strong men, and so they worked hard through industry and culture to demonize Western white strong men and have them demoted in the workforce, in culture, and in life.
Today, in the West, men and women are more adversarial than ever. A key to Western white strong women undermining the authority and control of Western white strong men has been to promote activism, especially activism headed by Western white weak men (such as, Marxists).
Here is the rub. Technological advancement is a juggernaut and we have already promoted the next phase of industry – automation. However, we must curtail that development and instead promote the next phase of industry as being the epoch of engineering. This must be achieved soon to avoid humans being rendered useless with respect to work culture. Work culture breeds rationality and sanity, and we cannot afford to lose that.
The citizens of the City of Domes in Nolan & Johnson’s Logan’s Run had stopped working and subsequently lost their rational minds. They were pathetically hopeless and had a child-like mentality even into their adult years. Engineering is inherently rational and linear-minded work whereas activism is inherently irrational and wildly discursive agitation. If engineering isn’t privileged soon as the next phase of industry, then we can expect to have a future society resembling many dystopic visions that have flowed from the imagination of creative science fiction authors, like Nolan & Johnson.
BOOK 66: INFLUENCE
52. On Partisanship
One known characteristic of individual-based madness is the incessant rocking back and forth of the body. Rocking provides a sense of activity and equilibrium when an individual is unable to exert self-control over their thoughts in the quiet moments of their mental life. Rocking fosters a false sense of self-control through bodily oscillation referencing a physical equilibrium. This “centered” body becomes the anchor for stabilizing the mind. Rocking is a perverse form of self-help.
However, we might notice that society has a habit of “rocking” back and form between polarized values on a great many issues, from politics to art. Does the rocking between polarized extremes – Democrat and Republican, communist or capitalist, progressive or conservative, avant-garde or traditional – not imply a deeper form of social madness as well?
52. On Partisanship
One known characteristic of individual-based madness is the incessant rocking back and forth of the body. Rocking provides a sense of activity and equilibrium when an individual is unable to exert self-control over their thoughts in the quiet moments of their mental life. Rocking fosters a false sense of self-control through bodily oscillation referencing a physical equilibrium. This “centered” body becomes the anchor for stabilizing the mind. Rocking is a perverse form of self-help.
However, we might notice that society has a habit of “rocking” back and form between polarized values on a great many issues, from politics to art. Does the rocking between polarized extremes – Democrat and Republican, communist or capitalist, progressive or conservative, avant-garde or traditional – not imply a deeper form of social madness as well?
BOOK 66: INFLUENCE
53. On Adaptation
For years my wheels spun during my doctoral studies in semiotics, and I could not settle on a topic for my dissertation. Either I was attempting to satisfy a former mentor from my previous school, or pander to the department that was supporting my current research. As Jack Torrance noted in The Shining – “lots of ideas… no good ones.”
Finally, I settled on a topic that held some promise – transmedia adaptation. My focus would be to examine how video game logic, or the ludic elements of games were successful when represented through the filmic medium.
For two decades, movie adaptations of video games were box office poison, with few exceptions. Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001) was an exceptional case largely due to Angelina Jolie’s cachet as Hollywood’s turn-of-the-millennium moll. That movie didn’t have to be good, but instead Jolie had to fulfill the male gamer’s sexual fantasy for Lara Croft – and she did.
In 2023, the game industry finally made a breakthrough with The Super Mario Bros. Movie, which is ironic given that the first lemon in movie adaptations of games was the live-action Super Mario Bros. (1993). So, what was the problem? Why did Hollywood struggle so much with intellectual property that had already proven itself greatly successful in another medium of entertainment?
The thesis for my doctorate was going to examine how movie adaptations of video games failed to utilize ludic elements or game logic from those games. Super Mario Bros. had the familiar elements of turtle-based villains, sewer pipes, and Italian plumbers, however, there was no representation of platforming as an element of game logic. House of the Dead (2003) was a meandering cabin-in-the-woods horror story with no critical moments of first-person perspective which characterized the game experience. Bloodrayne (2006) was a hackneyed melodrama without hack-and-slash action sequences. Hitman movies (2007, 2015) have lacked representations of stealth, and Assassin’s Creed (2016) spent too much time focused on the elaborate Animus “rig” which had little relationship to that simulator machine as represented in the game series.
On the other hand, movies that seemingly have no relationship with video games have done very well at the box office through importing ludic elements of games into the filmic representational model. For example, Run Lola Run (1998), utilizes the respawning aspect of game logic which almost all video games have featured. In 2020, Boss Level followed in suit and represented the frivolity of respawning in a fun and entertaining way. Dredd (2012) did an excellent job of borrowing from video game architecture and emulating the ludic elements of the platformer. Hardcore Henry (2015) went all in, and that film was shot entirely first-person shooter style, and there was no doubt that the movie was paying homage to the ever-popular game mode.
I have yet to start writing my dissertation, but I believe this topic is a good one at least.
53. On Adaptation
For years my wheels spun during my doctoral studies in semiotics, and I could not settle on a topic for my dissertation. Either I was attempting to satisfy a former mentor from my previous school, or pander to the department that was supporting my current research. As Jack Torrance noted in The Shining – “lots of ideas… no good ones.”
Finally, I settled on a topic that held some promise – transmedia adaptation. My focus would be to examine how video game logic, or the ludic elements of games were successful when represented through the filmic medium.
For two decades, movie adaptations of video games were box office poison, with few exceptions. Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001) was an exceptional case largely due to Angelina Jolie’s cachet as Hollywood’s turn-of-the-millennium moll. That movie didn’t have to be good, but instead Jolie had to fulfill the male gamer’s sexual fantasy for Lara Croft – and she did.
In 2023, the game industry finally made a breakthrough with The Super Mario Bros. Movie, which is ironic given that the first lemon in movie adaptations of games was the live-action Super Mario Bros. (1993). So, what was the problem? Why did Hollywood struggle so much with intellectual property that had already proven itself greatly successful in another medium of entertainment?
The thesis for my doctorate was going to examine how movie adaptations of video games failed to utilize ludic elements or game logic from those games. Super Mario Bros. had the familiar elements of turtle-based villains, sewer pipes, and Italian plumbers, however, there was no representation of platforming as an element of game logic. House of the Dead (2003) was a meandering cabin-in-the-woods horror story with no critical moments of first-person perspective which characterized the game experience. Bloodrayne (2006) was a hackneyed melodrama without hack-and-slash action sequences. Hitman movies (2007, 2015) have lacked representations of stealth, and Assassin’s Creed (2016) spent too much time focused on the elaborate Animus “rig” which had little relationship to that simulator machine as represented in the game series.
On the other hand, movies that seemingly have no relationship with video games have done very well at the box office through importing ludic elements of games into the filmic representational model. For example, Run Lola Run (1998), utilizes the respawning aspect of game logic which almost all video games have featured. In 2020, Boss Level followed in suit and represented the frivolity of respawning in a fun and entertaining way. Dredd (2012) did an excellent job of borrowing from video game architecture and emulating the ludic elements of the platformer. Hardcore Henry (2015) went all in, and that film was shot entirely first-person shooter style, and there was no doubt that the movie was paying homage to the ever-popular game mode.
I have yet to start writing my dissertation, but I believe this topic is a good one at least.
BOOK 66: INFLUENCE
54. On Wrestling
Professional wrestling has become a billion-dollar enterprise which is a far cry from its humble origins in fin-de-siecle vaudeville entertainment. “Sports entertainer” tycoon, Vince K. McMahon inherited the family business from his father, who had inherited from his father. McMahon’s grandfather had been a boxing promoter who had then faced social pressure by organizations, such as, the Legion of Decency. Subsequently, he threw in the towel on boxing and reimagined vaudeville wrestling acts for a new era of sports entertainment.
McMahon’s father pioneered the WWE brand (originally, WWWF, and then WWF). In the 1960s and 70s, pro-wrestling endured strict zoning regulations for independent wrestling promotions. At first, there was no opportunity to grow an empire, even if one promotion had clever innovations or boasted the brightest stars. Laissez-faire capitalism ensured that things would change, and eventually, McMahon took over the WWF and began the process of monopolizing the industry.
The history of pro-wrestling is incredibly interesting and would make for a very entertaining movie, however, an element that has always fascinated me in that entertainment form is the role of the valet. In the 1980s and 90s, the valet was a precious commodity ringside, and only the superstar wrestlers were accompanied to the “squared-circle” by a demure beauty valet. Miss Elizabeth was the valet par excellence, and she was recognized as Macho Man Randy Savage’s “real-life” wife, although, later when working for Ted Turner’s WCW promotion, Miss Elizabeth was also a valet for the “Nature Boy” Ric Flair, and later, “Hollywood” Hulk Hogan.
Miss Elizabeth was passed around, but incredibly remained chaste in the eyes of the fans. Miss Elizabeth was seen, and not heard. The fans projected onto her. Just as soap operas are a cathartic release for a certain type of woman (or any woman in a particular mood), so too is pro-wrestling a cathartic release for males. Soap operas allow for indulgence in a world of emotions without reason, and conversely, pro-wrestling fans indulge in a world of aggression without reason.
Miss Elizabeth (and other demure valets, such as Woman, Rena Mero, or Kimberly Page) allowed wrestling fans to project their need for aggression onto a female persona who presented as fragile but able. This caused the wrestling fan to look inward and examine the importance of maintaining self-control over aggressive tendencies. The valet was a subtle mechanism to that effect, and this proposed effect can be argued. Undoubtedly, “smarks” (smart marks) will rally against my claims – gatekeeping is what they have been engineered for as it facilitates the industry’s maintenance of the “kayfabe” system of pro-wrestling fantasy.
Today, the demure valet has all but vanished and she has been superseded by the pro-wrestling “Diva”. The Diva is all about aggression, and she does not represent a foil for the cathartic release of anger and pent-up rage brewing inside fans. The Diva is a regression in the affective expression associated with pro-wrestling spectatorship.
54. On Wrestling
Professional wrestling has become a billion-dollar enterprise which is a far cry from its humble origins in fin-de-siecle vaudeville entertainment. “Sports entertainer” tycoon, Vince K. McMahon inherited the family business from his father, who had inherited from his father. McMahon’s grandfather had been a boxing promoter who had then faced social pressure by organizations, such as, the Legion of Decency. Subsequently, he threw in the towel on boxing and reimagined vaudeville wrestling acts for a new era of sports entertainment.
McMahon’s father pioneered the WWE brand (originally, WWWF, and then WWF). In the 1960s and 70s, pro-wrestling endured strict zoning regulations for independent wrestling promotions. At first, there was no opportunity to grow an empire, even if one promotion had clever innovations or boasted the brightest stars. Laissez-faire capitalism ensured that things would change, and eventually, McMahon took over the WWF and began the process of monopolizing the industry.
The history of pro-wrestling is incredibly interesting and would make for a very entertaining movie, however, an element that has always fascinated me in that entertainment form is the role of the valet. In the 1980s and 90s, the valet was a precious commodity ringside, and only the superstar wrestlers were accompanied to the “squared-circle” by a demure beauty valet. Miss Elizabeth was the valet par excellence, and she was recognized as Macho Man Randy Savage’s “real-life” wife, although, later when working for Ted Turner’s WCW promotion, Miss Elizabeth was also a valet for the “Nature Boy” Ric Flair, and later, “Hollywood” Hulk Hogan.
Miss Elizabeth was passed around, but incredibly remained chaste in the eyes of the fans. Miss Elizabeth was seen, and not heard. The fans projected onto her. Just as soap operas are a cathartic release for a certain type of woman (or any woman in a particular mood), so too is pro-wrestling a cathartic release for males. Soap operas allow for indulgence in a world of emotions without reason, and conversely, pro-wrestling fans indulge in a world of aggression without reason.
Miss Elizabeth (and other demure valets, such as Woman, Rena Mero, or Kimberly Page) allowed wrestling fans to project their need for aggression onto a female persona who presented as fragile but able. This caused the wrestling fan to look inward and examine the importance of maintaining self-control over aggressive tendencies. The valet was a subtle mechanism to that effect, and this proposed effect can be argued. Undoubtedly, “smarks” (smart marks) will rally against my claims – gatekeeping is what they have been engineered for as it facilitates the industry’s maintenance of the “kayfabe” system of pro-wrestling fantasy.
Today, the demure valet has all but vanished and she has been superseded by the pro-wrestling “Diva”. The Diva is all about aggression, and she does not represent a foil for the cathartic release of anger and pent-up rage brewing inside fans. The Diva is a regression in the affective expression associated with pro-wrestling spectatorship.
BOOK 66: INFLUENCE
55. On Sports
Ice hockey is different. This statement has many applications. Ice hockey is a very different sport from all other major team sports – it is played on a sheet of ice, players are fitted with equipment head-to-toe, and a puck is fought over as opposed to a ball. Ice hockey appears ironically esoteric in its expression as a popular sport; however, the basic logic of the sport is as intuitive as soccer: offensively move past the defense and put the playing piece into the opponent’s net.
Ice hockey has changed and most major sports struggle with that. In recent decades, baseball has been accused of being “boring” and “slow”. Baseball was a sport that entertained people a hundred years ago when life was not fast-paced. Baseball hasn’t changed many of its rule to keep up with the times. American Football is now under scrutiny but not for lack of excitement, but rather, for excessive action. The NFL risks being put in the poorhouse through class action lawsuits if it cannot reimagine the sport in such a way that players live safer and healthier lives on the gridiron.
Prior to the 1980s, ice hockey had the same issues that the NFL faces today, except, no one cared back then. The famous expression when scoffing at the sport was that “you went to see a fight, and a hockey match broke out”. Ice hockey in the 1970s was pure aggression, and the “Broad Street Bully” goon players of the Philadelphia Flyers were as well-recognized as any skilled superstar in the league. But thankfully, things changed for ice hockey.
In the 1980s, “The Great One” Wayne Gretzky heralded a new era of skill-based ice hockey focused on playmaking and goal scoring. Players were required to wear helmets. Goaltenders were sieves at first, but later, Patrick Roy pioneered “butterfly” style goaltending, and Martin Brodeur and Dominik Hasek perfected that sound style. The NHL of the 1990s was characterized by a melange of aggressive play at the end boards and in front of the goal crease, with fast-break offensive sniping, and neutral zone chokes. The sport had become overly complex.
Gretzky had been an ambassador for the NHL, spreading interest in the sport into California, and the southwestern states. The league expanded and the fanbase grew. Dilettante and neophyte fans were not necessarily keen on the sport’s origins in “rock’em-sock’em” quasi-pugilistic medieval-knights-on-ice-style contests. Commissioner, Gary Bettman, and the NHL were agreeable to change.
The new millennium has transformed NHL ice hockey. The game is now “wide open” and focused on skilled play. Players have agreed to stop goading each other, and referees do their best to keep their whistles out of their mouths. No-touch icing and two-line pass infractions have been phased out resulting in higher goal scoring. Overtime has a 3-on-3 format which almost guarantees a goal. If overtime leaves the teams deadlocked, then a shootout decides the match.
Imagine, FIFA was as willing and able to revise the structure and rules of soccer, and then change.
55. On Sports
Ice hockey is different. This statement has many applications. Ice hockey is a very different sport from all other major team sports – it is played on a sheet of ice, players are fitted with equipment head-to-toe, and a puck is fought over as opposed to a ball. Ice hockey appears ironically esoteric in its expression as a popular sport; however, the basic logic of the sport is as intuitive as soccer: offensively move past the defense and put the playing piece into the opponent’s net.
Ice hockey has changed and most major sports struggle with that. In recent decades, baseball has been accused of being “boring” and “slow”. Baseball was a sport that entertained people a hundred years ago when life was not fast-paced. Baseball hasn’t changed many of its rule to keep up with the times. American Football is now under scrutiny but not for lack of excitement, but rather, for excessive action. The NFL risks being put in the poorhouse through class action lawsuits if it cannot reimagine the sport in such a way that players live safer and healthier lives on the gridiron.
Prior to the 1980s, ice hockey had the same issues that the NFL faces today, except, no one cared back then. The famous expression when scoffing at the sport was that “you went to see a fight, and a hockey match broke out”. Ice hockey in the 1970s was pure aggression, and the “Broad Street Bully” goon players of the Philadelphia Flyers were as well-recognized as any skilled superstar in the league. But thankfully, things changed for ice hockey.
In the 1980s, “The Great One” Wayne Gretzky heralded a new era of skill-based ice hockey focused on playmaking and goal scoring. Players were required to wear helmets. Goaltenders were sieves at first, but later, Patrick Roy pioneered “butterfly” style goaltending, and Martin Brodeur and Dominik Hasek perfected that sound style. The NHL of the 1990s was characterized by a melange of aggressive play at the end boards and in front of the goal crease, with fast-break offensive sniping, and neutral zone chokes. The sport had become overly complex.
Gretzky had been an ambassador for the NHL, spreading interest in the sport into California, and the southwestern states. The league expanded and the fanbase grew. Dilettante and neophyte fans were not necessarily keen on the sport’s origins in “rock’em-sock’em” quasi-pugilistic medieval-knights-on-ice-style contests. Commissioner, Gary Bettman, and the NHL were agreeable to change.
The new millennium has transformed NHL ice hockey. The game is now “wide open” and focused on skilled play. Players have agreed to stop goading each other, and referees do their best to keep their whistles out of their mouths. No-touch icing and two-line pass infractions have been phased out resulting in higher goal scoring. Overtime has a 3-on-3 format which almost guarantees a goal. If overtime leaves the teams deadlocked, then a shootout decides the match.
Imagine, FIFA was as willing and able to revise the structure and rules of soccer, and then change.