3 fists up - meaning that the challengers win (yet again) and the film was entertaining but there is just something that was a bit off.  

(Spoiler Alert)

Regarding the movie - the overall dynamic is painfully clear: Was there ever a chance that the rebels would not win in this move in line with the dominant narrative identified by POP Struggle?  Nope.  Indeed, it makes you wonder exactly what has to be done in order for a group of rebels/revolutionaries/challengers to not win in modern American culture.  

The film began with the inevitable victory always in reach.  The film pushed forward like Snow Piercer - mile by mile, block by block, minute by tortuous minute the film went on with the rebels pushing forward, ever forward.  The only question remained: who would stand before the rebels as the leader at the end?  There was no doubt that there would be a leader in the front because that is what the film series became - a revolution of one or four as it were (Katniss - the face and perhaps the heart, Plutarch - the brain, Coin - the fist and Commander Paylor - the soul).  This is what most American films about behavioral challenges come down to.

This outcome is interesting because although the filmmakers seemed to acknowledge that it takes thousands of people to overthrow a totalitarian government (led by Donald Sutherland), the film quickly focused on four people.  Every now and then there would be an explosion or two, some special effects, a PSA from the government tv show and at least one crowd scene.  Essentially though the film revolved around the complex interaction of the four: e.g., one telling the others what to do (Coin ordering Katniss), one looking at the other (Katniss gazing at Peeta or her other love muffin Gale), one trying to kill the other (Peeta on Katniss) or several of them running away from an explosion (pick a scene from almost any 8 minute interval).  Oh, and don't even ask to be around the four because in all likelihood you get killed off like the security detail in the original Star Trek episodes (the soon to be dead guys in red).  They dropped off like flies.  Consider how many soldiers were lost from the initial group that went on the propaganda mission to film the face of the revolution moving up behind the battle lines of the insurgent push.  There were like three of them at the end.

Now despite my dissatisfaction with the Soap Operafication of revolutionary movements, some interesting dynamics were introduced.  The divisions within challenging institutions reminded me of the newer scholarship: Kathleen Cunningham, Wendy Pearlman and myself.  It was interesting to see more explicit discussion of the propaganda used by challenger institutions which directly mirrored those efforts employed by the state.  Recall that the challengers main spin doctor (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman) did the same thing for the government creating "spectacles" for mass consumption, reminiscent of the "circuses" discussed by De la Boetie. It was the proto-state formation within the rebels that proved to be the most interesting element of the film: it's mirroring of state practices (reliance on propaganda experts, controlling narrative, providing symbols/heroes) and the desire to concentrate power and never relinquish it because of the crisis  (locking the country down like Paul Kagame).  The more it became like the old state, however, the more that a revolution within the revolution became more likely.  In fact, one began to wonder how the inevitable new state could avoid being the new state.  Sutherland noted this explicitly in case you missed it: Coin will be the new me.  Coin re-emphasized it further calling for a "new Hunger Games" made up of the loser's children.  

Oh my, how would we ever avoid this fate?  Enter Katniss, of course, who with an incredibly clear line of sight that it was not much of a stretch to see it coming, moved her shot up a few degrees and killed the dictator to be.  

The face/heart of the revolution became its savior but she did not do this for herself.  No, she (as always) basically did this for a seamlessly combined personal interest with unintended mass consequences.  This cleared the way for the new black, female president (Paylor)- which you also kind of saw coming as you saw the Coin assassination coming a mile away.  A free election saved the country as the most honorable candidate won, something which always happens (especially after the one who had subverted democracy is shot through the heart with an arrow and all individuals that were supportive of that individual have an incredible change of heart and none step forward to avenge their slain leader - sarcasm really does not read here well). 

And with the revolution sowed up, the series tied everything off in a nice little bow.  The love rival (Gale) was discredited as a devious, tool-like baby killer - leaving Katniss available; Katniss goes "home" with her Natural Born Killer and Porn King escort turned babysitter (Woody Harrelson) - who subsequently disappears, Peeta begins a garden (as all sensitive males who previously were Manchurian Candidates would do) and the nuclear family is started amidst a lovely ghost town right next to amazing fields of green which somehow avoided destruction.  What better way for the social revolution to end than a family alone in a field but do not think ill of either Katniss or the scene for as the slain Boggs tells us earlier on: "she earned it."  Parliament Funkadelic is right again: "Everybody's Got a Little Light Under the Sun"!!! Go on Katniss.

It is suggested that some African Americans in Baltimore distributed information referencing a movie, the Purge, in an attempt to signal that an area of opportunism and violence existed as well as the fact that they were going take full advantage of this situation.  The film itself was a B movie like dystopian flick that was incredibly successful financially where everything was seemingly ideal: houses are clean, people have jobs and Ethan Hawke was productive as well as happy (which if anyone has followed his career would realize is generally not the case). Despite the nice veneer, the society depicted in the film was a little high-strung and a bit tightly controlled (i.e., it is kind of repressive in a sense). Not in some totalitarian way. It was more like the tight control that a capitalistic and shallow culture has on you. This kind of deviates from the standard POP struggle piece that is normally covered on the site but it is relevant to the general topic of repression and mobilization/dissent. Indeed, the relevance is found in the interesting social experiment portrayed in the film.  

As conceived, once a year, everyone is allowed to go buck wild.  Now, I do not mean wild in some party like, new years celebration.  No, I mean in some Mad Max, I'm gonna torture your whole family and perhaps chew on them a little, set them on fire and roast some apples kind of way.  Anarchy at its worst. The complete opposite order and civilization.

In Baltimore after the funeral of the most recent African American victim, people started referencing that a Purge was coming. Remember wilding?  Some black folk were signaling to some audience (perhaps other black folk; perhaps whites) that all bets were off for a while. They did this by referencing a film that had like one black character in it with one of America's whitest stars - clearly a victory for multiculturalism.  Some black folk were signaling that the rules no longer applied and that for a time in a specific place, they would do what they wanted.  Some white folk agreed that it looked like a horror film. But, what kind of horror film were they thinking about?

I would suggest that the horror film envisioned by the relevant black folk putting out the notices about the Purge were most likely thinking more Tales of the Hood, than Friday the 13th. The former moved into the horror that was and is part of black life.  It portrays in graphic but comedic form (of the dark variety) the types of things that scare black folk.  The reference is useful for there is nothing otherworldly about black fear of police/white violence. It is very much grounded in an American reality of predation, intimidation and discretion.  The invocation of anarchy is intriguing for this is quite a different reference point than that conveyed by the civil rights movement and films like Selma - the African American tale of resistance and rebellion which some of the black youth of Baltimore did NOT select to describe what they were going to create or what they feel was needed. The lack of reference is important for some of the black youth showed that they have more in common with a white dystopian B movie starring Hawke than they do with what was broadly touted by some as a black triumph of film making.  This is especially disheartening because Baltimore is the headquarters for the pre-eminent black advocacy organization the NAACP.

I fear though that people will misunderstand the message of the Purge's use like they misunderstood the message of the film the Believer - a film about a confused Jewish man who wishes to have some agency and power in his life, deciding that the best way to do this is to join the Neo-Nazi movement. This film, like the Purge, is about release and seeking power in a situation where there appears to be none.  The Purge is an identification of lawlessness but in response to lawlessness not lawfulness. Citizens in the Purge get to go buck wild because the world they live in does not allow them any release for all of the pain and depression and emptiness that exists.  Some of the citizens of Baltimore seemed to be invoking the same thing and prompted consideration of one of worst films released in the last 10-20 years.  In contrast, the Believer (which I would rate as one of the better films of the last 20 years) has much more relevance for the current time period. This movie ends with the lead character caught in some endless loop, searching for a way out but never finding it. Such an image very well captures the sentiment of some of the black community in Baltimore. They seek a way out of some endless loop of poverty, brutality and invisibility, never quite finding it. What they suggest was needed was a Purge. This is Selma.  This is no Malcolm X.  This is a different type of sentiment that exist within the black community and one that has not well been understood. The Purgers are likely reflective of those that have not and perhaps cannot be channeled into specific forms of resistance and incorporation. The Purgers are perhaps calling for a different type of discussion regarding objectives, citizenship, governance, service delivery and the lack thereof.  

Now, to be clear, I am not a Purger.  I have already admitted to not liking the movie.  That said, Ethan Hawke was happy (for a second).  Two fists down.

Two fist up & three down - that is, the government technically wins the political contest depicted in the film in that they are still in power at the end but the challengers clearly made some dents in the state apparatus and the momentum is moving in their direction for what looks like the obvious challenger victory in Hunger Games 3b, the Final Reckoning (this is not the title but it might as well be).

Basic Story:

From a POP Struggle perspective the film is right up our alley: 75 years ago in the mythical Panem the government kicked the challenger's butt - vaguely described as an uprising of different districts (the main territorial units of Panem). They did this with plenty of repression including mass killing and atrocities.  As a reminder for the citizens to stay in their place or as simply a distraction to get people to overlook the stark repressive as well as economic inequalities that exist, the government created the "Hunger Games". The game itself is simple: the government picks out sacrifices who represent the relevant community (1 from each of the districts), folks compete against one another to survive, supporters drop in little gadgets to assist their favorites, blood is shed and the victor gets to live - all of this is done live on television.  Think Gladiator mixed with a little Rollerball (the original with James Caan), Lord of the Flies, the Truman Show and Wag the Dog but not nearly as good.  

An interesting theme across the series is that people continue to be repressed (constrained in their political opinions and actions) because they have not yet decided to take arms against the government - a typical collective action problem in political science. If the people could only come together and strike against the repressive government, then things could get better seems to be the point.  If there was only some hope, some spark that could get the people excited and this is where the lead character Katniss Everdeen comes in.  

Katniss is the plucky, spunky and rebellious archer from district 12 (depicted in the image above). In the first film (The Hunger Games), out of compassion she reluctantly participated in the Hunger Games and the killing of innocents as well as in an act of selfishness and desperation regarding her attempt (along with her game/life partner Peeta) to kill herself rather than take another life she is misunderstood by the masses and believed to be overtly challenging the government. She becomes a rebel by mistake - the accidental rebel, as it were.  She was clearly rebellious but there was no political agenda behind it.  In part this just reflects how weak and sensitive the authoritarian government is.

In the second film (Catching Fire), Katniss is put on tour with the other victors to talk about how great things are, how the state is taking care of them (as well as indirectly all citizens who also could one day become victors) and what is going on in her fake romance with Peeta (the new darlings of the country caught in the first film).  Katniss goes along with this because that is kind of what she does unless she or people she is interacting with are directly threatened. Don't misunderstand me.  Katniss is generally nice and there is some general concern with people that comes out from time to time but she is very Aristotelian in her sense of justice - if she cannot see it and feel it on a gut level, then it does not exist and she takes no action. Not the best revolutionary to have but if you realize what motivates her, then you can prompt her accordingly - this is something that both her revolutionary handler (the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and the dictator of Panem (President Snow played by Donald Sutherland) know very well. The mechanistic and simple-minded responsivity of the revolutionary symbol is one of the films many weaknesses.

This is where the third film comes in (Mockingjay which my spellchecker keeps wanting to call Mockingly - too funny).  With the misunderstood revolutionary being perceived by the masses, the challengers in district 13 decide to create a face for the revolution: Katniss (of course).  So, with this in mind they conspired with previous victors in the second film who have been recalled out of retirement back into the arena in order to get Katniss under their care/control.  Katniss resists her new role as revolutionary symbol but after some proper motivation and psychological manipulation by her handlers, she comes around to be the face of the revolution.  Toward this end, the district 13 rebels put the old band back together (said like John Belushi in the Blues Brothers) comprised of Woody Harrelson and the crazy-haired, superficial marketing person from the government whose name I don't really need to remember. The rebels also create a logo, promotional video and leather-clad outfit designed by the Lenny Kravitz's now deceased character to motivate the seemingly, easily influenced and hungry (forgive the pun) populace.  All the people need to do is see some videos, sense some hope and the revolution is on (oh, this inspiration and a stockpile of weapons that have been stored for 75 years).  In this regard, I would agree with Peter Bloom's observation that the film is dangerous - how can individuals be properly socialized to what is involved in change-making when governments are incredibly fragile, the masses are so easily influenced and revolutions/revolutionary leaders are seemingly so easily created. Felt a little like how I felt about a similar topic in V for Vendetta the horrible movie not the great graphic novel. 

It's not all bad. There is a spin or two in the flick.  The government probably has some informant in the rebel stronghold. They seem to know exactly where it is and they attempt to blow them into the stoneage.  This doesn't work though because their intelligence is old - another example of a weak state.  The challengers engage in a rescue operation to free some former victors and those deemed close to the victors so that they cannot be blackmailed.  They get their people but there is a wrinkle: 1) they seemed to just waltz out of the government stronghold and 2) like a Manchurian candidate, Peeta is now fixed on trying to kill Katniss.  They stop him by cracking him upside the head but something was wrong with him.  Stay tuned to figure out what.

I for one am not really interested in what happens.  I see no way that Katniss and company do not win.  I am assuming that like Neo in the Matrix one of Katniss' boyfriends might not make it but fear that the studio will not have the guts to kill off the main character, which actually might save the series in my opinion by finally doing something that is surprising.  Indeed, I fear like Star Wars, the Greatest Story Ever Told, the Planet of the Apes series (old as well as new) and almost every other film made in the last 50 years, that the challengers are going to win.  This is why there is an extra fist in my ranking for the government.  

Four fists up for the older series and three fists up for the newer one.  That is, the challengers win in the end within both but the original films were deemed to be better in terms of basic story, complexity and creativity. The latter films, however, clearly excel in the departments of costumes, explosions and action sequences.  

Basic Stories: 

Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972).  In this story, the talking apes from the past (Zira and Cornelius) have been killed (in Escape from the Planet of the Apes [@]) but not before they have a child - Caesar.  He was hidden by a lover of apes Armando the latin circus promoter who raised him and evidently educated him quite well - you really couldn't make this stuff up but it was. Seeing "civilization" for the first time, Caesar sees that his brother and sister apes are nothing less than slaves - yes, slaves.  He uses the S word.  They moved from pets to slaves after all dogs and cats died - some bug brought from the past from Caesar's parents.  Unable to keep his mouth shut at seeing one of his fellow apes beaten and abused Caesar speaks up only to have Armando step up and take the fall.  Things don't go well for Armando.  He gets tortured and inevitably commits suicide to escape future abuse and giving up Caesar. Meanwhile Caesar sneaks into captivity, only to end up the property of the worst anti-ape political leader - the Governor, and his pro-ape assistant - MacDonald. Oh, MacDonald is black and he was played by Hari Rhodes.  I mention this for two reasons. One, Rhodes was an actor during a very difficult period in American history and he ended up creating a movie about an African American youth that went to perhaps the most prestigious prep school in America only to get accepted to Stanford University and killed robbing an undercover officer before going (the made for TV movie Murder Without Motive: The Edmund Perry Story), which captured an important segment in my life.  Additionally, I mention Rhodes' ethnicity because it is constantly repeated throughout the film as he speaks up about the abuse of the apes and he speaks against the fear that the Governor seems to have of them and the myth of the talking ape.  For example, upon preventing one ape from being abused by two white officers of the state, one officer looks at the other basically saying "who the hell is that".  To this, the other one says, "that is MacDonald... the governor's man...  doesn't it figure".  Now, they don't call him an ape-lover but it is there - just beneath the surface. 

This is actually the films strong suit - moreso than the prior three Planet of the Apes which allude to American racism and the African American struggle for freedom and equality.  

At one point, when Caesar reveals himself to MacDonald who is trying to free him, he says "humans aren't kind (like you) and we will have to force them to be but we can't do that until we are free."

MacDonald: "How will you gain freedom?"

Caesar: "By the only means left to us - revolution."

MacDonald: "That is doomed to failure."

Caesar: "Maybe, but you cannot stop us from trying.... You among everyone else (yes, because he was black) must understand we cannot be free until we have power.  How else can we achieve it?"

At another point, the race issue becomes even clearer when post-revolution and with a large number of human leaders with their heads in the chopping block so to speak (paraphrased):  

MacDonald says "Caesar - this was not how it was supposed to be... violence prolongs hate, hate prolongs violence..... By what right are you spilling blood?"

Caesar: "By the slaves right to punish his persecutors!"

MacDonald: "I a descendant of slaves am asking you to show humanity"

Caesar: "There is no place for humans but to serve us on our own terms".... "but now we will put away our hatred... we who are not human can afford to be humane.... we will dominate you with compassion and understanding"

Set right toward the end of the Black power heyday, the language of revolution and self determination are clear.  The references are apparent and made explicit.  Now with the work of MacCarthur genius Jennifer Eberhardt arguing that African Americans have consistently been associated with apes, I have mixed emotions about the films use of association that rides at the back (and sometimes the front) of American minds but if the association is to be made, I would prefer it to be of the nobler variety: having a conversation about the rebellious response to slavery.  Indeed, minus the costumes the conversation seems like something more out of Grotius, Hobbes or Locke than some Hollywood studio.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011). This film is in many ways parallel to the 1972 version identified above.  Caesar is born an orphan and raised by a nice white man (James Franco). Now, he is not in a circus like the earlier Caesar. Rather, he is stuck in some suburban home in San Francisco where he is also kept from the world.  Invariably he is exposed to other apes after he has a little violent run in with a neighbor. After this event, he is taken to the zoo and essentially brutalized by the zookeeper as well as the other apes.  This continues until he develops a plan - oh, like the other Caesar he talks and thinks.  These skills are not derived from space and time travel however but rather it was passed down from his drugged up parent that was killed in a misunderstanding regarding protective parenting turned wilding in the office.  Caesar escapes prison (I mean the zoo), goes to get the talking/thinking drug from Franco's office and while there, he frees the apes that are being horribly experimented on.  They get free and then they escape to the Forest across the Bay bridge, which Caesar used to play in as a child.

Now, while decent theater, the differences in the story are huge.  In the first, apes were slaves, conditioned and reprimanded everywhere and by almost every one. In the second, apes were neglected prisoners in the zoo and rats in the lab.  Scenes in the first mirror those that you would see in any prison film: 1) the new guy gets abused by the local ruffian, 2) the prisoners are abused by the sadistic guard set loose by the slightly charming but essentially evil and cynical warden, 3) the prisoners lead a largely horrible life with bad food and no benefits - they are just passing time.  Scenes in the second mirror those within any lab movie you see.  There are lab coats, the geek that likes the subjects gets overruled, there is a constant escalation of meds (regardless of risks) and some bad stuff happens which results in lab rats dying.  

Other differences exist as well.  In this film, there is no black person and without this the film while trying to generalize the persecuted human experience to gain a broader audience, ends up losing some of the bite of the first film. Clearly the context within which a film is seen/read/understood matters a great deal.  1972 is not 2011.  There is no current legitimate resistance movement in the us.  There is little discussion of radical responses to unjust authority.  The political has given way to the corporate as enemy.  The aspirations are muted.  In the first film, Caesar talks of ape supremacy and taking the planet one city at a time.  In the second film, Caesar just wants to run across the bridge and hide.  In the first film, Caesar spares human lives because as superior beings he feels that he can be the better human.  In the second film, Caesar shows mercy because he has some fond family memories and acknowledges that there are some nice human beings.  In the first film, we are shown a range of tactics: non-violent non-compliance with directives followed by terrorism and then outright rebellion.  In the second film, we are shown rebellion.  

When I compare Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014), you will see how the general comparison continues.  

Three fists up.  That is, directly in line with the normal American popular struggle format and thus largely unsurprising, the government represses the masses, the challengers rise up and they eventually win. Now, that said, the path to victory in the film drawn from the graphic novel (likely reviewed later) is a fascinating and visually appealing step by step battle or rather car by car battle, but the "government" and "challengers" invariably get whittled down to one a piece.  Only in America does a revolutionary struggle become a one-on-hand (mano a mano) confrontation between two actors. The Battle of Algiers kind of had a lead but the story was never really about him alone.  Just saying.   

Basic story.  Well, it all starts on a train.  It is all a train, actually.  The benign, all-seeing dictator/conductor (Ed Harris) in his perfect Truman Show voice and character tells us late in the film (paraphrasing): "the train is the world and thus is everything".  And, to tell the story, we (the audience) start at the back of the train where the poor people are.  Why is the world on a train?  Well, things didn't work out to well for human attempts at trying to deal with the environment.  Whatever though because it is only important that the earth is "destroyed" and that we have to be on the train, ok.  So, humanity is on a train and then things get pretty Hobbesian, later Malthusian and still later De la Boetian.  Let me explain.

The train and film (aka world/humanity) is essentially a free-for-all dystopian hell show on a rail kept in order by gun-wielding, mechanic, somewhat sadistic simpletons with badges.  This is the Hobbesian part.

The train is Malthusian because the powers that be (Harris) has determined that the train runs on a very strict balance that if within acceptable boundaries (i.e., there are not too many people on the train), then all is good (i.e., there is enough food, etc.).  If the number gets to high, however, then there needs to be a little purge.  Differing from Malthus though we are not talking about a war to help reduce the population. Rather, we are talking a rebellion and, more importantly, the counter-rebellion accompanying it that kills off the right number of people (there are some pretty graphic scenes of mass murder at some point).  

The train is De la Boetian because it is not just anxiety, fear, chaos and horror (from Harris) that keeps everything running smoothly - dare i say, keep the trains running on time (sorry but could not help myself) but there also needs to be a little hope and distraction.  This is provided by a surprisingly successful rebellion that moves its way to the front of the train.  Of course, not all members of the rebellion made it to the front but the main character (Captain America) makes it.  Now, you will of course say, "that was not Captain America on the train but the actor that played Captain America (see I cannot even remember his name)".  To this, I will immediately come back with "that guy was so convincing as Captain America that he is going to have to be in an awful lot of movies before I forget that he played him. Another one just came out a few months ago, didn't it?  It's not like he's Hugh Jackman who has played noblemen from prior historical period, crazed time-traveling scientists trying to cheat death and overly-zealous magicians."  Give him and me some time.

Where was I?  So, Captain America, like Neo in the Matrix, is a leader but he is a reluctant one that comes to occupy the role.  He is not completely worthy however because he has a tainted past.  But, people (turncoats, fans and ordinary folk) believe in him and in Neo-like fashion when it was needed, he steps up.  While on the Matrix comparison, there is a certain symmetry between the benign dictator and the damaged, aging rebel leader who has literally given up everything for the revolution - body and soul.  In the Matrix, the Architect (the state - played by the old, white male) and the Oracle (the rebel - played by the slightly less old, black female) seem to have a history with one another - creating a balance of sorts.  In Snowpiercer, the government and challenger leaders also have a secret relationship, one solidified with late night conversations to talk about humanity (i.e., their respective cars and what lies in between).  In this context as with the larger politico-eco-system that is the train/world, there is also balance.

The discussion of balance and place seemed intriguing to me, perhaps because I have spent too much time thinking about India and untouchability.  For example, whenever Harris talked about everyone staying to their stations (or cars as it were), I just kept hearing the caste system which prides itself on a similar logic.  Step outside your station/car and there is a sanction. The parallels were strong and this largely helps establish the illegitimacy of the train's governance and, I would maintain, the illegitimacy of any government that tries to rely upon such logic.

While battling all the way to the front and preparing to unseat the dictator, the film takes an interesting turn where the dictator offers the reigns of power to Captain America.  Rather than become the state and continue the madness that Harris' governance promotes, however - a different form of rebel victory actually, Captain America decides to smack Harris, save the black child that was enslaved by Harris to service the train (stolen earlier in the film from his mother skirt - literally), destroy the train (inevitably seen more as a prison than world/humanity/technical marvel) and go outside.  Now outside is kind of portrayed as the outside was portrayed in the old film Logan's Run or the "Forbidden Zone" in Planet of the Apes: it's uninhabitable, barren and the opposite of civilization (no steak, no sushi, no steam baths, no discos - served throughout the front part of the train).  Nevertheless, Captain America determines that it is better to start anew in this wilderness and for humanity to take its chance out in the wild.  Humanity in this context is the rainbow coalition that survives - an asian woman and the little black male (one of the rare few to survive in the history of America science fiction films).   I contemplated giving the movie a peace sign for that.  It's not quite clear that the brother was going to make it in the new world though.

Five fists down.  That is, deviating from the normal American popular struggle format, the government (Israel) wins by largely dominating the Palestinian population and not succumbing to diverse challenges. At the same time, although seemingly outmaneuvered, outgunned and in a seemingly impossible situation, the Palestinians are showed to not really quit. While this is kind of not losing, it ain't quite the same thing as winning. Interestingly, although there are real challengers present in the relevant geographic locale, they are not really part of the story.  They are ghosts in the machine as it were - phantoms that the Israelis chase and that the citizens occasionally morph into.  This is just my take on the graphic novel though.  Palestine is no other-wordly type of enterprise.

Basic story.  Palestine is an assault on the senses.  It is an Amnesty International country report on crack with a side of meth laced with lsd. Joe Sacco (a self-styled graphic journalist) plays himself in this story (kinda), who traveled from the US to figure out what the heck was going on in Palestine.  While there he comes across story after story after story of abuse and abuse and abuse with a little resistance tossed in there every now and then or some coming to terms with one's situation.  This is essentially the dynamic: indignity, abuse, humility, resistance; indignity, abuse, resistance - repeat.  As the government, the Israelis in the graphic novel, are relentless, looking for those who might challenge them, looking for those who do challenge them and responding to those who may or may not have challenged them.  The image above captures a situation where a soldier attempts to question/intimidate someone in a hospital that may have participated in a protest event. The scenes are full of emotion. Notice the screaming soldier (you can hear his grunt and perhaps feel the spray of saliva), the woman's arm out to protect the injured guy (delicate but resolute) and the startled woman behind this exchange (scared and at full attention).  The image below depicts a sequence where a suspected challenger/civilian is subject to diverse forms of torture - forced standing, cohabitation with urine, sleep deprivation with a little head butt tossed in. Every now and then he is brought into court only to have his sentence extended.  

Just when you think you can't take another story of torture, Sacco's character makes a snarky remark about not being able to take another story of torture.  As bystander/non-combatant, Sacco is completely unsympathetic.  He's in it for the story and images so that he can either sell it to a newspaper or later put it in his graphic novel.  In his greed, however, we come to understand him.  His callousness somehow balances the harshness and humility of the place.

Somewhere through the tales of repression and subjugation however (across soldiers and settlers), he somehow tells a tale of resistance the likes of which James Scott and Verta Taylor would approve. Somewhere on the way to subjugation, he tells the tale of children picking up rocks, political education classes and solidarity building in prison, the pride of having been arrested as a form of social capital and the performance of subordination of a little boy at a check point.  

Although the government "wins" in the pop struggle sense that there is no successful revolution, there is no reduction in the repression, there is no regime change, Sacco questions the completeness of the government victory (discussed above).  Perhaps the quiet, submissive child answering army questions at a road block toward the end of the graphic novel (shown above) is simply biding his time, waiting for his moment to strike.  Perhaps the child harbors a deep-seated animosity recalling all of the pages of repressive action and subtle tales of resistance that came before him.  He, like all oppressed people, wears the mask that grins and lies (Dunbar).  

Now feigning submission ain't the same thing as storming the houses of government or defeating someone on the battlefield, but it is different from cowering in a corner or not acknowledging that you live in a police state.  The resistance is subtle.  The repression appears successful.  Sacco ends, however, with the acknowledgement that just because you don't see the revolution doesn't mean that one isn't coming.  

Graphic novel (2001).  Graphic Novel information.

Four fists up.  That is, the challenger wins albeit not without some serious damage being inflicted upon them and bear witness to one heck of a ride. The story stands out by deviating in many ways from the standard American narrative, although returning to the basic storyline found in most Pop Struggle pieces found in the US.  

Basic story: well, before we go there you need some back story. Prior to where this series kicks in, a group of super beings called the Authority get fed up with the piecemeal, reactionary process of the superhero biz.  Things happen, they have to stop doing what they are doing and save a kitten in the tree, prevent a rape or stop some other universe from taking over this one.  In an effort to be more proactive, they decide to take over the government of the united states and kick out the corrupt politicians as well as capitalistic interests running the society from the background. This is where the current mini-series kicks in.

Things are not all rosy. Well, as any good revolutionary would tell you, it turns out that governing is very different from plugging dams. Governing is very slow, tedious and rife with ineptitude, processes, protocols and side deals. It also turns out that the skill set necessary to beat up a super villain is a bit difference than the one used to negotiate with congress - well, that is until you decide to punch one in the face and break their nose for making a remark (something that happens toward the beginning of the mini-series).

Things take an even darker turn when the leader of the Authority (Hawksmoor) decides that they should kind of reduce the degree of freedoms allowed within the society so that they can institute the policies that they believe would be best for them: e.g., cars that are better for the environment, clothing materials that would be cheaper and draw upon more natural fabrics, outlawing money and a more inclusive spiritual system.  While the objectives represent things that many in 2014 would agree are things that would be decent (all but the getting rid of money and perhaps religion part), the process by which this would be/is being implemented is problematic.  Additionally, after a quick visit to the future by Midnighter it becomes clear that where this is going is not all that bright. The latter fractionalizes the team and in good "political opportunity structure" fashion, the elite divided serves as a ripe opportunity for a challenger to emerge - which it does.

Literally grabbing the biographically available (i.e., those free to engage in social struggle) by grabbing some people out of an old folks home and making them young again (kind of a Cocoon goes Revolutionary storyline), the challengers mount an ever-increasing assault agains the Authority employing weapons like "super charisma" (no, I kid you not).  There are some highly amusing battles but after a particularly violent battle and official defection of Midnighter, America is returned to the Americans.  This is after all of the challenging group are basically killed off and hundreds of Americans lie dying after an especially violent explosion, which was set by a super villain who wanted the world to go back the way it was when super beings reacted to criminal behavior.  So, although the challenging aspiration wins, none of the challengers are able to enjoy it, America is returned to the political manipulations of an economic elite and the Authority retires to get drunk and beat criminals up in back alleys.  The latter is reminiscent of the problem found within societies where soldiers are decommissioned (insert random Jason Statham movie here).  

Comic: American in origin (2004-2005).  Comic information.

Three fists up and a peace sign.  That is, the challengers win but I'm not really sure what they won and there is an element of peace but how they get there is not clear.  My confusion arises from being unclear about what is desired by African Americans at the outset of the movie.  The Butler suggests many things: reduced violence, a seat in woolworths, a ride on greyhound, some food, some housing, equal pay and just a chance in general.  By the end of the film, blacks kind of get this but it is unclear at what cost.  Was all the pain, disappointment, humiliation, violence, inequality worth getting a black president, a handshake with said president, a house and one out of two sons in congress (with the other one ending up dead).  I end the film unable to answer the question and thus the rating is low.

Basic Story: Essentially, there are three stories being told.  One story (following the title) is centered around the lead character in his home: the butler (Cecil Gaines played by Forest Whitaker).  This includes his wife (Oprah), older son (the revolutionary) and younger son (the patriot).  Actually, a better title might have been "The Butler, Oprah, the Revolutionary and the Patriot - Black Life Over 70 years" - awkward and less punchy but perhaps more accurate.  The other story is centered around the oldest son as he ventures out into the world.  This involves a potpourri of every challenger/challenge levied against political authorities by blacks in the United States between 1960 and 1980 (e.g., SNCC, the SCLC and Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and the anti-Apartheid struggle).  The third story is centered around the butler's interaction with the white house, including other butlers and maids, the president and his family, assorted cabinet members and diverse passersby - all whom chime in about how the US government should or should not deal with the black protestors represented by son #1.  

The first story moves through plantation life, the rape of the butler's mother (who as a lighter skinned woman was likely the child of rape herself), the execution of his father by the rapist of his mother, an invitation to house negritude, training as a domestic, escape, more training as a domestic (from Linc from the TV show the Mod Squad which was just completely messed up), work (story three), home acquisition, dinners, some partying (gotta have some black folk dancing), some alcoholism and adultery (bad Oprah), dealing with son #1 seeking to engage in social struggle to his father's disappointment, dealing with son #2 going to war and getting killed, social struggle and cultural change while watching most of it on TV.  

The second story follows son #1 as he seems to try everything to win the affections of some lovely coed (the reason behind many people joining struggle) and while there bringing about change - of some sort. This part of the film is a major disappointment. There is no logic to son #1's activities. He is simply trying stuff.  The (r)evolution is reactionary.  First, he tries non-violence, following some religious leader.  White racists and authorities kick his butt, arrest him and he moves on.  To what though?  Well, some other non-violent tactic and religious leader.  White racists and authorities kick his butt again, arrest him again and he moves on... again. He then finds his way to the Black Panthers and right before more White racists and authorities kick his butt, shoot some Panthers and then arrest him, he moves on. He does not do so, however, because he no longer believes in what the movement is doing at that time (although he alludes to this). No, he leaves because the coed never loved him.  He is not done trying to change though. Like many a beaten black revolutionary, he seeks to engage in community activism and run for office.  There are still arrests but as the objectives have been moderated, there are no more beat downs. The change is subtle: son #1 no longer wishes to change the system (however conceived), he merely wishes to become part of it. With "radicalism" off the table, violence is reduced. The challenger tamed, all that is left to do is some minor channeling and this something that the Butler does well.

The third story follows the butler through his work at the white house.  Here, Cecil learns the ropes on what to do but mostly he learns how to stand still like the lamp or occasionally move slowly like molasses.  Every now and then (seemingly in need of some insight into the "Negro") one of the white presidents will talk at him: "sorry your people are getting jacked up" says Kennedy (paraphrasing); "what do your people want" asks Nixon. All is not lamps and molasses, however.  The butler also engages in his own mini-struggles at the white house trying to get a raise for him and the rest of the help.  The first time, he is ignored.  The second time, he get's it (after he has learned to manipulate presidential access).  Let freedom ring, but not too loudly.  

All story lines come together when Cecil becomes disenchanted with continued servitude around the same time son #1 realizes that the coed doesn't like him.  Worlds collide as the two come to realize that they have both been engaging in a struggle of sorts.  This is where my difficulty arises.  What the heck were they fighting for?  If it was simply a house, three squares, a job and some opportunity, then they got that. Challengers win and the basic argument of the Pop Struggle genre is supported once again where challengers attempt change something and later win.  Every now and then however the film hinted at something else.  Perhaps the black struggle was not about being white folks (i.e., drinking water out of a fountain on the left side - no pun intended, that's where it was).  The film presumes that there is nothing at all distinct about black culture and all that they want is the chance to be white or to not have race be considered when they try to navigate through America.  Now, I will not completely dismiss this objective but is it true?  Some would suggest that it is not and by missing these other things, African Americans have been misunderstood. What about all the blacks that did not get jobs in the white house?  Were they just lazy?  Well, that does not work because there were only so many jobs in the white house. What happened to all the people displaced from the cotton fields shown in the beginning of the film?  What happened to the people out rioting after Martin Luther King Jr got shot?  What were African Americans supposed to do?  What if they could not put up with the indignities launched toward Cecil in his first job or his second (i.e., last)? Black survival in the Butler was premised on African American subservience, wearing the mask that grins and lies, standing still like a plant and timing requests for justice as well as humanity perfectly lest one get dismissed from a room, fired or lynched (an early scene in the movie). The film tries to juxtapose the life of subservience against one of resistance but son #1 gets his ass handed to him as a pseudo activist/coed suitor - time after time. He is only "successful" when he accepts that grassroots change will not work and only through within-system behavior can he gain a voice (not change mind you - just a voice).  Lift every voice and sing but, again, don't do it too loudly.

While centering the story on an individual, success of "the movement" gets individualized.  One sees Cecil's job, home and opportunity to observe (white) power, the eventual success of son #1, one sees the black president, in the last scene one sees the black usher as well as the black security guard but what does this mean?  Are the problems of black america resolved because the white house is open for black employment?  Cecil finally gets to wear his gear from 60 years worth of presidential gifts but is all well?  By the end, Cecil is alone (Oprah died), he is tired, bent (hunched over from years of living and serving) and literally being ushered into yet another orchestrated ritual.  Is he free at last?  Are we?  

Pop Struggle!

Film: American in origin (2013).  Film Information.

Two fists up (kinda).  That is, I think the challengers won but like Matrix 2, it's not quite clear.  This is supposed to be an enticement to watch the next installation but I might be done.

Basic Story: Katniss and her fake man kicked some butt in the last hunger game  - a celebration of the last time the government kicked the rebel's butt (I would rate that one 3 fists up by the way).  Unfortunately for her though, her willingness to kill herself rather than take another's life turned her into a rebellious icon.  This was not her intent, however.  She just wanted to save her sister and hang out with her real man but she got pulled into heroism (or is it heroinism - you get my meaning), insurgency and potentially revolution (just thinking ahead).  Evidently people are no longer willing to put up with the government's gloating about their victory and over-the-top opulence of the wealthy elite who benefit from the situation - think French nobles set in some Terry Gilliam-like future repressive otherworld and you got it.  The have so much food…. How much food do they have?  They have so much food that they have ipecac filled champagne so that they can barf and scarf down some more.  All the while the various districts (places where the subjugated live - like shantytowns) try to get by on scraps.  

The state (led by a sinister Donald Sutherland) sees what's going on (as the ever-surveilling power that it is) and decides to try and eliminate the inspirational Katniss.  But how?  Well, they need to rope her back into a dangerous game (like Prince John ala Robin Hood) and once involved they could kill her or rather she would be killed in the game and the legend would be over.  Well, that was the plan.  She goes, she fights, then fights, then some of those who are supposed to kill her help her (to her surprise) and then she realizes that like the state the rebels have plans for her as well.  WHAT?  She is not only a rebel but probably their most important member.  There's an explosion, the state's all powerful net of repressive surveillance is taken down and Katniss (along with the inner core of the rebellion) escape.  

Sound like Richard Bach's Illusions: Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah?  Sound like the Empire Strikes Back meets Matrix 2?  Yep.  

Did the challengers really win?  Well, I would argue that although the government has not been overthrown (yet), the pace of insurgency has increased and the rebel core is in tact.  If the rebel's have not won completely dethroning Sutherland, it is clearly moving in that direction - boringly and uncreatively so.  Indeed, the only thing that potentially saves this film series is if Katniss gets shot by an arrow that she herself shoots and her fake boyfriend decides to date her real one raising her child that she gives birth to right before her passing (acknowledging that this way they can still keep Katniss alive).  This would lead to an interesting court battle as Katniss' sister and mother might file for custody.  And, did they really need to beat up Lenny Kravitz in Rodney King like fashion.  He is the only recurring black character in the film.  But, I digress.  

Pop Struggle!     

Film: American in Origin (2013).  Film Information.

Three fists up!  Yeah, you heard me three.  That is, the challenger wins and the conflict between evil, repressive government (i.e., parents) and the innocent, fun-loving citizens (i.e., children) is resolved - at least for a few years.  Were you surprised that the challenger/upstart/youth won?  Nope.  Was the ride to the victory well worth it.  Most definitely.  Oh, spoiler alert.

Basic story: well, there is this repressive government that in typical  marxist/neo-marxist fare is actually beholden to big business.  This accounts for the leader's name: President Business.  Folks are repressed (i.e., they are restricted in a bunch of different ways) but more frequently they are self-regulating (aka subject to false consciousness). The humdrum nature of life under authoritarianism should be familiar (e.g., cue Neo in the Matrix or the lead character of the graphic novel Nil: The World Beyond Belief). The lead character follows/falls for some cute subversive (cue the White Rabbit and Trinity from the Matrix) who gets him on the Dictator's most wanted list).  Off they go to find the rest of the "merry men" (aka Robin Hood). 

The chase scenes are marvelous.  The creativity in displaying how things are created and destroyed is endless but if you were into the Green Lantern comic as a kid, this was pretty standard fare.  The revolution has it's zealots (the Morgan Freeman/Yoda like character), it's hesitants (the Batman/C3PO like character) and the unexpected hero that chimes in just at the right time (the Unikitty/Han Solo like character).  They suffer some setbacks as all films of Pop Struggle in America do. And, just when you think the challengers might fall, the one (Emmet - the plain everyMAN) realizes that they he is the one and in typical one-like/christ/savior like fashion he comes to the fore, showing everyone that they to have a role to play in the revolution or, reform, as it were.