This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
Postmodern amorality on display in new movies
Go
Directed by Doug Liman (1999)
Election
Direction by Alexander Payne (1999)
Reviewed by MC12
A Washington Post critic called Go "perversely entertaining" and
compared it to Pulp Fiction. The characters are all self-centered
hedonists with not a care in the world beyond themselves and the
next day's fun. In Election, what looks like a model high school
civics teacher and a model dedicated student both turn out to be
completely self-absorbed, with no regard for the democratic
principles they espouse.
Both movies could be seen as critical of the empty characters,
offering cynical commentary on current lifestyles. But neither
movie offers an alternative, and both end up making their vacuous
characters -- the only ones there are -- lovable and even
admirable. MIM is not above taking cynical potshots at pop
culture, and laughing along as pseudo-rebellious teens mock
dominant morals (Go) or the farce of democracy in a mainstream
high school is exposed (Election). But we don't offer these
cultural criticisms without trying to build up an alternative,
culturally and politically.
Both of these movies offer amorality, that is the lack of a moral
center. There are no good guys or bad guys. This is one trademark
of self-identified postmodern culture: instead of "imposing a
morality" on the audience by identifying someone as good and
someone as bad, they offer a collage of characters each pursuing
their own interests. An additional postmodern trait of both movies
is the lack of a narrative center. Each movie is told by different
characters at different points, more postmodern attempts not to
"impose" one view of the story. Having different narrators tell
the same story can be an effective tool to show how different
kinds of people see the same thing differently, but when they are
presented as morally equivalent the result is just more amoral
wheel-spinning.
In Go, a set of California young people go through one action-
packed night revolving around the drug ecstasy and the rave scene,
sex and prostitution, violent incidents and injury, and so on. The
same story is told through several different voices. The humor in
the fact that the characters are all shown as being essentially
untouched by their experiences. Even the womyn who is run over by
a car by one person and almost shot to death by another is seen
trudging to work the next day as if nothing much had happened. (In
our theater, as the audience roared with laughter at this scene,
one member of the audience could not contain herself, and yelled
out: "This is NOT funny!" She was right if she was describing a
scene in real life. But in the movie, the scene WAS funny, which
is the problem with the movie.)
In Election, a young, precocious and obnoxious high school student
is running for class president. She is ruthlessly civic-minded,
seeing herself as a future president, but also revoltingly self-
promoting. The civics teacher who supervises student government
decides he can't deal with her for a year as class president, so
he sets about undermining her election. You might think he is a
hero, because his denunciations of her ring true. But his
completely unprincipled approach to the problem, and his
subsequent back-stabbing antics (including sleeping with the wife
of his best friend), undermine is would-be good character.
Like anarchists, postmodernists say they want to avoid providing
leadership -- in the form of morals or even a narrative with a
perspective -- because they think leadership itself is
destructive. And like anarchists, postmodernists cannot help but
provide leadership, if only by example. In both cases, the
leadership of non-leadership is in support of the status quo.
Their example is one of tolerating the current dictatorships in
practice, by failing to offer a serious alternative.
Go offers an implicit criticism of bourgeois morality and its
repression of young people. And Election debunks myths of Amerikan
democracy. But in their presentation of comic anti-heroes they
celebrate a do-nothing, self-serving approach to these problems.
And that is where MIM departs from their postmodern creators.