BELIEF IS FOR THE BIRDS - BIRD BOX ANALYSIS

A while back, I watched the Netflix film, Bird Box, and wrote out a few thoughts.  This is less a review and more an analysis of the themes and symbolism used in the film.

There was a lot of chatter about this movie when it was released and I can see why.  It's one of those films which is just vague enough to illicit speculation and varying interpretation while giving enough specifics to ground it in experiences that anyone can relate to.  Personally, there were some things about it that I found a bit frustrating as someone who generally likes to know what's going on and why. Also, the practical logistics of all this suggest some massive plot holes in terms of how anyone could survive this scenario at all.  However, when you're dealing with allegories, sometimes its best to put practical considerations aside and deal with what's being presented with a certain suspension of disbelief.

Allegory is certainly what this presents the viewer, but which allegory is where interpretation may vary as I can see a few possibilities cropping up.  I saw some comments before watching this which theorized it's about racism, so I went into it looking for those references, but honestly, I don't know if that's really very pertinent to this tale.  For me, the most obvious conclusion to draw from this story is that "ignorance is bliss", given that the main contention here is that what you don't see can't hurt you.  From there, I suppose the question is, what could one ignore to the point where it would be advantageous to one's survival?

In the film, "seeing is believing" takes on a new meaning as each individual goes through their own reaction, though these reactions tend to break down into two main variations. Either one becomes suicidal and self destructive or one becomes a "convert" to whatever this menace is and attempts to ensure everyone around them is exposed to it as well. The "converts" seem to be able to continue to function in the world in some sense while the others seek nothing beyond immediate and irreversible annihilation. What's left are those few who remain ignorant or unexposed as long as they don't see what's in front of them.

When I consider the symbolism, I can't help but see a connection to the current political climate, particularly in the US.  People who get wrapped up in the madness either feel hopeless and helpless or they become part of it and try to encourage it. Those who refuse to get absorbed by it seem few and far between, but maybe they're the ones who are best off. I don't know. This idea that being blind to something can protect you from it seems counter-intuitive to me.

Since watching it, the interpretations I've come across have focused on Mallory and how the story is about her connecting with people again after starting off as an isolated, detached character afraid to love or commit to relationships. I'm not so sure that's the real point of what's going on here either.  I don't know how the act of cutting off perception of the world around you is supposed to help bring people together.  I've always felt that the opposite of that was true.

I guess where that leaves me is confused as to the moral of the story given that we never find a way to exist in this world without being restricted in a very major way. Though the main character finds herself discovering her ability to care about others and create relationships, she's still trapped in a world where exposure to it leads to destructive and devastating consequences. It's a place where, ultimately, the people who are most adapted to it are those without the ability to perceive it. Truly a case of "the blind leading the blind".

After considering it for a day or two, however, I finally hit on something that made sense to me.  The key is looking at the basic metaphysics involved here and the question of whether what's happening is "natural" or "supernatural".  The answer to that, for me, is obviously the latter.  This is not some virus or man made contagion or invasion.  This is some kind of divine judgement.  This is what happens when humanity sees that there is no "God".  

Most people can't deal with it and, faced with an indifferent, uncaring universe, implode and self destruct.  Some, the "atheists", embrace it and want everyone to see what they see.  They go around trying to make everyone look at what they see.  The "monster", for them, is beautiful and they're shown as godless heathens.  The "believers" that remain spend the movie trying not to see the "truth".  They end up trying to survive in an isolated enclave run by "blind" people, those who are incapable of seeing the truth of a godless universe and continue to live in ignorance. They survive by ignoring the evidence of their senses and clinging to their belief.

This is what religion offers.  It's an excuse to keep your eyes closed and not see the vast indifference of the universe and how it swallows us up in its enormity.  Those who embrace this knowledge are characterized as fanatics and insane, when the reality is that the believers are really the ones who are locked away from understanding reality.  Ultimately, this film is an endorsement of ignorance as a means of security and safety.  It tells the viewer that seeing is a curse and that blindness is a blessing. 

A FAREWELL TO KINGS

As a fan of Game of Thrones, I've been noticing all the theorists positing their predictions on who will end up taking the "iron throne" as the series wraps up its final season.  As I consider these, it occurs to me that nothing would be more tedious and boring than if this whole show was about no more than who ends up in that seat.  Personally, I don't care if it's a Lannister or a Stark or a Targaryen.  If this has all been about no more than a play for power, then it's just another tired fairy-tale driven by the same old cliches as the rest of them.  But I think ol' R.R. Martin deserves more credit than that and I'm hoping he delivers a surprise twist in the end that no one is really expecting.  

What I'm hoping for is that he shows that the throne itself needs to be put into question and the idea of its power, and those who wield it, needs to be challenged.   I'm hoping that, by the end of this series, NO ONE is on the throne.  I'm hoping that the entire power structure it represents is destroyed.  The reason I'm looking for that kind of resolution is because fiction is meant to offer humanity an opportunity to address its foibles and there is no folly which is more urgently in need of addressing than the concept of hierarchical power structures.  

This concept, that we have one "leader" who then dispenses authority to (usually) his minions below,  has been at the root of human social structures since the beginning of civilization.  One might argue that, since it has lasted so long, perhaps it is because it is a reasonable, logical structure to use for organizing humanity and we should not be too eager to usurp it.  But I think, if humanity is going to have any hope at all of surviving for the "long haul", you know, like more than another century, we're gonna need some RADICAL new approaches to social order because what we're doing now is really NOT working.  

At the moment, the United States is offering a prime example of how bad this concept can get when you put the wrong person at the top.  Its entire governing structure has been co-opted and corrupted by an organized gang of criminals intent on using that system for their own personal gain with ZERO consideration for the welfare of those being governed nor the wider global system with which it interacts.  These people couldn't be more blatant about their nefarious intent if they were Batman villains running around with clown makeup and top hats.  It is this system of hierarchy which has allowed this kind of corruption to exist because it places leadership on a level above reproach and beyond being responsible for its actions.  The failure of the FBI's recent obstruction investigation to level any legal response against these con artists is only the most superficial symptom of the sickness which pervades every level of so-called "checks and balances" which were supposed to prevent this kind of abuse of power.  

Western democracies may not be run on the principle of the "divine right of kings", but what we see evidenced is no less a process of rule by elite where privilege and paternity are the primary deciding factors in determining who makes the decisions and where the power flows.  Even in Canada, we have a political dynasty with Trudeau while in the US, families like the Bush and Kennedy clans continue to hold influence.  Ultimately, however, it is the mighty dollar that is the primary factor in determining who gets to make the rules and who has to "pay the piper".  Capitalism is fundamentally a "top down" system whereby authority is based on financial resources and nothing more.  It merely measures accumulations of wealth and uses that as a basis upon which to align its hierarchy.  "Old" money may tend to have more sway as we see certain long standing families entrench themselves into the system, but "new" money can always find a foothold when it gets big enough.  

It's also not just a problem of having the wrong people at the top.  No amount of shuffling the deck will counteract the corrupting influence which unfettered authority imparts.  The old saw about "power corrupting" is well earned and copiously demonstrated by examples going back through the centuries.  There is no such thing, in practice, as a "benevolent" dictatorship and democracy doesn't really help in terms of putting better people at the helm.  The power structure is the same as a dictatorship or a monarchy.  It's always a "top down", pyramidal organization.  The only thing democracy did was replace succession via birthright or military might with a popularity contest whereby the lowest common denominator ends up in the seat, often dumbed down to the point of idiocy as we've seen with that powdered pinhead, Trump.  

If we're going to move away from this sort of power structure, the obvious question is, what's the alternative?  Here we are in dire need of an epiphany or a true paradigm shift.  I'm too entrenched in the old system to be able to fully conceive of a new one.  I've been raised in it and conditioned by it my entire life so that I can barely help but differ to it or manage to scrape enough conscience together to question it in these fading years of my senior life.  I've seen glimpses of an alternative in recent years in the decentralized organizational murmurings of the "Occupy" movement from earlier in this new millennium.  It flashed into view for a brief moment, like a spot fire in the forest, popping up here and there across the globe, but it seems to have been quickly stamped out by the "powers that be" since then.  I've seen very little progress or evidence of it lately.  But I do believe that something in some similar form is lurking on the horizon if we can manage to survive this century without turning our home into an uninhabitable wasteland.  

I think the ingredients are fundamentally basic.  Firstly, no single person should be put in a position of ultimate authority.  Though it has become a common cliche to think of committees as "places where ideas go to die", some form of communal decision making process is required.  Above all, it must be structured in a way that eliminates the special interests of privileged minorities from dictating outcomes and defining values and benefits.  Considerations need to be given in terms of individual exceptions and variants, but not at the expense of the greater welfare.  Secondly, the people within government should be appointed to these positions on the basis of merit and experience.  No appointment should be irrevocable and the process should be transparent, subject to auditing and amendable as greater understanding of any given role is gained.  Qualifications should be based in practical experience.  For example, oversight of medical institutions should be done by people who have worked in the field, either directly as practitioners or within the administrative branch.  This farce of incompetent buffoons currently holding government offices who have no knowledge of their particular area of specialization would be wiped out under a proper peer reviewing appointment system.  

The concept of democratic input into processes and systems also needs to be framed within the confines of a system whereby basic rights and freedoms are guaranteed and NOT subject to curtailment or elimination based on populist fads or frivolities.  A lot of this sort of thing has been attempted, to some extent, within existing western constitutions and charters, but much of it remains exposed and vulnerable to politicking by special interests and ideological extremists who seek to impose their beliefs within the system.  The fact that something as fundamental to human health as abortion continues to teeter on the brink of criminalization after decades of debate and practical example is a glaring failure within government to secure the rights of a major segment of the population, the half of it which happens to be of the female gender.  That such a massive portion of the population must exist with such uncertainty and fear is inexcusable for any civilized society.  That this hasn't caused the populace to erupt in riots in the streets is no less than a miracle.  

Of course, this is merely a scratch upon the surface of an issue too massive to be grappled with in such a minor bit of contemplation.  Changing out that cornerstone of human civilization is a task which, I suspect, shall only come about when it becomes a necessity.  Its consequences will be too painful for those who have sheltered their existence inside those old walls.  Those who have, until now, found safety within that dying paradigm will not surrender it without a struggle.  Indeed, it may take the utter collapse of what we call "civilization" to enable a clear field for the construction of a new edifice of social order.  Only when we have suffered that catastrophe shall the inevitability of change be thrust upon us.

HELLO, MARRY SUE

In the past year, I've become acquainted with a term which I predominantly hear associated with female characters in science fiction and fantasy TV, films and books.  The term, "Mary Sue", (with it's male equivalents, "Marty Stu", "Gary Sue", or "Larry Stu"), is used to identify fictional characters who posses traits that make them "too good to be true".  They supposedly have some combination of abilities and talents which render them essentially "flawless".  The proposed purpose of the term is to identify unrealistic, unbelievable characters who lack depth and detail in terms of offering any internal conflict or flaw which may drive narrative interest.  

On the surface, this terminology would seem applicable to either gender equally, but in practice, I have observed a very definite bias in terms of how the term is used and against which characters. With very little variation, it is almost exclusively used against females.  Even the fact that there are multiple variants of the male version tells me that its use in that context is irregular and significantly less frequent.  The fact that there only seems to be a single female variant tells me that its purpose is much more aligned with some deeper sexist intent.

In recent years, there has been a marked shift within the realm of fiction towards a more inclusive, diverse narrative, with the use of competent, capable female lead characters becoming more and more prominent.  In contrast with this, there has been a corresponding backlash from the male audience.  A kind of "toxic" fandom has evolved within this breach whereby those who feel threatened in some way by this shift, pick out these characters and, invariably, tag them with the epithet, "Mary Sue".   Recent examples include Rey in Star Wars and Michael Burnham in Star Trek Discovery, with both characters being on the forefront of so-called "fan" revolts whereby orchestrated campaigns have  taken place to sabotage ratings systems with negative reviews and comments. 

The use of the term seems to be intended to undermine any attempt to portray a female lead in any kind of heroic context.  Any indication of significant competence and ability will trigger the use of the term.  Yet male heroic characters seem to be immune to the accusation and are rarely, if ever, included in such attacks.  This audience faction seems determined to retain limitations on female characters to such roles as the "damsel in distress", someone to be "saved" by the male heroic character.  Attempts to modify this trope and introduce variant dynamics are seen as insincere manipulations by a "liberal" elite to introduce concepts of "social justice" as a means to violate the sanctity of male superiority and control.

I've seen it used in this context so frequently that the term has become something of a trigger word, like "libtard" or "snowflake", for that particular brand of retrograde, reactive mentality which balks at any and all attempts to think in progressive terms or address any kind of imbalance in the social sphere as it applies to gender roles and characterizations.  Scratch the surface of any male tossing the term "Marry Sue" into a critique and I guarantee you'll find someone struggling with insecurities and usually lacking social tact when dealing with members of the opposite sex.