Popular Posts

Showing posts with label Ides of March. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ides of March. Show all posts

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Review: Moneyball; Foucault and the Dominating Discourse;The CUT

Moneyball is not an art film, an Oscar film, a best anything film. What it is is a "Foucauldian CUT" about the Discourse of baseball. Just like Warhohl's Campbell Soup Can in art historical criticism and Stephenie Meyer's Twilight in the history of sexuality.

The Foucauldian grid of power/knowledge so revealed and concealed in Ides of March is front and center in Moneyball. The grid is revealed clearly in the Discourse. In one of the first scenes we see Billy Beane/Brad Pitt in a manager meeting with his field coaches. They have lost their three major players and must rebuild their team with less than a million dollars, a quarter of a million dollars to be exact for the Oakland A's who will be up against Boston, the Yankees, etc, the multi-million dollar clubs. They have been the farm team for the big players. And isn't Hollywood the same. The independents develop the unknown stars who win awards, and the big studios grab them. and then ruin them in some franchise or CGI dumb fuck film or other.

Agnes Martin - a visual power/knowledge grid
So we listen to the Discourse of the general manager and his under managers. These men know baseball. They have often been players themselves when younger. Including Billy Beane whose backstory we get in bits and pieces of flashback. Handled very well I think.

They talk about how they throw, how they hit, how they play, whether they have ugly girlfriends (men who have ugly girlfriends lack confidence) and so on. This folks is the Dominating Discourse of locker room coach picking new talent to recruit.

It is physical talk, psychological talk, interpretive talk, theoretical talk. It goes round and round like picking a deck chair on the Titantic. This is what the Dominating Discourse sounds like in any field of study. It is the Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge in linguistic action. When you are in it, you are like the goldfish in the water, in the bowl.

Beane/Pitt keeps saying they don't have the money to compete, that they must "think different". What does thinking different mean? How? Impossible within the Discourse. This is what Foucault spent his life doing. Teaching us to think differently. To follow Nietzsche and think genealogically. Thinking genealogically, says Baudrillard, and I agree, is the ONLY way to think.

Beane/Pitt goes to a higher up meeting to bargain and meets a young man, a very fat young man, whom he talks to aggressively. Jonah Hill/Pete is a math and stat wizard recently graduated from Yale and he has developed a model for picking talent. Mathematically. With spreadsheets. Beane/Pitt goes with him all the way.

And the managers' Discourse begins to change as Beane/Pitt tells them what they are gonna do now. They argue, dismiss, but Beane is the General Manager with the authority, so subterfuge and undermining begins. Seymour Hoffman is the field manager who is most articulate and stubborn, refusing to do it. Pitt begins to trade his players out from under him to force him.

The team Pitt/Beane and Jonah/Pete have assembled must be used for the purpose they assembled them for, not for the whim and purpose of the field managers.

Ignaz Semmelweis
I digress here to discuss the same Discourse roadblock concerning women's childbirth. Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis was a Hungarian doctor saying that doctors should wash their hands with antiseptic before assisting in childbirth. A furor akin to the managers in Moneyball erupted. This is what happens when a change in the Discourse begins to occur.


...statements like Dr. Charles Meigs', a leading obstetrician and teacher from Philadelphia: “Doctors are gentlemen, and gentleman’s hands are clean”, were the attitude of the time. So women continued to die in larger numbers when male doctors assisted them in hospitals, but less so when midwives did, or when they gave birth at home. Such is the power of the Dominating Discourse. Semmelweis was committed to an asylum and died at 47 in an asylum. He could not prove his assertions.


A Discourse is composed of words and they often kill.

Foucault: People know what they say. Frequently they know why they say what they say. What they don't know is what they say does.


As the Oakland Athletics go on a winning streak the likes of which have not been seen in a very long time: 20 games in a row! Resonating beautifully with that subtle and marvelous book by Paul Auster The Music of Chance.

Beane/Pitt is offered a contract with Boston for 12 million, the highest offer any general manager has ever been offered or received. And along with that check, the Boston CEO tells him:

The game has changed. The older ones who keep on in the old way are finished. They are the dinosaurs.  Baseball will be done according to your model from now on. What you have done with a quarter of a million against millions to be spent on a team by us and by the Yankees, to beat us and show us, has changed the game.

And this is the "FOUCAULDIAN CUT"! In just a few sentences the Dominating Discourse has changed. And as Foucault has told us it can change with lightening speed.

Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
It is a cousin to Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It is different. Kuhn has demonstrated with Pasteur that change does occur in scientific paradigms, but it is slow as the older dinosaurs in power must die out.  Reading Kuhn through Foucault it is the Discourse that must die out, the power/knowledge grid in any given field that must change. And Discourses do not change in all fields at once. It seems like a meteor hit the dinosaurs though. An EVENT coming from "elsewhere" unpredictable, unplanned, unprogrammed, unprecidented, an aberration.

At the end we are shown 2 Events. Seymour Hoffman sends in a pinch hitter. The Oakland A's have had an 11 home run lead towards their 20 game in a row winning streak. Now they are tied 11-11. The pinch hitter chosen for exactly that by the stats, hits the winning home run for a 12 -11 win for the A's. Almost an Event except that it had been predicted by the stats. Then Jonah/Pete shows Beane/Pitt a film. An overly heavy player hits and runs to the base and then slides back not knowing he has hit a home run. Astonished he runs around the bases. This is the Event described by Foucault.

Seymour Hoffman is so excellent in every film he does. He is always Seymour Hoffman and always the character he plays. In the same way Humphrey Bogart inhabited his character and was still Humphrey Bogart. No matter how small the part, he owns it.

Brad Pitt does not look healthy. He has aged far too much in such a short time. Nicotine is taking its toll on him.









Friday, December 30, 2011

Review: Ides of March: A Foucault Look At US Politics


Director:George Clooney
Writers:George Clooney
Grant Heslov
Actors:Ryan Gosling
George Clooney
Marisa Tomei
Evan Rachel Wood
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Paul Giamatti
Max Minghella
Jeffrey Wright
Producers:George Clooney
Leonardo DiCaprio
(executive)



   This is a subtle, dazzling movie. Clooney's direction is sure, inspired and perfect. The cast couldn't be better and that includes Clooney. The music enhances, it doesn't tell you how you are supposed to feel. I think we can see how the power shift is occurring in Hollywood by looking at the players above. What this film has is integrity, something that is lacking in most major productions in tinseltown.


Clooneyis handsome and idealistically sincere. His idealism is real and it begins to show cracks before we see the break. As his idealism turns into cynicism his facial mask becomes that of a liar.  

Gosling is as always perfectly intense, intensely perfect. Beginning as idealistic very smart press secretary to 

Seymour Hoffman's superior position in charge of Clooney's campaign for the nomination, he is the tough cynical warhorse.  

Tomei is the seductive tough journalist using everything she's got, 

Giamatti could play  smart sleaze in his sleep.

And Evan Rachel Wood ..... well, Dylan says it best:

Just Like a Woman
. . . . . . .
She takes just like a woman,


And she aches just like a woman
   And she wakes just like a woman,   
Yea, but she cries just like a little girl.
             
.......
You take just like a woman,
And you wake just like a woman
And you make love just like a woman,
But you break just like a little girl.


The secret in this movie is the invisible Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge. It is the structure of the film, one we cannot see with our eyes. It appears to be just another movie of fatal flaws, fatal mistakes, loss of idealism with the oncoming of cynicism as we see in Gosling's face at the end. 

Just another disappointing lack of integrity in a politician and the people who work for him in his campaign. But it isn't. 

What it is showing us is the impossibility of integrity in a political campaign. While I don't think Clooney believes this, he also probably isn't steeped in Foucault as I am. Caught in the interstices of the Grid, no one can wiggle free. Perhaps it was never possible but it was never so obvious as it is now. So observed as it is now. The hypocrisy is voiced in the dialogue, but the exposure of hypocrisy is not enough. It is only a distraction. It is only Deterrence from the real observed very fine mesh of the grid of power/knowledge.

The system is not at fault. the politicians are not at fault. In fact no one is at fault. The Grid is the structure. Genealogy is the method that exposes it. Foucault expanding on Nietzsche's genius.       



Foucault spent his life giving us the genealogy of power in the way it fuses and is always in a functional relation with knowledge. Power/Knowledge is fused, melded, inseparable. Power is in a functional relation with  Knowledge. Power is not something someone has, a government has, a president has, or a person can have. It does not oppress us from the top down, contrary to our perception, our belief, our unquestioning understanding. Power is not something someone has or does not have, something someone gives you or takes from you. One person can dominate another, but that is not power, and it can shift at any time.

Power/Knowledge is a functional relation and nowhere is it made so crystal clear as in The Ides of March. 

If you want a more traditional review go to Ebert here. Ebert says in his review, The film also raises the question of whether it is possible for any candidate to win and yet remain true to his original values. He's just a whisper away from Foucault, eh. Then come back for a Foucauldian analysis. I’ll wait.

Here’s one of my favorite visuals for the Foucault Grid of Power/Knowledge: Agnes Martin. She painted lots of these grids BTW.
Agnes Martin













An object does not exist until and unless it is observed. - William Burroughs