Where We Stand
Ask a history student about art periods and they could easily rattle off a small but general list that covers the majority of artwork in the past 500 years. We focus on the shift to a new style of work, and look at the historical context to give some explanation on why artists changed the way art was made. This is an effective approach, and gives students some grasp on why impressionism became popular at the advent of industrialism, and why cubism and surrealism rose to popularity when the world was falling apart between World War I and World War II. I propose a different approach, to study where a society stands in terms of its reaction to art, and not why the art was made to begin with. We might find that it is more enlightening to understand why the Eiffel Tower was bemoaned when it was first constructed, and now stands as the singular icon for a nation. I will carry out my proposal using the reactions to La La Land as the frame to analyze where we stand today as a society.
A film featuring two white heterosexual leads aspiring to make it big in entertainment seems thoroughly outdated and trivial in comparison to the struggles of a gay black man or that of a tragedy-struck family. While creative, it doesn’t dare to dream as far as Arrival or the characters in Hidden Figures. Its enduring popularity in the face of its competition, and the context of our society, has brought many of America’s systemic problems to the foreground. It is through these reactions that we can analyze where we stand as a nation.
As a movie that focuses on the jazz music, but has a white man as one of its primary protagonists, race has become a primary point of discussion when analyzing the film. It is very obvious that Jazz originated from Black music and it is just as known that many of the great jazz artists were black. Looking online, one can see a litany decrying the “whitesplaining” of jazz, and the lack of black actors and characters in a jazz movie.
It is important to note, that in an era dedicated to breaking boundaries and blurring the lines that separate us, we do not appreciate a white man passionate about Jazz, but rather take it as an offense that it is a white man who tries to save the genre and not a black one. These reactions paint a society that’s aching to see diversity pervade its media, but antagonistic when it is driven by the typical white lead. This is a society that is trying to repair racial wounds, and fight injustices, whether or not they are there. Moreover, we can see signs that the nation no longer cares for the established order, of white men and women saving the day. They want to see a new order where a diverse set of characters, racially and sexually, are given the chance to be the heroes in the story. Thus a story about a white man enthralled with Jazz, a premise thoroughly normal, is against the mission of diversity, and therefore, offensive.
Similarly, if we look at the reactions in terms of gender politics, we again see a society that is failing to reach an assured sense of gender equality. When Sebastian, the main male lead, hears that Mia, the main female lead, hates jazz, he immediately takes her to a Jazz club to talk about his passion. It is a moment to show his passion, and in the moment, he is as vulnerable as we have ever seen the character, but it has become iconic for its demonstration of “mansplaining”. Rather than a moment for Mia to understand the passion Sebastian has for Jazz, it is used as a moment to show the affirmation of power that men try to assert over women in real life.
These reactions stem from the festering scars of gender equality in our culture. It is hard to blame individuals for perceiving this moment in the film as dismissal of a woman’s opinion, when it happens so often in daily life. If we took the same scene and replaced Mia with a male friend instead, this reaction would not take place. It is simply a friend showing another why they are so passionate about their field and what they might be missing out on when they state they hate it. Since the act itself is harmless, it is the inherent perception that the audience has of interactions between a man and a woman that give it the negative connotation. It reflects the fragile nature of gender equality in our culture, and signifies the lack of equality woman feel within our society.
It is quite possible that these reactions are just from a few that grow tired of the hype that surrounds this movie. The audience and critics have had overwhelmingly positive reviews for the movie. But the number of critical pieces continue to be made and gain traction. Whether these reactions are indicative of a larger opinion, or whether they are simply exploiting Oscar fatigue to gain like, they reveal fundamental fractures in our society.
Race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, party affiliation, and many more fundamentally divide this nation. There is a layer of mistrust that constitutes our social fabric, and it forces us to grow further and further apart, when the general idea is to come closer together. Since the days of 9/11, this nation has fostered polarization in order to gain support to fight the terrorists, but with the advent of social media, polarization has increased exponentially, forcing us to be hostile. The mistrust inherent within our society forces us to question the true motive of any action or individual. Without any other context, hearing that a man was hired over a woman for a position automatically make us believe sexism was involved. When Indian cuisine is used an inspiration for an American dish, my immediate thought is cultural appropriation, not diversity.
We stand apart, fearful of where others might lead our nation. We stand apart, growing in hostility, to ensure our groups survival. We stand apart, knowing that we can only survive together.