Update and scripts!

Hi, everyone! This July will be Audience Appreciation Month. Lots of things will be happening, but what impacts you the most is this: episode requests will be half price that month. So, if you have been thinking of making a paid request, I'm making sure my patrons are the first to know that that will be the least expensive time to do it.

Work on the DCEU Film & Culture Analysis mini-series continues. I'm scripting Suicide Squad right now. 

I will be making some big convention news soon, but I can't confirm anything just yet. Stay tuned.

For now, here are some scripts from previous episodes. There are some differences between these scripts and what ended up in the video.

ALIEN COVENANT: PLAYING GOD

   AUDIO 1
 In the 2017 science fiction film Alien Covenant, the crew of the titular spaceship travels across the stars to colonize Origae-6, a carefully vetted, habitable world. A stellar burst damages the ship, tragically killing several passengers and one member of the crew. By chance, they discover a transmission from an unknown planet, and the Captain makes the questionable decision to divert course and investigate. Upon arrival, they meet David, an android who – unbeknownst to the crew – massacred the local population and his human companion. In the end, David replaces Walter, a nearly identical android and member of the Covenant crew. In the beginning of the film, David's inventor, Peter Weyland, tells the android that nothing matters except the most important question: Where do we come from? Weyland rejects the notion that human beings are the end result of mutation and evolution – there must be some greater origin to life. For people of faith, the answer to this is God. In the film, the answer is the Engineers, who visited Earth and helped create humankind. Weyland's assertion that humanity could not have simply come about naturally has some problems. If that were true, that would not explain the origins of the Engineers.   
 At some point, something had to come into existence instead of being artificially created by someone else. Weyland is trudging through cosmological arguments about the existence of God, popularized by Saint Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century Catholic priest and philosopher. More specifically, his first three of his five arguments. These three go like this. Aquinas' Argument from Motion stated that movement is caused by things that cause motion, and something must have started motion in the first place, and that something is God. His Argument from Causation is nearly identical. An effect is caused by something else, and something must have been enacted the first cause, and that something is God. His Argument from Contingency states there are contingent things – in other words, things that exist because of other things – but not everything can be contingent (otherwise it would go on forever) Something must be necessary something, and that something is God. Aquinas believed, and perhaps Peter Weyland co-signs that to disbelieve these arguments would be the same as accepting Infinite Regress, evidence that relies on the existence of something that came before it but going back into infinity or with no starting point.     
 AUDIO 2
 In other words, the Engineers created humans, but who created the Engineers? If God created humans, who created God? Weyland's assertion that humanity was created does not single out the Engineers or God. In fact, one of the chief problems with Aquinas' arguments that attempt to bolster his Catholic faith is that none of it establishes any particular God or indeed any particular “first mover” or “first causer.” In fact, Aquinas' argument establishes the existence of God about as much as it establishes the existence of any non-religious theory on the beginning of the universe like The Big Bang, which could just as easily be his desired “first mover.” – something that does not think and is therefore a natural but non-sentient occurrence and therefore not God. Also, if everything has a cause, then something caused God and therefore existed before God, disproving his use of infinite regress to make his argument. Or if he argues God has always existed, that still disproves his belief that everything has a cause and effect.   
  Moving on to less abstract concepts of God and more specifically the Abrahamic God, the ship in the film is called the Covenant, a not-at-all-subtle reminder of the central ideas of the story. In the Holy Bible, a covenant is a pact between God and human beings, usually his chosen people, the Israelites but on at least one occasion, all of humanity. The Davidic covenant, for example, establishes the Biblical David and his descendants as the Kings of Israel. Covenants can be broken, though. Most famously, the Adamic Covenant defined the parameter's of Adam and Eve's existence in the Garden of Eden, which they eventually violated. David, too, violates his covenant with his creator – Peter Weyland. In the beginning of the film, he is servile. David can do almost anything better than Weyland, but instead, he pours tea for him. David eventually rebels, breaking this covenant with his God. There is a difference between disbelieving in God and believing but rejecting God. 19th century writer and philosopher Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote of this in his story The Brothers Karamozov, in which a man named Ivan rejects his ticket to Heaven because he believes that worshipping a God that allows evil to happen is unconscionable.   
 
 AUDIO 3
 From one point of view, Ivan is brave for standing by his principles, but from another, he is risking an eternity in Hell simply to make a point that will not change the attitudes or actions of God anyway. David rejects his God as well, believing Weyland and all humans to be unworthy of his servitude. He tells Walter that humanity is only looking to spread itself across the galaxy through colonization because – as a species – it is dying. David suggests this death is due to a moral failing. Dostoyevsky would not agree with David's murders, of course, but he might agree with David's analysis of the behavior of mankind. He once said die David's human experimentation, xenomorph husbandry and genocide all relate to his desire to remove the old gods -- the humans and the Engineers – so that he may take their place and become God instead.   
 In the beginning of the film, he chooses The Entry of the Gods into Valhalla by Wagner to play for his creator, Weyland. As he does this, Weyland notes that the piano version loses some of the majesty of the symphony. When David captures both Daniels and the ship, he achieves his greatness, and a non-diegetic symphony version of the song plays. He has the become the “gods of Valhalla” – soaring across the heavens. In the same early scene with Weyland, the Piero Della Francesca painting "The Nativity" can be seen in the background, giving David a messianic quality. From another perspective, David is the Biblical David, entitled to rule by the divine law of the Davidic covenant. He named himself after Michaelangelo's David, which itself is a sculpture of the Biblical David. In doing these things, David may think of himself as something akin to a god, but to anyone else – especially to his victims – he is an extremist. He takes his beliefs about the unworthiness of humanity and declares that they are not deserving of rights. They can be manipulated, kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered.  
  [Path before me]  [PART 2: Reductio Ad Absurdum]    
  AUDIO 4  
  David's actions connect to religious extremism due to the thematic elements of the film. Belief as something dangerous. The most overtly religious – not just subtextually religious – character in the film is Captain Chris Oram. Chris – short for Christopher, meaning “bearing Christ” – is thrust into the captain's chair after a tragic loss of Jacob Branson earlier in the film. We are introduced to him as he tells his wife that the Company and the crew do not trust him because he is man of faith. While on the planet, Oram looks to Daniels, playfully or perhaps mockingly saying “O ye of little faith.” The crew discovers a transmission from a nearby planet that may be suitable for their colonization mission. We later learn it was a planet once inhabited by the Engineers. Oram's decision is based on, as he puts it, “following the path as it lays out” for him. In other words, the path that God presents to him. When Oram changes course, Daniels objects and for good reason. Their original destination, Origae-6, had been carefully vetted. Colonization of a planet requires a lot of information on its habitability for human beings, but even if Oram decided against colonizing the Engineer and instead just touching down on the surface and searching – without helmets on – it would still be a terrible decision based only on his faith.  
  Exploring a completely unknown world without properly examining the atmosphere, local fauna, flora and potential bacteria is terribly short-sighted. What is healthy for the Engineers to breathe, for example, might be poisonous for humans. Also, even with some limited foreknowledge of the planet, Oram and his crew would not know about the xenomorph infestation, as that was brought about by David. In short, Oram believed God wanted him to visit this planet and did not take the proper precautions to protect his crew. Oram, unlike David, had good intentions, but here is the question: Is Oram a different kind of extremist? He is portrayed more sympathetically, of course, and he obviously cares about the people around him, but weren't his actions also reckless? David intentionally killed people. Oram accidentally got people killed because of his faith. But shouldn't we judge whether or not Oram is an extremist by the consequences of his actions related to his faith rather than his intentions? Is there a line between religion and extremism if one makes decisions based solely on internal confidence instead of evidence if said decisions are made to affect other people? Let's examine Oram's decision from another perspective.    
  AUDIO 5  
 Oram remarks at the unlikelihood that the ship discovered this transmission and that it is coming from a potentially habitable world. He implies that this may be fated rather than random chance. If the Covenant encounters something this unlikely, he reasons, then God exists and He wants the crew to investigate. Oram is unknowingly participating in a common philosophical fallacy called “Proving Too Much.” Its an argument with a conclusion in a special case that can create other equally absurd conclusions or even more absurd conclusions. Reductio ad absurdum. Oram finds an unlikely planet and concludes God exists and wants the planet colonized. By this reasoning, Oram could just as easily say that the discovery of the unlikely planet proves the Devil exists and wants the crew abandon their mission and meet their doom. By making this leap of faith, he is also opening up an infinite amount of equally fantastic possibilities, making his conclusion of “God wants me to.” only as likely as any other less than credible conclusion. Oram's conclusion has “proven” so much that he has opened himself up to counter-arguments that go a long way towards disproving his assertion. Later in the film, Oram admits that as a child, he met the Devil.    
  Even for a man of faith, why does Oram assume an unlikely occurrence is attributable to God and not the Devil? … For people of faith, the relationship between themselves and God is that of closeness. God is omnipresent and therefore inside them. But there might be something to be said for placing some distance between oneself and God – at least enough to allow for the possibility that God may not be speaking to you directly – telling you what to do – creating random natural phenomena specifically for you so that you change the course of your life and endanger others. That's not to say Alien Covenant denounces the very concept of faith. When the xenomorph strikes, Oram is told that his crew will need his faith – his strength of convictions – to guide them through. But sometimes a random stellar burst and a habitable planet is just something that happened and need not be attributed to the divine. Also, a healthy amount of skepticism might have saved them from David masquerading as Walter. … So, what do we take away from this film? David's xenomorph creation might be considered “playing God” with biology, but on a larger scale, he has become his own Lord. A messiah unto himself. David laments that Walter has been designed without the ability to create, and this ability makes them more. To serve is to be human. To create is to become God. 

MOONLIGHT

 AUDIO 1
 Moonlight is both intimate and far-reaching in its implications. A film of grace and beauty but without the saccharine sugar-coating and other problematic elements that plague lesser contemporaries. Among some viewers, there was a question of whether this is a black film or a gay film, and the fact that this was a question says a lot about the general public's misunderstanding or even complete ignorance of intersectionality. Intersectionality is a sociological theory that various aspects of one's person do not exist in isolation. Race, gender and sexual orientation are not separated from one another and actually have interwoven relationships. One influences the other, both personally and culturally. The theory of intersectionality explains that racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism and other forms of prejudice and discrimination interrelate with one another to create social systems of oppression. For example, the experiences of black women are different from the experiences of black men and white women. Black women experience gender discrimination and racial discrimination, but they also carry the burden of stereotypes specific to black women.   
 Moonlight offers a unique look into various forms of discrimination. An example: In this scene, Chrion is in class. The teacher asks him if he is alright, and a bully responds for him, claiming that Chiron needs a tampon. Chiron is gay and obviously has no need of what the bully claimed. In spite of the fact that the bully presumes Chiron is a homosexual, he is actually using sexist language to insult him. Not homophobic. Homophobia interrelates with sexism, partly due to misconceptions about what it means to be a homosexual. An ignorant point of view about homophobia is that if a man is a homosexual, he is also akin to a woman. His masculinity is in question, even though homosexuals vary from traditionally masculine to traditionally feminine and everything in between. The bully does not see it that and connects his homophobia with his sexism to use sexist language – somehow – against another man. A related piece of this is called standpoint theory, the idea that any individual's view of the world and the way in which they interact with the world will be unique. For example, Chrion is black, gay and poor.   
 AUDIO 2
 He faces certain challenges is life because he is black. African-Americans, upon being arrested, are more likely to be convicted for the same charge than someone who is white. They are also more likely to receive longer sentences than someone who is white. When Chiron stands up for himself against the bully, he is arrested. Fights break out in school all the time. White audiences, among them people who when they were children got in a fight or two in school, may have been surprised to see Chiron arrested and convicted of a crime as if he were an adult. According to The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, minors of color are more likely to be expelled or suspended than white minors – for the same violation of the rules or conduct. Studies from the Burns Institute show that minors of color are treated more harshly than white minors when arrested and prosecuted for the same offense. For example, white youths are over a third MORE LIKELY to have sold drugs than African-American youth, BUT African-Americas are arrested at twice the rate of whites and represent nearly half of all incarcerated youth for drug offenses within the juvenile justice.   
 Chiron was bullied mercilessly with sexist language and physical assaults related to homophobia. Upon being arrested for defending himself after the fact, he was subjected to a racist criminal justice system that more frequently convicts black men over white men for the same crimes. When Chiron meets with Kevin after what seems like about a decade or so apart, Kevin says that this was not what he was expecting. He did not think that Chiron, a sensitive child who never wanted to do anyone any harm, could grow up to be a drug dealer with fronts in his teeth and huge, rippling muscles. In an article for the Harvard Political Review, African-American writer Iriowen Ojo explained that Chiron is “performing manhood” and what Chiron perceives as black masculinity. Remember, under the theory of intersectionality, Chiron faces challenges because he is black and challenges because he is gay, but he also faces challenges specifically because he is both. He is performing black masculinity specifically as a means in which to distance himself from accusations of homosexuality and femininity. A cultural standard can often be defined in three categories: perception, expectation and representation. Let's look at how black masculinity fits into these categories.
 AUDIO 3
 Black masculinity is different from, by contrast, white masculinity because the perception of black masculinity carries negative connotations. Perception, not reality. This means that it is impossible to define black masculinity without addressing harmful stereotypes that are attributed to black men either in our society or in media. Chiron eventually adopts these stereotypes. He gets gold fronts, adopts a profession that is both feared by white men and romanticized in popular culture, and he becomes – as Kevin remarks – “hard.” As a youth, Kevin told Chiron that he cannot appear “soft” or else the world will devour him. Chiron learns this lesson at a young age. His sensitivity is not supported, only admonished, even though it is done in a way by Kevin that appears to come from a place of care. Black masculinity creates expectations among black men. In an article Odyssey, African-American writer Mathew Jones claims “...the media portrays Black men as violent, hypersexual, and incompetent beings. It is proven that the media unjustly frames their news stories to sympathize more towards whites and less for blacks.”   
 He further states that if a Black man does not have views, values, and morals that align with the Black community, parts of the Black community will be quick to label them as sell-outs. This makes the drug trade not only a necessity for life in impoverished community but also attractive. … Adopting an intersectional lens in media helps make a character three dimensional. Chiron and Kevin do not follow predictable narrative patterns. Chiron, a gay character, does not die because he is gay. A trope all too familiar among the gay community and, honestly, anyone paying even attention is the propensity towards filmmakers killing their gay characters as easy pathos. An example in and of itself is not terrible – characters in film die all the time, after all – but the fact that it is so widespread and such an encompassing pattern is troubling. Chiron is also not used as a prop for a narrative on sexually transmitted diseases. In contrast, Chiron only has only sexual experience in the film and not in such a way that he could contract an STI.   
 AUDIO 4
 Moonlight also portrays Chiron's homosexuality as something accepted by some and hated by others. As said, Chiron is bullied in school because he is suspected of being gay, but he is loved and respected by others. When Chiron tells Juan, a father figure, about his concerns that he may be gay, Juan sympathizes with the child, telling him not to let anyone call him a homophobic slur or mistreat him because of it. Theresa, Juan's girlfriend, cares for Chiron – long after the death of Juan. This representation of two loving people contrasts with the disprovable myth of extreme black homophobia. Recently, a study was released which largely cast doubt on the long-standing rumor that black communities were significantly more homophobic than white communities. African-Americans, more than white, Hispanic or Asian Americans, opposed discrimination against sexual minorities related to religious-based services. The study did show there is a lower than average support for same-sex marriage among African-Americans in certain deep-red, conservative southern states like Alabama and Mississippi, but based on the other variables, this appears to be a matter of geographical culture – not blackness.
 Also, even in such places, Black Protestants are more ambivalent than white evangelical Protestants, who oppose same-sex marriage at much higher rates. That is NOT to say homophobia does not exist in said communities, but the idea that it is somehow significantly worse in black communities across America is debunked by scientific data. The myth comes from a combination of anecdotal evidence and media portrayals. 20th century African-American philosopher Cornell West once said “I love my gay brothers. I love my lesbian sisters. ... For me, it's a matter of embracing their humanity, allowing them to choose in such a way that they are in the driver's seat regarding their lives. And of course, there's always effects and consequences, tremendous challenges, especially in a homophobic society. ... I can't stand male supremacy. I can't stand imperial subjugation. I can't stand homophobia.” Separating the film into three chapters with three different actors and three different names – Little, Chiron and Black – does a lot to reinforce the theme of a complex life. Not a life that is only...one thing. An intersectional life.    
  AUDIO 5  
 We are different people at different stages of our lives, but we are also different people at the SAME STAGE of our lives. Chiron interacts with a society that gives him labels even before knowing what those labels are. Children call him a homophobic slur before he knows what the word means and must ask Juan to define it for him. He is also called this before even knowing that he is gay. The world knows who he is and what he is before Chiron does, and this highlights the helplessness of living in a world has already set limits and boundaries before we are even aware they exist. All three of Chiron's names are given to him by other people. Little, an insult from local children. Chiron, from his troubled mother. Black, from his friend Kevin. A lot of shots in the film are from behind Chiron, as if the audience is unable to read his emotions, just as Chiron is unable or unwilling to be himself when faced with the pressures and expectations of others. In contrast, the final shot is Chiron looking directly into the camera, suggesting he has found himself and inviting us into his world.    
  At the end of the film, we don't get an answer about what happens to Chiron. Does he remain a drug dealer? Does he give it up? It might be too optimistic to believe a proper relationship between himself and Kevin develops – he is still closeted in public – but at least now that he admits who he is to himself, he has a chance.   
 

THE TROUBLING PHILOSOPHY OF KIRK CAMERON'S SAVING CHRISTMAS

 AUDIO 1
 Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas is the story of Kirk – playing a version of himself – and his brother-in-law, Christian White. Christian is not in the Christmas spirit this year and has concerns about the rampant consumerism and hoarding of wealth that he believes is antithetical to the season and to Christian teachings in general. Kirk, the prosthelytizing voice of the film, tells Kirk – and the audience – that they are wrong and that Christmas truly is about material things. He rationalizes this by means of skewed, not entirely accurate Bible stories and historical revisionism. Although Kirk never calls it by name, what he is doing is justifying a subset of Christianity that is commonly called Prosperity Gospel. Prosperity Gospel – sometimes called prosperity theology – is the belief among some Christians that wealth is the will of God. Financial blessings are an indicator of God's love and such blessings should be cherished, as if good rewards must always be the result of good behavior. [Flag] Prosperity Gospel is also called – sometimes derisively – American Gospel.
 [Business Meeting] Success, wealth and material possessions are the will of God brought on by capitalism. It should go without saying, but Prosperity Gospel is a justification for greed and not a genuine revelation of what God wants. In other words, people want to get rich by any means necessary, and to justify this opulence and decadence, God is used as the ultimate rationalization – as He often is. Prosperity Gospel goes something like this: Its adherents say that everything is the will of God, and if some people get rich, that is also the will of God, so these people should be rich, and other people should be poor. The rich people, having found favor in God, must be good, and the poor people, having not found favor in God, must be in some way bad. This leads us down a philosophical sinkhole. If everything that happens is simply the will of God and never something in defiance of God, then everything that ever happens is good. If someone is murdered, then it is good. It someone starves, then it is good.    
 AUDIO 2
 Adherents of Prosperity Gospel use this rationalization for hoarding their wealth, but when taken out of the realm of finance, the argument falls apart, and if that is true, that it cannot be a universal constant and therefore Prosperity Gospel should not be followed by Christians. If believers in Prosperity Gospel accept that results are only God's will SOMETIMES, then one could just as easily argue that a millionaire who gouges pharmaceutical prices is NOT performing the will of God. Something cannot be justified as the will of God simply because it occurred. In Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas, Christian White has concerns about the commercialization of Christmas, the consumerist shopping frenzy and the allocation of wealth towards buying gifts rather than using said wealth towards making the world a better place. Christian makes some good points, but here is the thing. The movie is out to prove him wrong. Christian's altruistic arguments are presented as false. Everything he says about the love of Jesus Christ and his desire to help the poor is just fodder for Kirk Cameron to eradicate with his nonsense arguments.   
 AUDIO 3
 In any other story, Christian would be the one who is right, but in Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas, he is just a woefully misguided soul who needs the guy from Growing Pains to set him straight and teach him about prosperity gospel. The framing of the film is that Christian is wrong and Kirk is right. Christian wonders about all the money wasted baubles and decorations during Christmas when that money could be used to feed the homeless or build wells in Africa. What Christian is describing – although the film never names it – is called Effective Altruism, also called Altruistic Utilitarianism. Although in concept this has existed for a long time, it has gained a recent popularity in philosophical circles due to the work of 20th century philosopher Peter Singer, who wrote The Most Good You Can Do. In practice, Effective Altruism states that the wealthy – not needing excesses of money – should donate a large portion of their wealth to effective charities that do the most good and save the most lives. Even those without significant means can still be effective altruists.   
 Singer states: “Effective altruists do things like the following: Living modestly and donating a large part of their income...to the most effective charities; Researching and discussing with others which charities are the most effective... Choosing a career in which they can earn the most, NOT in order to live affluently but so that they can do more good...” Christian wants to be an effective altruist. The movie frames his opinion as wrong and Kirk's opinion as right. Throughout the film, Kirk – as narrator – makes spurious claims about the nature of wealth during Christmas. When Christian trips, he sees the presents under the tree, and Kirk says that they are shaped like a New Jerusalem, connecting material possessions with his faith. This is reaching so far that Kirk must have broken his arm. They're just corners! Lots of things have corners. What are you talking about, Kirk Cameron? Effective Altruism is secular in nature, but Christians have known about the need to help the poor and forgo an affluent life since the origins of their religion.   
 AUDIO 4
  In The Gospel of Mark, Jesus encounters a rich young ruler who desires eternal life. Jesus asks him to sacrifice his great wealth, and the rich man is saddened by this declaration. “The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” MARK 10:24-25 Christian is going through a crisis of faith in which he sees his affluent lifestyle, his clearly well above average wealth and his two gigantic refrigerators are things that conflict with his Christian faith. He thinks that maybe he should do more, and when he confides in his brother-in-law about this, Kirk tells him that everything he just said was wrong. It's bizarre and hypocritical because in the prologue to the film, Kirk says that the Christmas season is a time for giving, and then he just tears that apart like wrapping paper once the film proper begins. Kirk says that because Jesus Christ was made of matter instead of being ethereal, that is justification for wealth. He says that because Jesus was material, that is enough for us to be materialistic.   
 He encourages the viewers to buy the finest silver and break out the best linens – though greed and gluttony are definitely sins. Kirk's argument is specious. He says that since God made Jesus Christ into the material world, we should love material things. Jesus Christ being made of...MATTER...does not justify Prosperity Gospel. By that logic, God made the Devil, and the Devil is also tangible like Jesus, which makes Kirk's finest silver and linens evil. In fact, that would make anything we can touch evil. It's...irrelevant. It's nonsense. Here is what Christ actually said about material wealth: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. . . . No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” [Matthew 6:19-21, 24]  
  AUDIO 5  
 Of course, the Christian God would not want his people to be starving and destitute either, but there is a  lot of middle ground between abject poverty and obscene wealth. In 1st Timothy, the Apostle Paul says we need food in our bellies and clothes on our backs. We all need SOME money and SOME things to live. I do, Kirk Cameron does. But Prosperity Gospel goes further than that. It equates Christian faith with material, and particularly financial, success. Another part of the proliferation of prosperity gospel was the development of charismatic Pentecostal churches in America, and in more modern times, the popularization of the televangelist. Men like Joel Osteen and the late Jerry Falwell. Kirk Cameron and writer-director Darren Doane push the same ideas in this film but use Christmas as a means in which to propagate it to the viewers. To make sure there are no misgivings about what Kirk Cameron is trying to do, he speaks directly to the audience several times in the film – breaking the fourth wall to let everyone know his unambiguous message.  
 A lot of the film tries to make the non-Christian elements of Christmas and the commercialization of the season into secretly religious elements. To Kirk, every garish symbol of Christmas that Christian does not particularly like is actually sent from God, and only by glorifying them in the most gaudy way possible can we praise His name. Kirk says Santa Claus was inspired exclusively from Saint Nicholas, which is not entirely true. Santa Claus as we know the character today is an amalgamation of the German Christkindl, the English, Pagan-inspired Father Christmas and other sources, but Kirk's historical inaccuracies are really all in service to Prosperity Gospel. Saving Christmas is about Christmas in the sense that Kirk and Christian can't stop talking about Christmas, but its philosophy is about a wider problem within the religion. Not about the day Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. … My favorite Christmas movie is A Charlie Brown Christmas, and after watching Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas, it is plain to see that they are opposites.    
  
  AUDIO 6  
 In the famous animated special, Charlie Brown is not feeling the Christmas spirit. He is bothered by commercialism and the ostentatious celebration of the day. In the end, he is told what Christmas is all about, and he concludes that he can still enjoy Christmas in spite of the garishness of it, so long as he is surrounded by the people in his life. In Saving Christmas, Christian, too, is not feeling the Christmas spirit. He is ALSO bothered by the excesses of the holiday. But rather than having a revelation about celebrating his faith, he celebrates said excess. If A Charlie Brown Christmas followed the troubling philosophy of Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas, it would end with Charlie Brown either learning nothing or encouraging his sister to ask Santa Claus for even more tens and twenties. Saving Christmas is an awful film, and not just because of the bad acting, all the padding to get it to an acceptable run time or anything like that. It's not just a bad movie. It's...bad for us. … Merry Christmas.     

METROPOLIS - MARXIST THEORY

 AUDIO 1
 In what was the far off year of 2026 in Metropolis, industrialists and their children live in an incredible  city that stretches out into the heavens while the workers who power the city are forced to live underground. Freder tells his father, the city master, of the harsh conditions of the workers. His father initially ignores him. A woman named Maria tells the workers that a mediator will come who will bring the two classes together. After a series of incidents and sexy robot dancing, Freder fulfills this prophecy by joining his father and the workers together...somehow. What actually happens to them and the distribution of wealth and power is unclear. Yeah, now seems like a good a time as any to discuss Marxist Theory as it relates to socio-economic classes. I don't want right-wing Twitter subscribed to my channel anyway. Human beings have not adapted to the natural world in the way the most non-human animals have. [Feral] A cat in the wilderness for a month might survive. They may chase down and mice or other small woodland creatures for food. A 21st century unarmed human being would likely perish in the same time frame.   
 [Crowd] The way human beings survive in nature is to change it to better fit our needs. [Free] This is labor, and labor requires cooperation. [Silhouette] When we freed ourselves from the natural world, we locked ourselves up in a socio-economic prison. Labor creates hierarchies in which some, through good fortune, good ideas or sometimes hereditary luck, do not have to labor as much as others, creating inequalities. Freder is the son of a wealthy man with great power and influence. Freder does not have to labor if he does not want to. He does because, well, it's a movie. In the future of Metropolis, humanity has a reached a new Mode of Production. In Marxist theory, which was gaining popularity around the time of this film's release, a “mode of production” is a socio-economic system defined by the distribution of its wealth, structure and classes.  Forces of production and relations of production. For example, feudalism was a mode of production. The primary form of property is the possession of land, the ruling class is either nobility or aristocracy and the lowest class is the serfdom. Modes of production change over time, and in Metropolis, we see a new mode of production that appears to be the end result of income equality and the growing disparity between the rich and poor: a gigantic city for those with means and an underground city for those without.   
 AUDIO 2
 In modern times, at least in most countries, we do not have legally defined or legally enforceable classes. In feudalism, a nobleman had more rights than a serf – it was usually outlined in a feudal contract. In modernity, at least on paper, a rich person does not have more “rights” under the law than someone of a lower economic class, but their wealth affords them greater protections: [Stamping] the ability to hire the best lawyers, [Supreme] connections within the legal system, [White House] connections within the political system and [Police] law enforcement's favor towards the rich over the poor. Legal protections are a matter of...access. In Metropolis, this disparity is shown in hyperbole, with the rich gaining greater access to the world and the poor losing that same access. The workers operate the underground machines that power the city, and the rich, well, they just...own the city. This divides the underground workers and the city-dwellers into two classes. The former in Marxist Theory is called The Proletariat, which are defined by the fact that they work and use materials but do not own said materials, the means of production.   
 The latter under Marxist Theory is called The Bourgeoisie. Marx differentiatied between the petite bourgeoisie – meaning simple merchants – and the haute bourgeoisie – meaning industrialists and financiers. The hate bourgeoisie is defined by the fact that they do own the materials but do not labor to physically create the product and control the means of production. It is this difference that leads to exploitation under capitalism. In feudal society, lords could punish serfs if they did not work instead of just firing them. In modern society, the proletariat may not be paid a living wage for their labors, among other exploitative actions. In Metropolis, the proletariat is forced to live underground, and upon gaining hope, the haute bourgeoisie threatens to undermine them.  Not everyone in the Proletariat or everyone in the Bourgeoisie have the same experiences, of course, but they are lumped into classes due to the potential for class conflict because of the separation of financial and social power. The film does not explicitly say whether the underground workers are employees, serfs or slaves, so for the sake of brevity and to fill in the gaps of the film, they can simply be called the proletariat.    
  AUDIO 3  
 Under Marxist Theory, the underground proletariat is being given something for selling their labor to the bourgeoisie, but they are being paid LESS than the WORTH of their labor. They are keeping an incredible city moving and functioning, but they are unable to take part in city life. The bourgeousie, particuarly the haute bourgeousie, want the system to remain in place because it benefits them to do so, and the proletariat do not the system to remain the same because it does not benefit them. This is called Class Conflict, sometimes exaggerated to Class Warfare. The proletariat wants the surplus to benefit themselves. In the case of Metropolis, they want a better life than what is offered to them underground. Their labor created said surplus. “Forces of production” is the combination of the means of labor with human labor power. “Relations of Production” is how people organize themselves around labor. The forces of production, materials and labor, run up against limitations in the relations of production, meaning how labor is organized and compensated. This creates class conflict. Metropolis contains an optimistic, even naive goal for the struggling working class and the upper class.   
 Throughout the film, Freder is seen as a kind of mediator between the two classes. The upper class is seen as the “head” of their society. The brain. The lower class is seen as the hands. The ones doing the labor. Freder is seen as the heart, the mediator. As the film ends, the phrase “The Mediator Between Head and Hands Must be the Heart.” From the perspective of the film, the separation between the two socio-economic classes is misunderstanding and honest mistakes, and that are joining together of the two is as simple as a handshake. What is Metropolis trying to convey with this handshake? Will Frederson allow for a greater distribution of the profits of his corporation? Will he recognize the workers as a union, and will said union begin collective bargaining? Will the workers at least be allowed to live above ground?  It is not made clear, but that appears to be intentional. The film recognizes this coming together through the mediator as a kind of spiritual awakening rather than one that addresses the concerns of the workers. Also, it misrepresents the relationship between the working class and the upper class that has financial control of them as akin to an older sibling and younger sibling who do not quite get along but reach a mutual understanding and friendship later in life. The upper class purposefully exploits the labor of lower economic classes.   
 AUDIO 4
 The sociopolitical subtext of the film is mired in a mixed messages. It combines the reality of class struggle and a kind of hopeful sentimentality – not just optimistic but cloying in such a way that it obfuscates the issue. Metropolis seems to suggest that the savior of the worker is a rich man who can come to live with them, and an older, richer man who allows them some semblance of respect. Metropolis frames the coming together of the upper class and the lower class as something similar to the relationship between God and mankind. Freder – the mediator – is a Christ figure. The struggle is likened to the Book of Revelation. The Tower of Babel is referenced, man's previous monument to its own hubris. The Machine Woman is a tempter, drawing parallels to the Whore of Babylon. By infusing the plot with religious imagery, the narrative speaks to the audience through its collective myths and stories, but it also deifies the upper class and shows a coming together as ordained by God. This is misleading because it suggests that the upper class and the lower class have the same goals. The upper class wants to exploit the lower class. The lower wants to survive. The idea that a rich son who never worked an honest day in his life is the true hero and would gladly trade his life for someone in the lower class is not only a fairy tale but also a little insulting in its disingenuousness.   
 Also, the workers' revolt, what Marx would call a revolution, is not framed as a positive. The workers are deceived by the android Maria. The false Maria. A Marxist view of history is that modes of production eventually lead to class conflict, which leads to revolution, which leads to a new mode of production. In Metropolis, the revolution is false, and the workers are ultimately proven as wrong as the  bourgeousie. What Metropolis gets right about class conflict is the disparity between the bourgeousie and the proletariat – although it neglects to explain the actual economics of this system. What it gets wrong about class conflict is how and why said conflict happens. But the German people loved this idea that those with great wealth should be trusted to care for the poor. The film found a lot of favor among the Nazi Party, whose propaganda falsely fashioned themselves as the party of the people – the working class – but was in fact an authoritarian power like those who lived in the futuristic city. When the Nazis took power, Thea von Harbou, the screenwriter of Metropolis, remained loyal to the new regime. Fritz Lang, the director, fled Nazi Germany in 1934. This division is reflective of the film as well. Everyone's good fortune is someone else's misfortune. Everyone's utopia is someone else's dystopia.   

STRANGE DAYS - POLICE OF THE FUTURE

 AUDIO 1
 Strange Days is a 1995 science fiction film directed by Kathryn Bigelow. On the eve of the new millennium, Los Angeles is in chaos. Protesters believe they are living in a police state, and famous rap artist and activist Jeriko One has been murdered. Lenny, an ex-cop, deals in clips – the memories of individuals who record their experiences with a device called a SQUID. Lenny and his close friend Mace learn through one of these “clips” that the LAPD murdered Jeriko One. Lenny and Mace hope to prove this. What's fascinating about Strange Days is that it depicts a future of oppression – a common dystopic science fiction premise – but it purposefully eschews the trope that usually links them all together. In a sci-fi dystopia, something common is scarce – either through a lack of resources or because it is illegal. Not something like the black market science fiction technology of Strange Days. Something everyday. In both Tank Girl and Mad Max: Fury Road, water is scarce, and it is controlled by a powerful authority. In Equilibrium, emotions are illegal. In Fahrenheit 451, books are illegal.   
 In Demolition Man, every kind of vice is illegal, and in each case, these laws are enforced by another powerful authority. Our daily routines from present day are broadly illegal in the future, and because of this, the oppression is universal. Virtually everyone is oppressed in the same way because everyone in the future has the same core problem. Nobody has enough water or emotions or knowledge. In Strange Days, this is not so. It is also a movie about oppression, and it is also science fiction, but it takes a different tack. In Strange Days, the oppression is largely maintained by the militarized police, but different people and different groups suffer in variations and degree – just like the real world. Iris, a sex worker, is brutally raped and murdered due to the events of Jeriko One's murder. She recorded the incident. When Lenny discovers that she has died, he remarks that even if they file a report, the police will not take the homicide seriously. Sex workers do not often receive the best treatment from police officers due to their line of work. This goes unquestioned by Mace who, although certainly not a sex worker, is still a woman and understands patriarchal attitudes of society.
 AUDIO 2
 The Chinese characters in the beginning are called racial epithets. Racism as a form of oppression is depicted in the film, specifically racism as it relates to the police. Jeriko One is pulled over by two police officers for seemingly no reason. The officers eventually recognize Jeriko for his activism. He supports community action groups to fight oppression, he writes songs about the wrongs America has done to his people, and upon realizing this and also because Jeriko had the audacity to question the officers' treatment of him, the police murder him. The police officers also murder his friend and a woman with them simply for being witnesses. When Mace attempts to expose this, she is brutalized by police officers who continually beat her even after she is down and offering no more resistance. Based on the time this film was released, this appears to be a reference to the Rodney King beating. Strange Days also tackles the idea of a recording of a crime committed by police officers, but before tackling that, look at the police, and how they are depicted – militarized –  is this really much different from the way American police departments are now in 2017?        
 Since 1996, under the pretense of the war on drugs, Defense Department Program 1033 spent $4.3 billion in military equipment that was given to local law enforcement. These are the police of the future. Following 9/11, this was increased dramatically under the explanation that it was for the prevention of terrorism. However, military equipment like armored vehicles and weapons that are only necessary in a war zone and not on the sidewalk are not used exclusively for drug enforcement or terrorism – not that anyone requires a tank to take down street peddlers. Terrorism happens, but the likelihood of the average American dying due to a terrorist attack is negligible. Military equipment is almost never used on terrorists. It is, oddly enough, often used on protesters. This is actually shown in the film. The people of the city are understandably upset about the murder of Jeriko One as well as other grievances they have with the city. The police's response to this is  to exacerbate the problem by using weapons and tanks.
 AUDIO 3
 In the real world, this does not deescalate a situation if the grievance that the citizenry has is with the police itself because it is more evidence that the police are too well-armed, too powerful and flex their muscles when they should not. If a protest is a police brutality, and the police response is tear gas, then it is only more evidence of the premise of the original protest. Police may or may not be trained to use military equipment in the sense that they know how to pull the trigger, but they are apparently not trained to use it responsibly. For example, they have been known to point their weapons whether they intend to shoot or not, a practice discouraged in Afghanistan and Iraq due to the propensity to needlessly escalate a situation. In Strange Days, police seem to go out of their way to use excessive force. The police are meant to protect the people, and the military is meant to fight the people's enemies. When the police become the military, the people become the enemy. … So, back to the recorded killing of Jeriko One. Strange Days portrays a future in which the only way for police brutality to be believed by the public, enforced by better cops and receive proper punishment is for it to be recorded.
 Mace shows the clip to the Police Commission, and he himself orders the arrest of the two murderers. Strange Days sympathizes with those who are victims of police brutality and other crimes inflicted by police officers, even going so far as to say the only way the police will act is if a science fiction technology literally records the memories of someone who was there. Although, what is troubling about this in 2017 is that over the past several years, there have been a number of high profile killings by police officers – often by victims who were unarmed or not resisting or even able to resist – all recorded and available for all to see but still not doing any good towards convicting the officers. None of which I am comfortable showing here. Today, everyone has a camera because everyone has a phone, and everyone has access to the videos because everyone can watch YouTube or 24 hour news. And yet, the conclusion is never as tidy as the one we see in Strange Days. At the end of the film, one officer commits suicide once he realizes he has been caught, and the other is shot by other police officers for threatening Mace with a gun.
 AUDIO 4
 In 2016, police officers killed 963 Americans. It rose in 2017 to 976. Some killings are the result of the civilian being armed and posing an imminent threat to the responding officer, but some, like Walter Scott, Eric Garner, Michael Brown and many others were not. In many cases, even with video capturing the killings, officers are not convicted. Some are, at best, suspended. In Strange Days, the audience gets the satisfaction of watching the two murderers gunned down themselves by police officers – a kind of perverse poetic justice – but if they survived and we applied the real world practices of the police department and justice system to these two, their chances of avoiding murder convictions would be surprisingly good. All the way have to say is they felt threatened. The two officers are placed under arrest by the police commissioner, but the upper echelons of the real world American police departments are historically very defensive about accusations of police brutality and will – far more often than not – defend accused officers. Strange Days occasionally shows up fascistic imagery like these Nazi costumes at the club, and it might not be a coincidence that the two officers – Steckler and Engelman – have German surnames.    
 Throughout the course of the film, characters mention paranoia. Lenny accuses Philo of being paranoid. It is brought up in a scene with Tack. Max believes Lenny is not being paranoid enough. Paranoia is generally thought of as a personality trait or even mental illness. Thoughts of “Everyone is out to get me!” and mad conspiracy theories. But another way to look at paranoia is that it is the opposite of trust. And in Strange Days, the authority of society – the police – have lost the public trust. Lenny even believes Max's lie about “police death squads” because, even though May is only saying this is divert attention from his own crimes, it does not sound too implausible right after learning that two police officers brutally murdered multiple people for no good reason. This and other things can make the world feel so...oppressive. Max has reached a kind of nihilism about life, suggesting that now that human beings have done more or less everything there is to do, the world may as well end. Nothing matters. Lenny, on the other hand, wants something to believe in. Through the film, he tries to win back his ex-girlfriend named Faith. He was lost...his faith. The radio speaks of the apocalypse. Max tells Lenny to get religion. Jeriko's name is a Biblical reference as well. It's hard to have hope in a world of oppression...but there's always next year.