or, a 2018 remembrance of a 2015 voyage into 2002 art
or, of goatees uncut and girls undercut in the immediate post-9/11 world
or, the freedom to be afraid

25th Hour! It's a Spike Lee joint. And we (Humble Mumbles & Never Forget Radio) once loved it. It's the breathless epic/gritty tale/classic caper/New York torque of One Man's Last Day of Freedom with all its existential reckoning, love, comradeship, suspicion, despair etc etc before he goes to jail (the 25th Hour). It emerged in the early post-9/11 cinema world. And it is directed by Spike Lee and features a fine cast. However, times have changed.

25th Hour, we are proposing, while ostensibly a grand opera of mythic masculinity, burns with fear and desire (to be and to have) of The Feminine. We're here to talk about it. Via our two podcasts (Humble Mumbles & Never Forget Radio) in concert for maybe the last time. We return in 2018 to the 2015 experience of rewatching this 2002 movie in all its fiery coldness and unspoken but deeply felt desires for warmth...

America in 2002, NFR proposes, was a lot like Edward Norton in 25th Hour: dogged and beat-up and... ready to get back up again and torture and kill in Iraq and Afghanistan. "The film looks perfect and it felt perfect to watch at the time and it felt historical... " but the overwrought bluster of male-coded 'fight' in this post-9/11 movie reveals an obvious 'underscape' of feminine 'flight,' fantasy and desired-and-feared alternatives to violence.

All lavish and moody blue, I as Humble Mumbles was totally won over by 25th Hour's New York story of redemption, fathers, sons, macho shit, and the American Dream in the Wake of Catastrophe. But though Traditional Masculinity is the menacing, despairing center of this movie, failure to compete and win at this unwinnable game--Being a Man--(and thus avoid humiliation, rape and death) compelled me. "Femininity, or rather the idea of femaleness permeates this film, but no woman can be feminine the way it's patriarchically defined. Nor can any man. For even though men and women are socialized to be all-or-nothing opposites, we still can't help but be multifaced humans"

This episode also features a stirring discussion on the famous Fuck You scene (www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgL_5QcZCMo) in which Edward Norton's character denounces everyone in New York City "from the uptown brothers to the Korean grocers... let the fires rage, let it burn to fucking ash"...

As says Never Forget Radio: "An equality of vitriol does not equalize the inequality of society. Rather, it papers over the real differences in degree. Norton seems to hate Korean immigrants and gay men as much as he hates Bush and Cheney and Osama Bin Laden thus resulting in a message--like most of the film--that is limited at best and harmful at worst... same with its portrayal of violence, masculinity, mobsterism, little girlism... Maybe it's partially criticizing these but the method it chooses to criticize them is to show them, to revel and roll around in them... Using a normal presentation of the thing that you're criticizing--letting it speak for itself--undermines the criticism..."

---

In addition to being a Violent-America metaphor and patriarchy-at-its-most-mundane microcosm, 25th Hour is also a magnificent melodrama overflowing with clunkily overstudied, unfunny, unnatural puns and stereotypes:

Laying-it-on-thick Russian accent: "You want to play this cowboy--no, dogboy! Everything that go wrong, go wrong.. it's you, me and Doyle... Doyle's law!" "It's Murphy!" "Doyle!" "Murphy's law" "Little tricks, little quicks!"

Nebbish: "The New York Times says the air's bad here."
Big Man on Ground Zero: "Oh yea? Well, fuck the Times!... I read the Post"

Someone else: "This joint is jumpin'! it's a smorgasbord of girlies out here tonight!"

----

Finally, a major theme this episode/our lives in general touches on is The Limits of Parody.

As Never Forget Radio puts it: "Masculinity, like violence or 'crime,' cannot be effectively criticized simply by portraying it. (see: Goodfellas or Mad Men or any film from the 20th century). Using a normal presentation of the thing that you're criticizing--letting it speak for itself--undermines the criticism. For a very famous and influential example, R. Lee Ermey's marine drill sergeant character in Full Metal Jacket was probably intended as a criticism of that kind of role and an exposure of its terrible practices but 30 years of dedicated quoting and T-shirts and parody and commercials definitely undid any good critical results of that portrayal. Although it was an anti-war film in its intention, because of what it portrayed straightforwardly, it became a Famous War Film. Instead of warning people about the oppressive conditions subjected on recruits--that turn them into killing machines--it became a tool... for recruitment. And so, Spike Lee and Edward Norton's 'Fuck You' sequence may have been intended to read as 'fuck this character, fuck this attitude,' but if you end up quoting it, it just inspires a lot of 'hey, fuck those Koreans, fuck those gay guys'... you eat in those ideas and think 'ok, this is an ok way to express yourself and this is the right attitude and it's a lot of fun, let's quote it again and again.'"

How do we, as art-creators and art-consumers, deal with that? If something is problematic, is it best/effective not to mention it, thus avoiding drawing attention? Does mentioning--portraying--a problematic thing necessitate celebration or acceptance? is the only alternative to portrayal avoidance and censorship?

This is an important question for the future of Humble Mumbles, the Jewish-American creator of whom is now rolling around Palestine, living the louche life of anti-apartheid parties 'n prurience. Is it possible for parodic enactment of, or indulgence in, potentially harmful stereotypes to legitimately criticize these stereotypes without simply reinforcing them? (e.g. the masculine macho man; the foolhardy do-gooder; the arrogantly entitled or dangerously naive interloper) Because I think it is important to show, portray and look at harmful constructs. I'm not comfortable with censorship, in part because I am an adrenaline junkie and seeker of stimulation. I want to SEE it, I wanna know what's going ON.

I do think it possible to effectively criticize ho hum violent masculinity or orientalist westerners by showing them. I think it's much better than ignoring them. A philosophical difference between Never Forget Radio and me at Humble Mumbles: I want to embody the problem both because the problem (masculinity, orientalism, etc) is enticing, dangerous and tons of fun and because I think showcasing a CLEAR intention and awareness of DEGREE may be helpful in cautioning against the worst excesses of whatever problem we're talking about. 'Masculinity' is not the problem, patriarchal creations of it are. Liking Palestine as much as I do is not (... necessarily) the problem, fetishizing and dehumanizing and overcompensating are. The worst excesses of, say, dehumanization, violence and death are the problems, not the facts of places and people themselves. On the other hand, I do not wholly condemn excess. Is not excess what makes the bloody critique WORK; does it not clarify intent via largeness?

Audiences will always misinterpret artists' intent, will always mistake or misunderstand parody for straight talk, or whatever. And parody-makers themselves will always potentially buy into their own performance. But I think one has to show rather than ignore problematic things with a specific and deliberate REVEAL, a break in the performance, a revelation of true intentions. You know? Maybe I just don't mind the muddle. If it doesn't work, I prefer the failure: not everyone will get the joke, not everyone will see the light and be converted but I want to believe that through misunderstanding can come understanding, through failure, success, and then more failure and then maybe the obviation of success in favor of... imperfection!

Could not mistaken understandings of parody and critique provide impetus for understanding? (not always, but sometimes, and that seems worth it). Could it not provide potential for change as well as stagnancy? After all, me and Never Forget Radio watched this movie when we were young, bought it, totally believed it was The Way, Cool, Grown-Up and then years later.. came back to criticize it. There's still stuff we like about it aesthetically and unintentionally and via its opportunity for us to analyze it. Is it not better to like problematic art and grow from it than never experience awesome(ly awful), problematic art at all? I don't think we can assure peoples reactions, as responsible feminists (NFR) or reckless antizionists (HM). Who are we to play god?

In conclusion, the Humble Mumbles team (in philosophical contradistinction from Never Forget Radio) is in favor of art that portrays dangerous, problematic constructs so long as the intention is clear, understanding that some people will always misunderstand, in 'Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better' style. But I'm also way more Macchiavellian than NFR, and my ethics more fluid. Thanks

& thanks for listening to this episode

& thank you Dan, Rebecca, Spike, Edward, and all of our families.

Music by Terence's Blanchard's soaring 25th Hour soundtrack, Bruce Springsteen contributing to that soundtrack and NFR contributing to Bruce Springsteen's song with discussion thereof, as well as local New York favorites Old Table (oldtable.bandcamp.com)

Photo: Naturelle, as played by Rosario Dawson

This is also part of Never Forget Radio's Post-9/11 Art Series (see: neverforgetradio.bandcamp.com/track/loomings; neverforgetradio.bandcamp.com/track/the-iraq-war-1914-2014-live-at-the-philadelphia-podcast-festival; neverforgetradio.bandcamp.com/track/the-rising)

fair use disclaimer : this film is the property of its copyright holders and excerpts are being used for a nonprofit educational historical purpose through the doctrine of fair use