The Matrix and Sociology

Hey everyone,
Again, this is a much longer post then I'd usually expect to write but I'm just working up a list of topics at the moment and using some material already previously written is given me some time to work on them. This was a response for a unit I'm studying on Media and Society. It examines some sociological perspectives apparent in The Matrix film series (1999-2003). When I first saw the original Matrix film as a kid, I must have watched it at least once a week when it first came out on video. It was the movie for me where I would quote every line even though it took me until my tenth viewing to completely understand the plot (I was 9 at the time).

I was twelve years old when the sequels were released. I recall I was definitely disappointed by them. In Reloaded I felt as if I had sat through two hours of repetitive action stunts with only the promise of the resolution of the gaping plot holes to keep me interested. But by the end, I felt as if absolutely no questions had been answered by the confusing 'Architect' character. I viewed Revolutions as a similarly muddled premise and as a result, never watched either again, and resolved that the franchise had been spoiled by high expectations and over exposure to the masses.

However, I gained a new lease on the franchise this year when I studied it as a topic of media and society. As a mature viewer, I was able to understand the complex mythology developed in the film and appreciate the series as a dense pastiche of a variety of texts from different genres and positions. Anyway, I hope my formal response can convey the new found excitement I found for the franchise and convince any viewers who have been disillusioned with the complex plot to persevere and ultimately reward themselves with a fine cinematic adventure. However, I will caution that it wasn't until I could fully understand a majority of the philosophies and traditions that the Wachowski brothers were influenced by that I could completely appreciate and comprehend the narrative. Perhaps the Wachowski brothers are asking a bit too much of their audiences if they expect them to be knowledgeable of topics as wide ranging as eastern spiritualism to Rene Descartes when they're only showing up to watch mind-blowing actions stunts and breathtaking special effects.

  Social Difference and Social Inequality in The Matrix Film Series

 The Wachowski brothers’ film series The Matrix (1999-2003) are a collection of texts infused with sociological theory and ideology. This sociological underpinning is depicted very early in the film when the main protagonist Neo retrieves pirated software from a hollowed out copy of Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation. As an anecdotal sidenote, the treatise was mandatory reading for members of the cast in the original film, suggesting the Wachowski’s believed its themes to be fundamental in understanding the plot. However, the allusions to sociology and philosophy do not stop there. An underlying theme of The Matrix franchise is the questioning of the nature of reality and what the audience perceives to be ‘the truth’ in a ubiquitously mediated world. Therefore, The Matrix draws from sources such as Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, Calderon de la Barca’s Life is a Dream, Rene Descartes’ evil genius, Zhuangzi’s butterfly dream and the brain in a vat thought experiment. 

Plato's Allegory of the Cave, where the Prisoners accept the nature of their reality (i.e. the shadows) because they have never experienced anything else.

Perhaps of most sociological significance in the film though is the concept of social difference and social inequality. This is most clearly portrayed in the conflict of man against machine. Although this conflict does not directly correlate to any well known social difference, it provides a symbolic background for exploring issues of social inequality and cultural clashes. The plot of The Matrix draws on a well established science fiction motif that the future of man will be shadowed by the fruits of our intellect in the form of artificially intelligent machines. Through the depiction of this conflict, the Wachowski brothers were able to introduce notions of social difference and social inequality. The machines, through their appearance, language, ideology and pervasive nature represent a monolithic core in a world that isn’t just ubiquitously occupied by the media, but rather, arguably is the media. In contrast, the humans represent a peripheral multiplicity of views, ethnicities and beliefs whose existence is constantly threatened by the monotheistic presence of the machines. Ultimately, these themes of social difference and social inequality could be interpreted as encapsulated by the film series central and fundamental theoretical debate of free will versus determinism.

Brain in the vat thought experiment. Similar to Plato's allegory, the mind accepts the nature of it's reality which is indeed the premise and one of the central conflicts of the film series.

The Core-Periphery Model

The social difference and social inequality apparent in The Matrix film series is arguably framed by the core-periphery model. The core-periphery model was initially an economic theory however it can be translated as a sociological phenomenon and used to explain the operation of social differences and inequalities in particular cultures. This theory is said to operate when one race, ethnicity or religion becomes the most dominant in any given society for no intrinsic reason. The core is perceived as ‘natural’ or the way the world is supposed to be. In opposition the periphery can be perceived as cultures, traditions or beliefs which are seen to be foreign or ‘other’ whose existence is constantly made to feel insecure by the core. In the film series, the machines and their agents represent the core social and cultural group. The machines status as the core can be attributed to their dominance over the humans. Additionally, and perhaps more symbolically the machines core status could arguably be a result of the fact that Neo accepts their ideology or their formulation of reality at the start of the film but is swayed to the periphery later. Significantly, the machines’ matrix program represents the viewer’s accepted reality ensuring the levels of indoctrination are multi-layered. In opposition, the ‘unplugged’ human society represents the peripheral group. In the film series, the humans are usually depicted as drastically outnumbered and to be literally surviving on the fringes. Additionally, their appearance and views represent different ideologies and ethnicities that are typically peripheral in Western cultures. However, these distinctions will be explained in greater depth below. What is clear is that the Wachowski’s films can be analysed following a core-periphery model in the illumination of issues of social inequality and social difference.

Social Difference: Appearance

In The Matrix film series, the machines are usually visually represented in the matrix program by the ever present Agents. Morpheus reveals to Neo that Agents are effectively free to move in and out of the matrix’s programming and are essentially the gatekeepers of the system. Significantly, Agents are portrayed as stereotypical and non-descript middle-aged white men with no defining physical characteristics. Or as Morpheus pronounces insightfully, ‘They are everyone, and they are no one’. Indeed, Agents could just as easily be identified as corporate executives or governmental operatives, but always someone of an authoritative rank. One of the Agents’ unique skills is their ability to ‘overwrite’ a human ‘plugged into’ the matrix and thus gain possession of their avatar. The pervasive nature of the Agents is therefore a subtle nod on behalf of the Wachowski brothers to reveal the core identity of the machines. Their values and appearances can be superimposed and thrust upon others regardless of their consent. Due to the machine’s actual domination, they can dominate the mental space of the subscribers to the matrix. This itself is an argument formulated by the Marxist school regarding the mental means of production and ownership over the media. Marxist’s argue that the bourgeoisie’s dominance is reliant on the fact that they control the means of mental production (Marx and Engels 1846). The Matrix franchise reinforces this very purposefully through the authoritative and distinctly bourgeois appearance of the Agents. In opposition, humans that have been liberated from the matrix are of mixed race, gender and age. As the film series progresses, it becomes increasingly apparent that the humans that occupy Zion (a relatively obvious Biblical reference to the human refuge) represent a far more multi-cultural society then is depicted in the sanitised world of the matrix, and as a result are far more harmonious. Therefore, issues of race, gender and age are very clearly portrayed as obvious social differences and inequalities in The Matrix film series. While physical appearance is a relatively stark difference portrayed in the franchise, differences in language between the two groups becomes an increasingly relevant inequality with great significance.

The Agents possess a uniquely similar appearance.

Social Difference: Language

The differences between the core and periphery groups’ language is also a telling feature of social difference and social inequality. Two aspects in particular of the machines' language reveals their monolithic and singular thinking presence. When the machine’s converse in the matrix program, they use as little language as possible and speak mainly in monosyllabic blocks, particularly the Agents. Additionally, they refer to elements of the matrix according to their program specific terms such as ‘the exile’ to refer to deleted programs or ‘the anomaly’ to refer to Neo. This is eventually taken to its extreme and personified by the Architect (the father of the matrix program) in The Matrix Revolutions (2003). The Architect’s language is extremely mechanical and often reflects the fact that he is the machine which designed the matrix and thus wrote the complex computer code. He converses in extensive logical chains of reasoning and frequently employs discourse markers such as ‘ergo’ and ‘concordantly’, and his tone of voice remains constantly level. The formulaic language structure is compounded by the machines’ singular method of ‘thought-sharing’. In the film series, it is apparent that machines in the matrix, particularly Agents, can share each other’s thoughts and seemingly communicate in a ‘hive-mind’ context, as is evidenced by their earpieces. Again, this reinforces the message that the machines, as the core group possess dominance over the ideological patterns of the matrix. So pervasive is their rendering of reality that they are able to share thoughts and react as if a single entity. This is clearly an example of social difference and social inequality operating within the film series. It could be construed as a subtle representation of the fact that the media can be controlled by a group of singular minded ‘robots’ whose thoughts can hijack the wider community in order to impose their core values upon the public. The human language in comparison is obviously far more idiosyncratic and unique. Neo’s constant defiance of the programming language is displayed by his rejection of the name he was called whilst connected to the matrix. It is also evidence of the symbolic resistance to the social inequality dictated by the machines. A concept related closely to that of language is ideology. While there is a clear social difference in language between the two groups, this becomes even more apparent in the dichotomy between their respective ideologies.

The most intellectually challenging scene from the Matrix film series as far as I was concerned, here you can observe the speech patterns employed by the Architect.

Social Difference: Ideology

As stated above, the machines ideology is ultimately singular in nature. Throughout the film series, the machines subscribe to a slavish devotion to belief in the language and ideology of the matrix programming. For the machines, there is but one belief and that is their dominance and their perception of the world according to their digital parameters. While arguably according to the films plot the humans have only one belief systems themselves, its influences are exceedingly varied. The human’s belief in Neo as ‘the One’ ironically incorporates a dense amalgamation of ideologies, spiritualities and beliefs. The human belief system contains elements of Buddhist, Vedanta, and Advaita Hinduism philosophy, the mythology of Christianity, Gnosticism, Judaism and Messianism. There are even disparate elements of existentialism and nihilistic beliefs despite the spiritual background. This combination of both Eastern and Western belief systems operates as a perfect metaphor for the peripheral groups in the film series. The marginalisation demonstrates how social inequality and social difference can operate in marginalising religions and ideologies. Indeed, the machines impose an almost atheistic belief system upon the humans whilst connected into the matrix. Or as Agent Smith suggests in the original film, an incongruous belief in the superiority of mankind due to technological advances which have in fact been created as a control system by the machines. This lead to the nihilistic beliefs Neo experiences at the start of the film in which he constantly questions the nature of reality. However, once liberated, Neo is exposed to the prophetic teachings of the Oracle and Morpheus which encourage a wider belief system. However, the central conflict of the film represented by all the social differences outlined above are essentially crystallised in the depiction of free will versus determinism that is a constant theme throughout the franchise.

Free Will vs. Determinism

The central conflict of the film series arises from a belief in determinism over free will. This antagonism represents the culmination of the social inequalities and differences depicted throughout the films. Neo and the humans represent free will, hence Neo’s spiritual transcendence as ‘the One’. Neo represents individuality, idiosyncrasy and most importantly, choice. Agent Smith and the machines in comparison are the physical manifestations of determinism or pre-ordained fate represented by an identical and therefore homogeneous community. Paradoxically, Neo as ‘the One’ represents many unique voices. However, Agent Smith as a virus that is able to copy himself infinitely becomes ‘the Many’ but a representative of only one ideology and one way of life (that is, the machines autocracy). This serves as a very complex metaphor for social difference and social inequality. The Wachowski brothers’ message could be construed as an attempt at indicating that in a wholly mediated world such as the matrix (which is the audience’s reality) there is always the temptation to accept without question the nature of our world and subscribe to the pervasive beliefs of those in authority. However, Neo’s defiance and his ability to chose alternative options despite what may seem inevitable, represents the peripheral voices of society willing to question the established norms and provide alternative opinions in the media.

The One vs. The Many, personifying the central theoretical conflict of the film.

Therefore, the Wachowski brothers Matrix franchise is arguably an accurate and thought provoking representation of the media in contemporary society. The films’ characters and antithetical narrative symbolises the social differences and inequalities regarding race, class and ideology experienced by core and periphery groups. The ultimate conclusion of the film suggests that this antagonism can only be resolved once the two cultures are harmoniously combined as are Agent Smith and Neo. The Matrix franchise’s relevance to media studies is hardly surprising given its eclectic and intelligent combination of influences ranging from philosophy to comic books. Not only do The Matrix films reflect what a Mediapolis would look like (Deuze 2011, 137), it is itself a highly mediated and self-aware product that constantly challenges the audience to question the nature of their reality and the social differences and inequalities that are increasingly apparent in an over-mediated world.

References

 Deuze, Mark (2011) "Media Life", Media, Culture & Society 33 (1): 137-148.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1846) The German Ideology.

Wachowski, Larry and Andy. (1999) The Matrix, Motion picture, Sydney: Village Roadshow Pictures. 

Wachowski, Larry and Andy. (2003) The Matrix: Reloaded, Motion picture, Sydney: Village Roadshow Pictures. 

Wachowski, Larry and Andy. (2003) The Matrix: Revolutions, Motion picture, Sydney: Village Roadshow Pictures.  

Revisionist Westerns

For my first post officially discussing an aspect of the visual medium, I have decided to convey my thoughts on one of my favourite burgeoning film genres, the Revisionist Western. My thoughts below were written for a course assignment at University. I don't think any of my other posts will ever be as long as this one, I just thought it was necessary to begin my blog with a topic I was passionate about. I would also like to note that if you are interested in this genre hybrid, there were a couple of other films I wished to analyse for this response but was unable to, due to the word length. These films were The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) and The Unforgiven (1992). Both were excellent films and I may even discuss Jesse James in a post later as it is one of the best films I have seen that has been released recently. I have tried to include the trailers for these four films below.

‘DESERVE’S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT’

The implementation and effect of moral ambiguity in the revisionist Western

Abstract

This essay will explore the theme of moral ambiguity in the revisionist Western film genre. The major difference between traditional Western films and revisionist is the apparent lack of a moral and ethical code in the latter. The difference is quite deliberate; therefore, an examination of its implementation and effect is essential in order to better understand the revisionist form. To achieve this, the use and effect of moral ambiguity will be analysed in the films The Proposition (2005) and No Country for Old Men (2007). Ultimately, these films reveal that moral ambiguity allows for greater exploration of characters and ideas and reflects a more sophisticated approach to the genre.

John Wayne once said, ‘they tell me everything isn’t black and white. Well, I say why the hell not’ (Langford 2003, p. 26). From its inception, this diametric ideology dominated the tone, structure and content of traditional Westerns with few exceptions until the 1950s (Cortese 1976, p. 122). Despite the polemic treatment of the Western’s subject matter, it has established a position of great importance in the American conscious and beyond, whilst arguably achieving a mythic status. Langford argues that Western films were a medium in which American society learnt to understand itself in a complex process of self-reflection (2003, p. 26). Furthermore, Wright notes that the popularity of Western films as a text reinforces their status as a modern mythology (1975, p. 3). The symbolic meanings of Westerns reflect particular social behaviours and inform the responder about themselves. Therefore, the seemingly simplified techniques of Western films that presented only a unified idea and antithesis fulfilled a necessary role for audiences. However, a variation on this mythology was introduced in the 1950s that challenged the moral absolutes depicted in Western cinema.

The revisionist Western genre is a sub-category that exists within the confines of the traditional Western genre. Like their forebears, revisionists Westerns contain the staples of mythological language, but the symbolism is used for a different purpose. Again, mythology is typically self-reflective and portrays a projection of the viewer, albeit in a slightly modified form. This is the case with revisionist Westerns, reflecting a transformation in audience attitudes and culture (Clark Mitchell 1996, p. 223). It is difficult to pinpoint an exact genesis for the revisionist Western, however, the content of some Westerns from the 1950s indicate a progression away from traditional Western values (Cortese 1976, p. 122). These films revealed more complex characters and plot development, a re-examining of traditional ethical codes and an overwhelming tone of moral ambiguity. Indeed, the theme of moral ambiguity decidedly influences the tone and structure of revisionist Westerns and is thus a central tenet of the sub-genre. The moral ambiguity conveyed in many revisionist Western films operates in stark contrast to the Manichean ethical alignment present in many traditional Westerns. Given the significance of moral ambiguity, the idea is obviously worth in-depth exploration through its depiction on the screen. This will be achieved by the analysis of two contemporary revisionist Western films, John Hillcoat’s The Proposition (2005) explores Australia’s colonial history and the brutal nature of violence often de-emphasised in traditional Westerns and accounts of history. The Coen brothers’ No Country for Old Men (2007) depicts the appropriation of moral codes and the importance of fate in determining outcome. 

The Proposition (2005)

John Hillcoat’s The Proposition paradoxically utilises dichotomous ideologies to represent a form of latent moral ambiguity. The Proposition firmly cements its status as a revisionist Western through its re-examination of Australia’s colonial past. Interestingly, Hillcoat’s film proves that the Western genre extends beyond American history and folklore, and that the language of the Western myth is far more universal.

The eponymous ‘proposition’ of the film is itself a highly morally ambiguous course. The outlaw Charlie Burns is presented with a decision by Captain Stanley after his capture: he can save his younger and feebler brother Mikey from the gallows if he captures his older and far more dangerous brother Arthur. This is itself a very morally compromising decision, described in its scale as ‘Biblical’ by commentators such as Stein (2009, para. 26). The proposition sets into force the retributive violence that will consume the film (Collins 2008, p. 55) and challenge the allegiance of viewers to different characters.

Throughout the film, Hillcoat establishes a complex set of dichotomies and antitheses. Civility is often contrasted with nature and brutality with sophistication. However, each paradigm is often aligned with a characteristic that subverts the audience’s expectations or challenges the nature of some preconceived filmic notions. The most notable example of this dichotomy is revealed through the flogging sequence. In an effort to ‘civilize’ the land, Eden Fletcher orders Mikey Burns to receive 100 lashes for a crime more than likely perpetrated by his brothers. The townsfolk gather in anticipation to savour the punishment for someone they deem as a brutal man. However, despite Fletcher’s attempt to portray Mikey as a ‘violent…bloodthirsty villain’, the audience can’t help but notice this seems incongruous given that Mikey is screaming and sobbing like a child. As the whipping takes place, Hillcoat cuts to Arthur Burns’ lair, where the outlaws are gathered to enjoy the sublime singing of the member Samuel Stoat. As Samuel sings, the image jumps to the mob turning away in disgust at the horrifying punishment they craved earlier. Hillcoat establishes ambiguity through the activity of the outlaws; those perceived as ‘villains’ are enjoying the civilized act of music, while the townsfolk and figures of authority relish the brutal punishment of Mikey (Stein 2009 para. 28; Collins 2008 p. 65). This important theme is echoed later when Arthur talks at length in a highly sophisticated manner about the relationship between family and nature, ‘for what are night and day – the sun, the moon, the stars – without love…and those you love around you?’ Arthur’s philosophical monologue is then interrupted by trooper’s shots in the distance as they massacre a tribe of Indigenous people.

Arthur Burns is indeed a fascinating character established by Hillcoat. Although the audience may expect Arthur to be a villain based on previous reports of his character, instead, he emerges as a well-spoken and intelligent person who has learned to live ‘as one’ with the land. He even defies the snobbish and racist bounty-hunter Jellon Lamb’s expectations as he recognises and completes a George Borrow quotation. Arthur is seemingly predisposed to philosophical musings throughout the film, espousing the importance of nature and family life. Arthur’s ability to embrace the landscape and civility is a very significant facet of his characterisation. Unlike the figures of authority, Arthur doesn’t desire to impose civility on Australia, but understands that civility can be embraced through the land. However, far from constructing Arthur as a morally redeemable character, Hillcoat shatters this notion by portraying him as savagely violent as well. Arthur viciously engages in stomping a trooper’s head in and he watches with pleasure as Captain Stanley’s wife is violently assaulted by Stoat. This is the fundamental moral ambiguity of the film, unlike traditional Westerns; the audience cannot morally align themselves to one character or ideology (Collins 2008, p. 62).

Mikey Burns is sacrificed before the crowd

The characters and their motivations are far more complex in The Proposition. Even Captain Stanley, who is initially portrayed in the opening scene as the stereotypical corrupt lawman is painstakingly inverted by Hillcoat. By the denouement, Stanley has become significantly more human and is perhaps the most morally redeemable character of the film. The audience sympathises strongly with Stanley, who, by his own admission, wished only to impose a sense of justice to protect people like his wife. Ultimately, Stanley is unwise, as his attempts to impose civility are incongruous with the idea’s very nature. It simply unleashes an obscene amount of violence on the land that concludes in the destruction of his home. Therefore, Hillcoat’s subtle use of moral ambiguity questions viewers’ preconceived notions of the genre and the characters in general. Through this, Hillcoat achieves a far more complex, sophisticated and subtle film that illuminates the dichotomy between civility and nature and the relationship between them.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

It could be argued Joel and Ethan Coen’s film No Country for Old Men (2007) does not belong in the revisionist Western genre, due to the fact the film is set in the 1980s. However, the location of the film in West Texas places it spatially in the tradition of the Western genre. Furthermore, characters are clearly archetypal figures of the Western genre (Clark Mitchell 1996, p. 5; Wright 1975, p. 17). The Coens’ film thus reveals that the mythology of the Western can be transposed to a variety of cinematic contexts.

 One of the most dominant themes of the film is the subject of fate and its subsequent effects, which arguably is itself a form of moral ambiguity. Fate is a completely unbiased force in the sense that it does not judge characters based on their alignment as either good or evil, but simply impels the narrative onwards. This theme is conveyed throughout the majority of the film, the most poignant example being the infamous gas station sequence between the film’s antagonist Chigurh and a hapless attendant. Chigurh hinges the life of the attendant on the simple toss of a coin. He explains ‘[the coin]’s been travelling 22 years to get here. And now it’s here. And it’s either heads or tails.’ This scene, which in itself is not integral to the plot, is essential in encapsulating the major theme of the film: the significance of fate. The results of the coin toss are suggested not to be determined by either good or evil alignment, but rather a fatalistic principle that converge characters in filmic dimensions. This scene is repeated later when Chigurh gives the same choice to Moss’s wife. She challenges Chigurh’s logic, arguing ‘the coin don’t have no say. It’s just you’, which to some degree is true given that Chigurh ultimately holds the power of life and death over her. However, he responds ‘well I got here the same way the coin did’, reiterating the message of the film in a powerful denouement that represents the culmination of the events of the film in relation to Moss’s initial actions.

Like The Proposition, characterisation and the relations between the characters are essential techniques in conveying moral ambiguity. The film presents three archetypal Western characters: the Sheriff aligned with good, Chigurh who is an outlaw and foreign ‘other’ to the landscape (Pye 2010, para. 32), who represents evil, and Moss, an ‘any-man’ who lies somewhere in the middle. The overlapping of characterisation adds layers of complexity to the characters and introduces the moral ambiguity. Throughout the film, Sheriff Bell constantly laments the loss of traditional Western values – a theme often depicted in traditional Westerns which recall a time of mythology and noble deeds (Pye 2010, para. 38). However, later in the film, a retired Sheriff instructs Bell, informing him there was never a time of absolute morals or ethics, ‘what you got ain’t nothing new. This country is hard on people. You can’t stop what’s coming. It ain’t all waiting on you.’ In this scene, Ellis relates the dominant ideology of revisionist films that there is no absolute good or evil, it is rather our own notions that maintain the illusion.

Moss is a character poised on the boundary between good and evil, which is very appropriate for the central character of a revisionist Western. Moss initially displays no sympathy for the dying Mexican pleading for water, but later the action of the film is unleashed because Moss resents his indifference and returns with water. However, moral ambiguity is most strongly communicated by the fact that Moss dies in the film, but his death is not actually shown onscreen. Through this unconventional technique, the Coens’ create a highly authentic narrative that subverts the trend of depicting the significant events related to the central character. Because his death is not depicted, it is the subject of ambivalence as to how it happened, and significantly, how the responder relates to it.

The fatalistic coin toss scene

Chigurh is the most powerful and compelling character of the film. Although traditionally Chigurh would be wholly aligned with evil due to his cruelty and distinct foreign ‘otherness’ (Pye 2010, para. 32), he nonetheless displays signs of moral ambiguity. It is revealed that Chigurh’s motives are more complex than money or cruelty or lunacy – the motivating factors for many Western villains. Indeed, Chigurh is revealed to possess a bizarre but firm set of principles, much like the protagonist of a traditional Western. Ultimately, Chigurh’s principles revolve around the belief in the obliterating force of fate, and therefore represents the entire ideology of the film. He is literally the personification of the themes of the film, which reveals why he may be portrayed as more cyborg than man.

It is clear that these films convey a sense of moral ambiguity, subverting the firm moral standards of the traditional Western genre. However, it is difficult to determine to what effect moral ambiguity was explored, as ambiguity is appropriately ambivalent. The important fact is that although these films are revisionist in nature, they are also first and foremost Westerns. This suggests that each filmmaker discovered a redeeming element in the Western genre. The choice of location, characters and plot are essential, as it reveals the mythology of the Western is still entirely resonant with audiences and fundamental in nature. However, each director presumably wished to create a more authentic and artistically sophisticated film. The most effective device to achieve this purpose is moral ambiguity. In The Proposition, moral ambiguity is used to question colonial past and subvert alignments. In No Country for Old Men, the Coens’ utilise moral ambiguity to underscore a portrayal of the totality of fate in its convergence with narrative and character. In these films, moral ambiguity allows dense layers of complexity to infuse the themes of the films, which is not typically experienced in traditional Westerns. The purpose of moral ambiguity in each film has seemingly been to critique the Manichean philosophy that underpinned many traditional Westerns and introduce more complex themes, ideas and characterisation. Therefore, the revisionist Western legitimises the Western as a genre, proving the medium can be used to explore more sophisticated notions than it has previously, while simultaneously asserting the cultural significance of the mythical language of the Western.

Reference List

Clark Mitchell, Lee 1996, Westerns: making the man in fiction and film, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Wright, Will 1975, Six Guns and Society, University of California Press, London.

Collins, Felicity 2008, ‘Historical fiction and the allegorical truth of colonial violence in The Proposition’, Cultural studies review, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 55-71.

Cortese, James 1976, ‘Bourgeois myth and anti-myth: the Western hero of the fifties’, SubStance, vol. 5, no. 15, pp. 122-132.

Langford, Barry 2003, ‘Revisiting the “Revisionist” Western’, Film and History, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 26-35.

Pye, Douglas 2010, ‘At the border: the limits of knowledge in The three burials of Melquiades Estrada and No country for old men’, Movie: a journal of film criticism, issue 1, viewed 21 March 2011, http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/film/movie/contents/at_the_border.pdf

Stein, Erica 2009, ‘”A hell of a place”: the everyday as revisionist content in contemporary Westerns’, Mediascape, Fall issue, viewed 21 March 2011, http://www.tft.ucla.edu/mediascape/Fall09_Western.pdf

No country for old men 2007, motion picture, Miramax Films and Paramount Vantage, USA, directed by Joel and Ethan Coen and starring Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin.

The proposition 2005, motion picture, First Look Pictures, Australia, directed by John Hillcoat and starring Guy Pearce, Ray Winstone, Emily Watson and Danny Huston.

Trailer for The Proposition

No Country For Old Men trailer

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford trailer

The Unforgiven trailer

Welcome to Popcorn Culture!

Hi, my name is Paddy and I'm an avid fan of film and other visual media. I live in Australia and I started this blog because I wanted a forum to discuss my views and thoughts about movies, television, music videos and other texts in the visual medium that interested me. However, as stated above, I have no formal education in the subject so my posts should in no way be seen as academic or formal in nature. Rather, I see myself as a lay commentator who is addicted to the escapism that the immersion in visual spaces can allow. A film doesn't end for me once I walk out of the cinema or turn of the DVD, the text always occupies a space in my mind and I find myself discussing, theorising and reformulating it. Hopefully this blog will coherently convey these thoughts and stimulate further discussion about films and other visual texts that are close to you.