Great Witty Title!

Hello everyone! Today we're going to discuss the concepts of Deleuze and Guattari's War Machines, the State, and its relationship and distinction from Nomads. All of this combined with the fantastic film "Children of Men" promises to be a fun and absolutely intellectually exhausting ride! Oh joy! Let's begin.

Objective Review

The scene we're going to be taking a look at today is from fairly early in the film. Our protagonist, Theo, is a disgruntled, cynical bureaucrat and he's just been kidnapped by an activist/terrorist organization known as "The Fishes". Now, at this point The Fishes have explained that they're not really into the business of bombing and killing and maiming anymore, but we don't completely believe them yet. After a quick chat with his estranged wife (who's supposed to be dead but that's completely beside the point) Theo is yet again whisked away with a shroud over his head. Here, we find our focus point for today. As he is about to be unceremoniously dropped off at the sidewalk, one of the men from The Fishes warns Theo against reported this incident to the police. Let's take a closer look at this, shall we?

Patric

This never fucking happened, so don't go telling tales 'cause we'll be watching you. At work, when you sleep, when you have a piss, we'll be watching. All the *fucking* time...

Theo

Geez your breath stinks...

Patric

No it doesn't...

Theo

Yes, it does.

This dialogue is particularly important because it represents much of The Fishes' mentality shown throughout the rest of the film. The importance of which I will explain shortly....

Reaction

I really like this movie! I watched it in theaters when it came out and I remember totally geeking out about the long, continuous, one take scenes. Aside from my subjective reaction, Children of Men is also an incredibly well crafted, intentional film with loads of material for analysis. Just today, we were talking about the Pink Floyd reference when Theo is visiting his cousin. Furthermore, Cuarón's attention to detail and valuable experience (not to mention its very sizable budget…) lends the film an impressive production quality.

Analysis

As I stated previously, today we’re going to be focusing on the Deleuzian ideas of the State, the Nomad and the War Machine. First, let’s get on the same page about the difference between a Nomad and the State.

The way I see it, the State has several key characteristics. First, the State’s main goal is to control the space within its reign (and sometimes of course, as we see in empires, expand that space). The state accomplishes this by working to striate that space; it takes smooth space over which an endless number of lines of flight and relay points are possible, and constructs a regimented system that allows lines of flight only in certain directions and ways. My favorite way to understand this concept is the one used by Deuchars: in chess, “Each piece can only move within the pre-ordained grid and there is no way to modify or escape the codes of chess” (2011). Not only is movement regulated throughout the chess board (striated space) but the pieces themselves are assigned roles and values. For example, a pawn can only move in such a way and is less valuable than a Queen, which can move in a variety of ways.

In the illustration of our film, the State is clearly represented by the government reigning over the UK. This State is constantly working to maintain its stratified space and constrain/ regulate the movement of the pieces within this space.

In contrast, we see the Nomad. Let me explain three key characteristics about the Nomad. The Nomad exists outside of the regimented world of the State’s striated space, but still operates within that same space. Following our chess example, let’s say that suddenly we find a checkers piece on the chessboard. This checkers piece is clearly not part of the State’s structured, striated space and even resists attempts to make it so. Which leads us to our first characteristic: the struggle of the Nomad is essentially a “war of becoming over being” (Deuchars, 2011). The Nomad resists any interpretation of itself and recognizes that its identity is an ever evolving one. Secondly, the Nomad is trying (or succeeding) to move through new lines of flights that are not dictated by the State. In other words, the Nomad does not color within the lines as dictated by the State. Finally, the Nomad lives to operate within this space. Like a cute little sea turtle that has just hatched, it can’t wait to jump into the ocean of smooth space before being snatched up by one of the gulls of the State. Deleuze and Guattari describe it like this: “A path is always between two points, but the in-between has taken on all the consistency and enjoys both an autonomy and a direction of its own. The life of the nomad is the intermezzo” (Treatise on Nomadology, 1987).

Now, here comes the analysis part. When one hears our description of the Nomad, one’s mind may initially go to The Fishes, our story’s “resistance fighters” who are trying to overthrow the oppressive state. I argue however that this is not the case. Rather, The Fishes are in fact another form of State attempting to replace the current strata with their own. Let me explain. The Nomad’s use of the War Machine is a “war of becoming over being” (Deuchars, 2011). The Nomad is focused on continuing to operate in those smooth spaces and not being controlled by the State. The utilization of the War Machine by the Nomad is a mechanism to avoid appropriation by the State. The Fishes however, are not simply being survivalists. Instead, The Fishes are appropriating the War Machine and using it to wage war. D&G tell us that this is a tactic that The State uses! “It is at the same time that the State apparatus appropriates the war machine, subordinates it to its "political" aims, and gives it war as its direct object” (A Thousand Plateaus, 1987). Following this line of logic, we realize that The Fishes are using the War Machine with the primary objective of causing war, not simply evading capture.

Our chosen scene also reflects another telling trait about The Fishes. The environment described in the little speech that Patric gives Theo is not conducive to The Nomad. Instead, it is indicative of a Society of Control. Let’s compare this speech with another very similar one from a different piece of art.

When I was watching this scene, I was immediately reminded of a famous speech that is given by another Nomad: the character Tom Joad from Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath. (In actuality this isn’t true at all. In reality, the moment instantly triggered The Ghost of Tom Joad song from Rage Against the Machine, which is actually a cover of a Bruce Springsteen song. Regardless, both songs feature lyrics focused on the words from Steinbeck’s original monologue).

“I’ll be all around in the dark – I’ll be everywhere. Wherever you can look – wherever there’s a fight, so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever there’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there. I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad. I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry and they know supper’s ready, and when the people are eatin’ the stuff they raise and livin’ in the houses they build – I’ll be there, too.” John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath



Here we see a stark contrast. The “true” Nomad’s speech is focused on freedom of will, the encouragement of smooth space and the act of resisting the stratification of space by the State. The Fishes’ speech however, talks of setting up new stratified space, one in which Theo will not be able to do anything that The Fishes are not aware of. Theo must act according to their established rules; the epitome of a Deleuzian State.

So! What did you think? Were there areas that my understanding of the concepts clashes with yours? Have I perhaps missed something in my analysis? I can’t wait to hear about it!

Thanks for reading,

Nate

No Man is an Island: The Theory of Minor Literature in "Dead Man"

Hello everyone!

Today we’re going to be taking a look at Jim Jarmusch’s “psychedelic western”, Dead Man starring the interminable Jonny Depp. Let’s begin, shall we?

Objective Review

First, let’s take a look at what scene we’re going to be dealing with from the movie. Now, I do have to beg your pardon here because we are going to be dealing with themes that appear throughout the movie, as well as a few events that happen outside of this scene. I know normally we stick to one moment in the film, but I’m confident that stepping outside of these bounds will allow me to illustrate my point further. So, on to our scene.

Towards the end of the movie, we travel with our main character, William Blake (WB), and his First Nations companion, Nobody. At the juncture of our reunion, WB and Nobody are just entering a white man’s trading post. As WB enters, he is greeted warmly (although slightly facetiously) by the missionary inside. When Nobody enters however, the tone turns as the missionary refers to the newcomer as one of the “heathens and philistines”. No worries though- in my favorite line of the film Nobody shoots his hypocritical, condescending language right back at the missionary by quoting William Blake’s (the poet this time) The EverlastingGospel. As the scene continues, Nobody is refused tobacco (one of his greatest desires) because of his race and is even offered a disease ridden blanket instead. WB then proceeds to ask for tobacco, which he will surely give to his friend as WB doesn’t smoke. The missionary then recognizes WB and, under the ruse of asking for his autograph, pulls a gun on him. 

WB, in typical bad-@$$ fashion, then stabs a fountain pen into the missionary’s hand and then shoots him. Interestingly enough in the chest, which I imagine would be more painful, rather than the head, which would be pretty instantaneous.  WB and Nobody then leave, after shooting one more pesky loiterer.

Reaction

I actually really loved this film. I appreciated the skill it took to place WB’s actual poetry into the script and also appreciate the art and culture it brings to the table. The film is also absolutely hilarious. It seems to contain that dark humor that you know you possess, but don’t exactly want to bring up at a cocktail party as suddenly the whole room just goes silent but for the awkard sound of someone’s finger against their glass. You can almost hear everyone thinking, “Did he really just make a leper joke?”. Not that I have that humor…

The only thing that I think this film possibly lacked was a bit more “craft” in the production. I got the feeling that things were placed and structured very intentionally, but there was a certain production value that seemed lacking. I would have preferred more shots for each scene, less awkward fade in/outs, and honestly more color. I get that Jarmusch was probably trying to communicate something through the black and white, but honestly to me it just seems like a cheap film school trick to try and seem more artsy.

Analysis

Now let’s get to the meat of the matter. Normally, when we think of “minor literature” as described by Deleuze and Guattari, we think of art that is created by a minority in order to communicate some sort of marginalized agenda. However, I will now show that in the case of Dead Man, the “literature” is of a different sort.

Minor literature is a concept developed by Deleuze and Guattari to describe an attempt by a minor group (distinct from a numerical minority and rather something much more to do with lack of power) to deterritorialize common elements of the major (again, not a numerical group but essentially not the minority) in order to express the minority predicament. Typically, this minor literature is embodied in some sort of art form, although an argument can be made that action is in itself a form of minor literature. For this, we conjure up memories of Gandhi and his peaceful revolution.

In Dead Man, however, we discover something quite different- I argue that WB himself, and the character that is developed around him, is in fact a form of minor literature. To verify this, we need only to look at the three defining characteristics of minor literature. First, Deleuze and Guattari tell us that minor literature is a collective work. The reason for this necessity is that “talents do not abound in a minor literature, the conditions are not given for an individuated utterance which would be that of some "master" and could be separated from collective utterance” (1983). Essentially, there is no Beethoven to compose the master orchestra; in order to fully encapsulate the minor predicament the work itself must be a public work, open for interpretation and even alteration by everyone. We clearly see this characteristic evident in Dead Man. When tasked with the job of determining who exactly causes WB to metamorphosize into the dastardly outlaw he becomes, one is faced with a myriad of answers. It could be argued that Nobody (WB’s First Nation compadre, not the absence of any one person) directs WB along his path. At the same time, it can be equally well argued that WB’s pursuers (including Robert Mitchum’s character Dickinson) have forced Blake to transform. But then, we are turned 180 degrees again as we consider that perhaps Thel, the wonderful woman who had a significant part in setting this whole story in motion, is at the helm. So many options! This is indicative of a collective work – the meaning of the work is not encompassed entirely in one individual, but is understood and influenced rather by the larger group- a collective. If we were to attempt to trace these influences down to their individual sources we might suggest that:

• Charlie makes WB a dead man
•  Dickinson makes him a bad man
• Nobody makes him into a poetry man
• The relentless pursuit of others makes him into an outlaw manand finally…
• Nobody and the Pacific Northwest tribe make him into a spirit/legend man

An interesting facet to this idea of a collective work is the contributions that different groups make to the minor literature. In particular, Nobody seems intent on connecting WB to his poet namesake, whether through reincarnation, jokingly or simply through comparison or allusion. This is in line with an idea that scholar Shu Mei Shih uses to describe when a minor group incorporates their nostalgia for the past within a minor literature. Shih calls this "structuration of the collective memory of the past" (Shu-mei Shih, 2010). Shih uses this to describe the nostalgia felt by certain ethnic groups within China before the reigning dynasty assumed control, but the concept still stands in this context.

Next, we are told that minor literatures are inherently political. This is seen clearly in Dead Man through at least three different aspects. First, WB’s struggle is characterized by his desire to find justice for himself. As a character that committed manslaughter in self defense, his sentence (to be captured dead or alive) certainly does not fit his crime. He then acts this out by disposing of those who unlawfully pursue him. Secondly, WB fights for the equality of his companion, Nobody. This is shown through his interaction with the missionary at the trading post and his request to buy tobacco (clearly for his friend) since the missionary is bigoted and will not sell it directly to Nobody. Thirdly, we see WB attempting to show value to the prostitute Thel by helping her up in the street after she has been deemed unworthy by townsfolk.

Lastly, we know that minor literature seeks to deterritorialize themes of the major literature in order to explain the minor predicament. In Dead Man, we see this through the realignment of WB (and the struggle of Nobody and Thel) according to their definition as provided by the major society. In other words, we see that WB is working to show that Nobody is not a heathen and Philistine but, in actuality, worthy of being traded with and furthermore a valuable human being. Again, this is shown through WB’s interaction with the missionary.

Finally, Deleuze and Guattari clarify that “minor literature is not the literature of a minor language but the literature a minority makes in a major language” (1983). Sadly, in the world of Dead Man, the major language is that of violence. Therefore, WB must take up arms in order to express the minor situation through the language of the majority.

So, now you know a bit of how I saw the film! What do you think? Do you think I’m completely off base? Are there portions of my analysis that can be expounded on? I’m looking forward to hearing your opinions!*

*by all means, argue with me. Seriously. Let’s debate and challenge each others’ analyses – that’s how great work is developed!

Cheers,

Nate