Category Archives: Neoliberalism

Something Wild (1986)

In honor of Ray Liotta’s untimely death I recently watched Jonathan Demme’s Something Wild, a mid-80s film starring Melanie Griffith,  Jeff Daniels and Ray Liotta. Notably, this dark comedy not only features a critique of finance capital careerism but lingers on the eccentric details of an America that began to erode with the advent of the Reagan Era and at present no longer exists.

Daniels plays Charlie, a yuppie schmuck whose rising fortunes in the company counterpoint his diminished personal life. Griffith is Lulu (Audrey), who conscripts him into her chaotic plan to dazzle her mother and former high school classmates with the illusion of an all-American life that includes a successful (normie) husband, a suburban homestead, and the imminent prospect of children. Unfortunately for both of them Audrey’s ex-boyfriend Ray (Liotta) arrives at their 10th anniversary high school reunion with every intention of picking up a relationship interrupted by his incarceration for armed robbery. Liotta’s Ray is sociopathic and seductive, not only prone to violent outbursts but capable of moving (and calculated) appeals to his victims’ trust.

I’ve had more than one female friend who found Griffith’s screen presence irritating. Her elocution skirts the fringes of baby talk. In the earlier phases of her career, at least, she hardly ever wears a bra. Yet as I was watching her entice Charlie and handle Ray I was struck by both her weird resemblance to Kristin Stewart and the way she dramatizes the plight of a woman whose vivacity and beauty renders her the target of male obsession.

Two linguistic moments stand out in this otherwise action-oriented film. The first, uttered by a man who offers Pepto Bismal to a very hungover Charlie, runs thus: “it’s better to be a live dog than a dead lion.” Eventually Charlie repeats this bromide to a colleague in the film’s final moments as he prepares to abandon his career. The substance of that phrase clearly valorizes the joys of ordinary life over yuppie hubris.

The second comes in the form of a spray-painted tag on the building housing Audrey’s recently vacated apartment: “Speculators Out.” If such a statement counts as subtext then it’s clear that Something Wild ultimately has the neoliberal turn in its sights. And, oddly, it’s Liotta’s character who shoulders the baggage. Ray’s self-satisfying violence, his endless concern for himself, resembles nothing so much as the toxic narcissism of Late Capitalism’s vaunted heroes. His certainty and ambition constitute a form of psychosis sharing more in common with a smug, entitled stockbroker than a desperate, love-struck ex-con.

In sum, Liotta– the foundling-cum-movie-star,–whose No Escape I watched in the Sarasota Mall after smoking a bunch of dope, demonstrates yet again with Something Wild that he was truly a king among men.

HR-ification

The HR-ification of BLM entails saying the right things while giving very little concrete, material support to the people who need it. Imagine if the focus was less on “Hire more Black admin” and more on “Abolish tuition. In fact pay students to attend school.” How many Black lives would be transformed by this kind of program?

Screen Shot 2020-07-28 at 4.23.42 PM

80 percent

29HL364S.jpeg

Nancy Pelosi’s “coronavirus bill” provides paid sick leave for only 20% of the workforce. Companies with under 50 and over 500 employees are exempt. Amazon, McDonald’s, etc. are not required to ensure that sick employees can stay at home rather than risk infecting the vulnerable.

Screen Shot 2020-03-14 at 12.36.52 PM.png

The Process

From the Las Vegas Democratic debate. How many of my students understand what this means?

TODD: Guys, guys, we are at the end here. We are at the end here. I’ve got to let that one go.

We are less than two weeks away from a national primary. And I want to ask all of you this simple question. There’s a very good chance none of you are going to have enough delegates to the Democratic National Convention to clench this nomination, OK?

If that happens, I want all of your opinions on this. Should the person with the most delegates at the end of this primary season be the nominee, even if they are short of a majority? Senator Sanders, I’m going to let you go last here, because I know your view on this.

(LAUGHTER)

So instead, I will start with you, Mayor Bloomberg.

BLOOMBERG: Whatever the rules of the Democratic Party are, they should be followed. And if they have a process, which I believe they do…

TODD: OK, I’m trying to do this yes or no to make it fast.

BLOOMBERG: … everybody else — everybody can…

TODD: So you want the convention to work its will?

BLOOMBERG: Yes.

TODD: Senator Warren?

WARREN: But a convention working its will means that people have the delegates that are pledged to them and they keep those delegates until you come to the convention.

TODD: Should the leading person?

WARREN: All of the people.

TODD: OK. All righty. Vice President Biden?

BIDEN: Play by the rules.

TODD: Yes or no, leading person with the delegates, should they be the nominee or not?

BIDEN: No, let the process work its way out.

TODD: Mayor Buttigieg?

BUTTIGIEG: Not necessarily. Not until there’s a majority.

TODD: Senator Klobuchar?

KLOBUCHAR: Let the process work.

TODD: Senator Sanders?

SANDERS: Well, the process includes 500 super-delegates on the second ballot. So I think that the will of the people should prevail, yes. The person who has the most votes should become the nominee.

TODD: Thank you, guys. Five noes and a yes.