Old Papers 2

Ranen Erdahl
Essay 1
5/19/18
    Unfortunately, I did not enjoy The Mask You Live In. Not just because the film massages center around many premises that I disagree with, while I’m sure that was part of it. But also because I feel the issues covered in the film deserve both more discussion, and more debate, than any of them of were given. While important issues are discussed in the film, they are tackled from a clearly opinionated perspective with a distinct lack of facts.

    The film is mostly consist of stories from men raised in households with a very narrow definition of masculinity, and a series of authority figures, mostly psychologist, sociologist, and advocates of on cause or another. While the term “soft science” is considered by some in those fields to be an insult, there are reasons behind that term. The primary reason being that most results from these fields can have a variety of correct answers. As such most studies end up having a variety of interpretations, and, as both Maclugash and Goldberg point out in their reviews, the authority features of this documentary firmly believe in only one of those interpretations. Thus the film focus solely on a singular viewpoint, and it shows. Furthermore the films never really invites you think about what it is telling you.

    That is not to say that a documentary has to have multiple viewpoints to make a good film, or case for that matter. But when doing so it is necessary to cite your sources, which this film never does. The film interview several people, and makes some attempt to convey their interpretations as fact. But facts are verifiable, and the interpretations given in this film are not, as most of said statistics are not cited. The film makes quite a few attempts to get the audience to ignore this by display graphs when some of the experts of the film speak, and quotes some studies. But makes no attempt to provide the audience with a way of doing any further research, which  results is what appears to be an opinionated film.

    A long side the graphs and quotation the film employs a very old tactic of filmmaking. Several examples of real people, and real stories. These stories are tragic tales of broken home, and would draw out empathy in anyone capable of such an emotion. These stories are paired along with the ideals of the film, which naturally seems like a solution to the problems in these stories. Among some of these stories the film show the softer side of some of prison population, which is yet a another tactic. A majority have a prespection of criminals and cold-hearted, emotionless people. And while most of us also have some realization that that is not entirely true, showing the more emotional moments of criminals is great way of producing sympathy. It also has the dual purpose of pointing out some of the external factors, which contribute to the crime rate, and thus makes those watching the film more open to anyway of solving a problem that is affecting rea lives. And while many of the stories by the film do fit some of the its narratives, those narratives have a number of counter-arguments as well as counter viewpoints.

    For some examples, the film cite two facts that can be check fairly easily. The first fact being a neuroscientist briefly discussing how the brain is plastic. In context of the movie it seems made sound like the brain is totally plastic, and can therefore be easily change. As a basic psychology class, and any research on the issue or nature versus nurture will tell you, the human brain just isn’t that simple, parts of the brain are plastic, parts are very hardwired, and others parts are a mixed of both. Both Maclugash and Goldberg point this out using the age old example of other animals clearly displaying gendered roles. Furthermore, even if one could completely shapes a human child development, the film almost completely ignores the positives of what we call masculinity. The movie states the most humans portrays certain traits as male or female. The rest of the film devotes itself to portray said masculine traits in their negative light, and the feminine traits in their positive light. The film shows several damage men, and criminals, but does not so much as noted the several perfectly functional men throughout society. Actually the film has an undertone which could make one think most men are dysfunctional, whether they know it or not. In short, the film makes no real effort to address any of the questions it raises, and as a result does not make a good case for itself.

    The film also mention the narrative video games causing violence, which does seem to anywhere near as agreed upon as the film would have you believe. Ignoring for sake of argument that the several studies done on this have determined the amount of violence in world  is going down, not up, and that includes the history of video games, the arguments, or lack thereof, made by the film are half-truths at best. The only citable claim, as the film does not cite any of it sources of these arguments either, is one of these experts of the film stating the military using video games as training. While that is currently true, as Roger Smith reports, the military has always use games as a form of training, even going back to Roman times. In fact, the game of chess, is the result of a military training game, and I doubt anyone in the film would suggest doing away with chess. This would suggest that there is at least one counter-argument to the link between videogames and violence, but facts counter to this film narrative are simply never address.

    This film suffers from dismissal of those viewpoints. The film interviewees talk continually about a singular view, and any arguments or ideas running counter to that view are dismissed out of hand, assuming they are mention at all. Of course all films push some type of agenda, but a documentary type of film ought to include at least some form of rebuttal. Instead however the film pushes onword as those rebuttals don’t even really exist. As Goldberg states “As something that will show in a theater, it will only play to the converted.” Goldberg also points out that that is a shame, because the film does make some attempt to address very serious issues.

    It is perhaps a saving quality of this film to some, and it does make the documentary a good starting point. The films makes an attempt to address some societal problems, and I did find quite a few points of agreement. The pressures that society puts on people is a very real issue, and I wish it were more thoroughly discuss in general. This film brought up some the pressures that our rarely included in the dialogue, and hopefully some people, such as parents, find it beneficial to learn about them. The film taught me quite a few things as well, even if it was indirectly. It brought of numerous points I have, and would have, like to researched, but without proper citation it will be difficult to truly delve into the issues.

    The Mask You Live In makes some attempt to discuss some very serious issues, and does it’s best to offer some solutions. But the facts used by film carrying little weight, and seem quite lacking in evidence. Pushing an agenda in the way this film does often has the open effect on anyone who doesn’t already agree with that message. In the end the film never really argues for it’s ideals, which I consider to be it’s most glaring flaw.
​
Goldberg, M. (2015, February 10). THE MASK YOU LIVE IN Review | Sundance 2015. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from http://collider.com/the-mask-you-live-in-review/ 
MacLugash, J. (2016, June 29). "THE MASK YOU LIVE IN"- A Feminist's Guide to Being a Man. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from https://sunsofhyperborea.wordpress.com/2016/06/26/the-mask-you-live-in-a-feminist-guide-to-being-a-man/ 
Smith, R. (2009). The Long History of Gaming in Military Training. Simulation & Gaming, 41(1), 6-19. doi:10.1177/1046878109334330
The Visual History of Decreasing War and Violence. (n.d.). Retrieved May 19, 2018, from https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/7