I Don’t Wanna Do Your Dirty Work–a 2010’s Style Confessional Review

Author Foreward: I am writing this on the stationary bike, while I should be doing my actual job (lol, “should”). Any mistakes, please chalk up to my disgustingly sensitive touchpad mouse and the fact that I’m doing this at 120 BPM.

So, you’re reading this. You probably know me IRL. Sorry about that. But, knowing me, you know one thing: I’m a dirty Red Commie. Not even being figurative or tongue in cheek: you know I was a registered SAlt member until I let my membership lapse (tired of sending money to that podcaster in Seattle, tbh [iykyk]).

So, bearing that in mind, here’s my thoughts (ever so late, as usual) on Paul Thomas Anderson’s “One Battle After Another.

Again, this is a review being written on a stationary bike (again, partially as an experiment), so who knows how it’ll pan out.

So, ideological coherence. Hell of a subject to take on first. Do the French 75 have a coherent politics, save a clear pro-migrant stance? No! They don’t! Is this a problem to you? Didn’t bother me, but I’m also used to the incoherence in apparently coherent movements (2016 Sanders campaign–I’m looking at you). So why are people getting so up in arms about the politics of this movie? Anyone with experience in leftist/leftish groups knows that It Takes All Kinds, and that this inherently gets to contradictions and incoherence the more granular the issues get (which is why Successful movements tend to make the asks big, the policies universal, but THIS ISN’T A CRITIQUE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, BUD). There’s obviously a component of racial and gender politics at play, too, but I am a white man, so go read someone else if you want that angle. I’m here as a failed revolutionary, dammit, not a philosopher of race and gender (a class I dropped, because I was a freshman and it was an 8am).

Anyway, I’m not bothered by the portrayal of the political actors. BUT, if I were the type to be bothered by a fictional portrayal of a radical group, I would identify two main points–people, actually: Perfidia and Pat. The two lovers, entwined by youthful passions and separated by The Man, alas. But each represents a different way to fall out with The Movement. Perfidia actively betrays them (we love nominative determinism, don’t we, folks?) and Pat just washes out.

Now, in terms of facile “identification with the character,” obviously Pat appeals to me. A burnout who still holds the essential political critiques and viewpoints, but can’t be bothered to act because he’s seen nothing but miserable failure after miserable failure? Who would rather get high and watch old movies and listen to Steely Dan? Nah, no idea why this tickles my brain. So, yeah, Pat doesn’t bother me. I understand Pat. I, also, don’t wanna do any more dirty work.

Perfidia, however, seems to be the stumbling point for people who don’t like the movie. Again, I’m not the one to give the acceptable Standpoint Theory take on her character. That said, I think a lot of it boils down to “the cool, hot black lady who I am treating as a stand-in for my own personhood did a bad thing and therefore the movie is bad because I feel bad for having identified with her.” There are additional critiques that get at some degree of fetishization (which is The Point with Lockjaw, but I digress), but I’m more interested in criticism of her choices, not criticisms of where PTA points the camera.

To the people angry or disappointed with her: what would you have done? This is a parallel universe USA where the Medal of Honor is named for Nathan Bedford Forrest and a pedophile cabal runs the world from bunkers underneath swank suburbs (okay, so not TOO far removed from our own, oy vey). What would you have done? The answer, I’m afraid, is the same for me: “nothing.” Frankly, we’re all doing nothing. We could physically stop every boat coming in and out of America, shutting down the economy. We could blockade every ICE facility and dare them to hurt us to move us. We could [REDACTED REDACTED HOLY SHIT REDACTED]. But we don’t. Because we are cowards. And that’s my thesis on Perfidia, in the end: people got pissed because she did stuff and then gave up. And we see ourselves in that. (Or, at least, I do.) Not ideal! But real.

So, political incoherence? Not even an issue, especially when the people doing the politics are wildly internally inconsistent (except for Sensei Sergio, who is the real hero of the flick). [END OF WRITING SESSION ON STATIONARY BIKE]

Maybe I’ll write later about the Real Hero, Sensei Sergio, a person about whom there is much to dissect and read into (norteño syncretic culture’s interaction with fascist ameriKKKa is a deep vein to tap). But for now: you don’t like Perfidia because she’s you, not because you have some high-minded objection to her sexualization.