MAOIST.WS

Maoist Information Web Site


Maoist movie reviews

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" lacks edge, but also is not enough to 
avoid being fuel for a green fascist movement

The Day the Earth Stood Still
Directed by Scott Derrickson
Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation and Earth Canada Productions
Rated PG-13
103 minutes
2008

2008 December

[Contains some spoilers]

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" is partly about technology versus 
nature. Keanu Reeves seems to specialize in movies about technology 
recently. Politically in these movies, it has to be said that Reeves 
may have been at his best in "Johnny Mnemonic" (1995), ridiculed by 
critics on artistic grounds. In less controversial aspects, the 
"Matrix" movies are similar to movies that came before and after 
dealing with perspective, technology, consumerism, and 
mind-alteration. The "Matrix" trilogy will be less remarkable as 
excitement about it wears off. What is more controversial from a 
Marxist point of view makes "Matrix" petty-bourgeois or even 
counterrevolutionary.(1) Like "The Matrix," "The Day the Earth Stood 
Still" raises the idea that the humyn species' problems are due to 
humyn nature. At least, "Johnny Mnemonic" refers to the profit motive 
of capitalism, without emphasizing humyn nature and neither 
pretending to be revolutionary nor focusing on economic oppression of 
so-called workers in the First World. Unfortunately, most thinking 
about the profit motive of corporations today in the First World is 
fascistic in direction, not communist.

The theory of humyn nature was a focus of struggle during the Chinese 
Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and has always been opposed by 
Marxists. Various revisionist "Marxists" acting like the United 
$tates is China in the 1960s nonetheless uphold a classless and 
groupless theory of behavior, ethics, or social organization, that 
places humyn essence or individuals at the center of an explanatory 
or moral framework. Chinese people are 20% of the world, and so James 
Hong makes an appearance in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" 
apologizing for the bourgeoisie in both English and Mandarin: Humyn 
nature dooms the humyn species, he says, but humyn life is worthy of 
love and imitation while it lasts. It is a bourgeois position that 
sees the problems of capitalist society, but sees nothing existing 
beyond that society. It in fact perpetuates that society by holding 
up life in the First World as something to which everyone should 
aspire and discouraging opposition to imperialism by attributing 
imperialism at home and neo-colonialism in the Third World to humyn 
nature. Amusingly, "Mr. Wu" and the alien messenger, Klaatu, played 
by Keanu Reeves meet at a McDonald's restaurant in the United $tates, 
McDonald's being an international business franchise coexisting with 
various cultures and simultaneously being a common factor. 
Multiculturalism plays a role in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" in 
other ways, rallying different nationalities in the United $tates for 
external repression of non-Amerikans.

MIWS does not favor killing the humyn species to save Earth as a 
life-supporting planet (although MIWS supports revolution and even 
voluntary humyn extinction might require revolution to take place 
first) and found the idea of Earth's rarity as such a planet strange 
in a contemporary sci-fi movie. And, obviously, the situation of a 
group of non-Earth species intervening to save Earth from humyns is 
fantasy. However, people should contemplate what if Klaatu is correct 
in his calculation: "If the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the 
Earth survives." If more (presumably "intelligent") species were 
possible with the humyn species' death sooner rather than later, why 
would someone oppose the aliens? The answer that "The Day the Earth 
Stood Still" suggests is that the humyn species should live as long 
as possible, which could be a kind of chauvinist idea if 
intelligent/sentient life did exist on a multi-planetary scale and 
prioritizing a longer life for the humyn species entailed hurting 
intelligent life as a whole. Again, fantasy, but "The Day the Earth 
Stood Still" begins with fantasy and ends up with a vague answer, 
which leaves the door open to Amerikan chauvinism and keeping 
Amerikan privilege, to a real-world problem, not balancing humyn 
interests with the interests of humyn-like life as a whole, but 
preserving a planet in which humyns can live.

For radical environmentalists associated with the idea of putting the 
Earth's long-term survival before everything, "The Day the Earth 
Stood Still" is not just science fiction, and there are real-world 
controversies over anthropocentrism, which in this context means 
putting what humyns want, or Homo sapiens' length of survival, first. 
Others who would never sacrifice the humyn species for Earth's sake 
are concerned about anthropocentrism as an attitude, particular forms 
of which they believe are counterproductive even for humyns. "The Day 
the Earth Stood Still" raises an anthropocentric argument, that 
humyns should try to survive at all costs, and tries to make it seem 
compatible with Earth's life-supporting ability, thus diluting 
opposition to anthropocentrism. This makes "The Day the Earth Stood 
Still" go well with wildlife channel programs about sharing the 
planet with polar bears and other cute animals. The movie suggests an 
urgent need to do something for the environment, but the solution 
can't be too frightening. The aliens back down from their initial 
position for a compromise with uncertain results. The hope is that, 
having faced annihilation, humyns will come up with a solution or 
accept a different lifestyle. Whether this actually works isn't 
shown, saved for a boring sequel that won't be made. Ending 
imperialism involves violence, but the structural change needed to 
sustain lifestyle and living standard changes on a large scale and 
eliminate narrow class and national interests threatening the 
environment isn't always the stuff of exciting movie action.

The impetus for "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is obviously interest 
in global warming. Most of this interest is anthropocentric, 
primarily fear that global warming will hurt humyns, another reason 
why "The Day the Earth Stood Still," suggesting that the solution to 
environmental change comes from outside anthropocentrism, is 
confusing. It is not that anthropocentrism is the main obstacle to 
thinking about global warming, and people working toward a human 
society without oppression are not necessarily opposed to 
anthropocentrism strongly, but the movie favors comfortable solutions 
in general, if it does not just raise anxiety about environmental 
problems. The lifestyle change "The Day the Earth Stood Still" 
suggests would require what would be a catastrophe, economic and 
social, in the eyes of First Worlders even if environmental disaster 
is averted.

Klaatu appears as knowledgeable, rational, and powerful, and not 
scary himself. He has a humyn form. His true form would only scare 
humyns, he says. In "The Day the Earth Stood Still," the aliens don't 
have an ugly or terrifying physical appearance. The movie is not 
racist in the way other movies about a non-humyn enemy or potential 
enemy are; although, the aliens in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" 
don't come off as being evil. They manifest mostly as semi-biological 
technology, presumably reflecting a balance the aliens have found 
between nature and the technological needs of intelligent species. 
This is largely the extent of the redeeming content of the movie. 
There seems to be nothing repulsive about the humyns either except 
the smug Secretary of Defense character representing an 
administration willing to drug and interrogate the aliens' messenger. 
The Secretary of Defense blames her belligerence on her unseen boss. 
"The Day the Earth Stood Still" is short on answers, but has a lot of 
hope: hope that people will overcome religious apocalyptic ideas 
encouraging apathy, for example, and do something about the 
environment, and hope that the United $tates specifically will 
change. In December 2008, it might as well be hope that Barack Obama 
will do something about the environment. Despite campaign rhetoric, 
about the United $tates' stockpile and nuclear weapons in general, 
rhetoric effectively perfuming U.$. imperialism and making U.$. 
foreign policy more palatable, Obama environmentalism is more likely 
to look like bombing Middle East countries, and economic and 
political rivalry with other countries, than eliminating any U.$. 
weapons voluntarily.

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" relates humyns' threat to Earth, to 
technology. The aliens seem to target structures and vehicles, 
example, and little split blood is shown in the movie, which shows 
destruction, but avoids gore. Questions of the relationship between 
humyns and technology, or technology versus nature, in the abstract 
aren't particularly interesting to scientific communists as ongoing 
concerns. There is a hundred times more discussion of technology in 
the abstract in various contexts, than concrete discussion of the 
distribution of technology and its access and how that came about. As 
the First World's access to technology is based on an exploitive 
relationship with people outside the First World, technology in the 
abstract is mainly an exploiter concern and more particularly a 
petty-bourgeois concern, a concern of people who are neither 
exploited nor wealthy enough to appreciate the full benefits of 
technology and the class power that is the basis of its distribution 
and use. Similarly, the larger theme in "The Day the Earth Stood 
Still" of man versus nature is a distraction when there is much less 
discussion of imperialism's contribution to, and specific First World 
countries' relative and specifically per-capita share in, 
environmental problems. The United $tates and New York are at the 
center of events in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" because the 
United $tates and New York are the center of the universe to liberal 
Amerikans, but Amerikans' relative responsibility for what is 
happening to Earth in the movie is not explored. The United $tates is 
shown having a lot of destructive military firepower, nothing that 
viewers would not know about already. Somebody born yesterday could 
get the impression that the United $tates maintains a military just 
for defense against invaders. The message of the movie could be: 
"Don't blame Amerikans. Blame everyone." International comparisons 
need to be carefully conceptualized, and the distribution of 
emissions isn't necessarily the same as the distribution of money in 
the world, for example, but there is a general lack of method whereby 
people fail to make international comparisons systematically and fail 
to scratch the surface of how observed international differences came 
about, and Liberalism results. In "An Inconvenient Truth" (2006), Al 
Gore mentions the United $tates' per-capita contribution to global 
warming, but underlying that contribution are a living standard based 
on international exploitation and power differences. Eliminating 
these things requires a struggle against the United $tates, and they 
influence policy-making. Amerikans cannot take initiative to end 
their own exploitation of others, and the United $tates cannot 
exercise "leadership" on solving environmental problems other than by 
trying to create policies on its own terms or to get something else 
it wants, such as cooperation in a war to prop up an economic system 
that contains the long-term potential for the greatest damage to the 
environment.

First World exploiters have discussed more sophisticated ideas about 
the environment than those suggested by "The Day the Earth Stood 
Still," and to some extent it is easy for MIWS to criticize this 
movie for theoretical purposes. MIWS would judge the movie in terms 
of its being good or bad for public opinion and division of First 
World exploiters within an environmentalist discourse, but the whole 
of the First World green movement has been chauvinist, racist, 
bourgeois, and economic-nationalist. Without specifically and 
explicitly presenting a Third World position on environmental 
problems (and thus risking not having mainstream distribution), it is 
a problem even for a film to just raise environmental issues, and the 
choice could be between films with varying degrees of white 
chauvinism or nationalism. Products of First World environmentalism 
are backyard environmentalism, so-called stewardship of land taken 
from oppressed nations in the first place, Whole Foods selling more 
"green" products, green marketing of various products and economic 
activities, defaming indigenous and Third World people over the 
environment and animal rights, bashing Mexican migrants and 
legitimizing white settler control of occupied Mexico, singling out 
Islamic and Jewish slaughtering practices for criticism, Third World 
population control, and calls to nationalize industries and large 
corporations without ending international exploitation.

Again, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" obviously has an element of 
sci-fi fantasy, but the movie raises the idea of an intervention by 
an outside force, which is relevant to reality. In the real world, 
the United $tates has little internal social basis for revolution or 
other progress, and any progress that does manage to take place will 
come mainly from actions by people outside the United $tates. "The 
Day the Earth Stood Still" shows people around the world living in 
various economic circumstances when the aliens arrive, but the movie 
suggests that humanity as a whole has no overall motivation to 
change, which is wrong. The movie does, however, reflect reality 
accurately when it shows some Amerikans celebrating what they think 
is the apocalypse. The fact is that decadent people in the United 
$tates are more likely to remain apathetic even in the face of 
calamity than fight for change, unless the change is fascist change.

Humanity versus efficiency and rationality is a well-trod theme in 
science fiction. People who already control industry and technology 
have the luxury to philosophize on the topic. Having attained wealth, 
the bourgeoisie starts to fear the consequences of the scientific 
culture it fostered for economic reasons. The revolutionary movement 
of the proletariat is a scientific movement, needing to be 
discredited with anti-scientific postmodernism, for example. In "The 
Day the Earth Stood Still," a multi-species force that has waited for 
change for a long time and studied humyns takes matters into its own 
hands and presents itself as an invincible force with an impeccable 
rationale. In place of this fantasy, one can contemplate a 
multi-national force led by a scientific proletarian movement that 
has studied Amerikans and cannot wait for revolutionary consciousness 
to develop among exploiters.

Perhaps in a role as a diplomat and not just a messenger, Klaatu 
initially tries to talk with world leaders as in the original 1951 
movie and is obstructed by the U.$. government. The U.$. resistance 
does not make a good impression on Klaatu. The response of the 
microbiologist character Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly) is to take 
Klaatu to a 'real' leader, a Nobel laureate who did work on 
biological altruism and apparently now spends his time trying to 
solve difficult, unsolved mathematical problems. Unable to come to an 
understanding with scientific-minded Klaatu by herself, Helen Benson 
presents the Nobel Prize winner scientist to Klaatu.

When the shit hits the fan and others have failed, people look to 
Nobel laureates for direction. They are perceived as being smart in 
general. Going to a Nobel laureate rather than an anti-Amerikan 
leader is not surprising in a Hollywood movie, but it is notable that 
a couple of scientists out of three hundred million Amerikans have an 
influence on Klaatu despite information he has that humanity can't 
change. And this is after Klaatu forms a negative impression of 
political leaders by interacting with bureaucrats in the United 
$tates and trying to talk with establishment leaders in New York, 
rather than talking with leaders in the Third World, which makes up 
the majority of the world's population. The idea that a handful of 
smart scientists or engineers, government officials or not, without a 
particular social and political theory can 'save the nation', 
combined with faith that Amerikans know best and will do what is good 
for the world by putting themselves first, is rooted in technocracy, 
a fascist petty-bourgeois movement. Coincidentally, "The Day the 
Earth Stood Still" was released the same day President-elect Barack 
Obama's choice of physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Chu for 
Secretary of Energy became known. Chu has done work on technological 
solutions to global warning. More important in the present context 
than what Chu will actually do or what the reasons for his selection 
are is the message that it will send about scientific expertise in an 
imperialist country government as part of an emerging "post-partisan" 
regime.

If there are just the humyn species and individuals, not classes, 
nations, and groups, Klaatu's actions make sense. Intellectuals 
anywhere could represent humanity as a whole, at least for Klaatu's 
learning purposes. Klaatu can even understand the so-called human 
condition by observing a few individuals, a theme in the movie. In 
reality, there are classes and other groups, and on world scale. So, 
the depiction of Klaatu's allowing himself to be influenced by a 
smart minority in the United $tates is problematic, not to mention 
that this happens on an emotional basis. The Nobel laureate admits 
that Klaatu cannot be persuaded by intellectual means, but clearly 
presents a contrast with the defense secretary. Change cannot be put 
on hold because of the presence of some smart or farsighted people in 
the First World who may not even be doing anything to oppose the 
imperialist system in action. The old theme of emotion versus reason 
is used in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" to support an idea of 
halting progress because of some individuals.

The 1951 movie supposedly inspired bourgeois internationalism, and 
the 2008 one is said to support international cooperation on 
environmental challenges, but the latest movie also supports 
multicultural unity within the United $tates in response to a threat 
or danger. The aliens in the movie aren't evil from Helen Benson's 
perspective, just doing what they think they have to do, and 
obviously there is no such thing as aliens attacking Earth, but 
Amerikans will insert various perceived problems in place of the 
aliens, from global warming attributed to China, to militant Muslims. 
A subtle theme in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (2008) is 
overcoming cultural differences. This appears innocently as resolving 
ordinary step-mother-step-son tensions between a white female adult 
and a male child who happens to be Black, forced to live with each 
other as a result of a marriage ending with the boy's father's death. 
Jacob's father was in the military. Amerikans have a hard time 
agreeing on exactly what to do about global warming, but they do get 
excited about the idea of blowing up the infrastructure of Third 
World countries pursuing nuclear energy, while holding up their 
military including females and non-whites as proof that Amerika is a 
force for freedom. Progress is not made mainly by getting Amerikans 
to come together. Science-fiction fantasy brings Amerikans together 
through a movie for future attacks on Third World people and other 
reactionary and repressive actions.

The 1951 "The Day the Earth Stood Still" alludes to Albert Einstein 
as being the smartest persyn on the planet. Famously among people 
considering themselves some kind of socialist, Einstein wrote the 
essay "Why Socialism?". The reason MIWS thought of this essay aside 
from the Nobel laureate connection and movie trivia is that it 
happens to represent some of the problems MIWS has discussed: namely, 
the notion that intellectuals can inspire movement toward a goal that 
is not guided by scientific method and theory, and the practice of 
thinking about concepts but not having a concrete analysis. While 
confusing the question of whether "only" "experts" on society have a 
right to talk about socialism, with issues of determinism and 
formalism in social explanation and of differences between social 
inquiry and fields such as physics, casting doubt on whether there is 
a science of society and social change at all, offering an 
individualist critique of capitalism, and reducing "socialism" to a 
mere, economic goal and an end, "Why Socialism?" states that workers' 
wages are determined by "minimum needs" and secondly by supply and 
demand, and says other things that are true about capitalism in the 
abstract.

Of interest to environmentalists will be Einstein's response to a 
statement, albeit made in the context of "the threat of another 
[world] war," questioning whether humanity should not disappear, "Why 
are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?". 
Einstein attributes the statement to hopeless and lonely alienation 
connected to "the economic anarchy of capitalist society," discusses 
the changeability of humyn social behavior, and argues that "human 
beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, 
to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, 
self-inflicted fate." While "Why Socialism?" reads like the writing 
of an intellectual who has recently become acquainted with some 
concepts in Karl Marx's works, others had written about imperialist 
exploitation and the large size of the First World bourgeoisie by the 
time "Why Socialism?" was written. "Why Socialism" says nothing about 
First World class structure and international exploitation 
concretely. There is nothing in the essay that most people in the 
First World supporting economic regulation, unions, progressive 
taxation, and a welfare state, could disagree with in terms of actual 
substance. "Why Socialism?" does not explain, for example, why the 
anarchy of capitalist society cannot be ended without proletarian 
revolution. At this time, Amerikans calling for "green jobs," "energy 
independence," full employment, and nationalization of automobile 
manufacturers, are good candidates for supporting the planned economy 
with "democracy" discussed in Einstein's essay. White-nationalist 
mainstream Amerikans supporting state capitalism and welfare state, 
with environmental and non-environmental justifications, without 
opposing international exploitation and the expansion of war are 
precursors to fascism. They act with, not against, the apocalypticism 
in the United $tates that leads to both passivity and an 
intensification of reactionary movements.


Notes 1. "The machines are the proletariat: "Matrix" as a counterrevolutionary story," http://maoist.ws/reviews/movies/matrixmachi nes.html

About | Home | Theory | Reviews | Document Archive | What's New?