Category: Opinion Articles

by Carrie Tan

Don’t Look Up is a 2021 Netflix film featuring a comet discovered to be heading towards Earth. Despite this existential-level threat, it is met with apathy initially by the White House. President Orlean only confirms the threat and leads a mission to divert the comet with nuclear weapons later to boost her popularity and save her campaign. Unexpectedly, however, the mission is abruptly aborted midway as Peter Isherwell, CEO of BASH Cellular, discovers that the comet is worth trillions of dollars in rare minerals. The White House and Isherwell then seek to exploit this and capitalise on the riches found in the comet through a dubious, not peer reviewed technology proposed by Isherwell.

Meanwhile, the masses are divided into three main groups – those who believe the severity of this threat, those who denounce such alarmism and believe that the comet can create jobs and those who completely do not believe the comet is real. A protest campaign, “Just Look Up”, is initiated, urging people to come to terms with the comet’s threat and encourages other countries to launch their own comet interception missions. Simultaneously, a counter protest, “Don’t Look Up”, is started by Orlean, attempting to debunk the comet’s existence or push for the potential economic benefits it presents. This divergence in beliefs undermines human agency as little collective action can be generated with limited progress towards tackling the comet. Ultimately, BASH’s comet interception efforts fail with other countries’ interception missions similarly unsuccessful, marking the end of humanity as the comet hurtles towards Earth.

With director Adam McKay stating that the film serves as a ‘direct allegory for Climate’, analysing Don’t Look Up could afford a greater understanding of our failure to address apocalyptic threats, even till the very end. Such an analysis is highly valuable given the extreme severity of the Climate Crisis and the lack of urgent action taken thus far despite the scientific consensus and advocacy efforts present.

I will thus answer this question through this opinion article: How does the film commentate on Climate Change and our failure to adequately address it? The film draws attention to capitalism and science denialism as core causes behind dividing and diluting human agency, eventually resulting in our failure to tackle the comet crisis. I then posit that the film draws parallels to the Climate Crisis and highlights capitalism and science denialism as root causes that need to be addressed in order to prevent the division of human agency and effectively tackle Climate Change.

The ills of capitalism

In Don’t Look Up, capitalism seems to result in self-sabotage due to the intrinsic self-interest present in this ideological construct, dividing human agency. Self-interest in capitalism is argued by Adam Smith in his Invisible Hand metaphor, which states that self-interest in capitalism is the best way towards a thriving economy. With regards to human agency, it is divided between furthering self-interest and pursuing the ‘greater good’. This was seen in the film when the comet was discovered to contain trillions of dollars in rare minerals, influencing Isherwell and Orlean to abandon the comet interception mission midway instantly in hopes of profiting from it. Such a greed-inspired move lies in direct contradiction with the greater welfare of humankind in preventing an extinction-level threat from happening. Human agency is seen to be separated, with more focus shifting towards the self-interest of attaining these profits and riches. Because of how human agency becomes divided when self-interest comes to play, the two forms of human agency undermine and conflict with one another, resulting in a failure to realise both goals. This results in a self-sabotage situation as we forsake the initial promising interception mission for not peer reviewed, dubious technology that ultimately fails in mining the minerals or destroying the comet. Isherwell and Orlean’s actions are realised as the key modes of self-sabotage due to their greed hindering society’s efforts to protect itself and enabling destructive behaviour instead. As such, it can be argued that the pursuit of self-interest, through capitalism, ends up being the society’s demise due to the separation of human agency that conflicts with one another, causing a self-sabotaging situation.

Isherwell and Orlean’s actions are reflective of the larger capitalist system in real life and how this system redirects human agency towards profit-maximisation companies at the cost of environmental sustainability, fueling the Climate Crisis in a self-sabotaging manner. The film’s reflection of reality is noted by Leonardo DiCaprio, one of the actors of the film, who states that “the powers that will bring about massive change comes from the private sector” due to the companies’ significant role in contributing to Climate Change. Such a problem is integrated within our capitalist structure itself, resulting in a worsening Climate Crisis. In Climate Change, Capitalism, and Corporations, Wright and Nyberg argue that capitalism results in the need to continually devour the natural environment to ensure sustained economic growth. This is based on the “treadmill of production” argument that claims that environmental destruction is a necessary feature of capitalism due to the ever growing need for resources as the economy develops, rather than an unfortunate side effect (Wright & Nyberg, 2015). As we relentlessly pursue the riches of greater economic development and growth, human agency is rerouted towards contributing to the Climate Crisis instead, at the cost of environmental degradation. This results in a self-sabotaging vicious cycle as we continually desire for more economic growth while digging our own graves. Additionally, amidst rising awareness of Climate Change, there has been a shift towards “corporate environmentalism” where practices become more green and sustainable (Wright & Nyberg, 2015). Yet, this has been used to hinder human agency for more progressive, “radical sustainable practices” (Wright & Nyberg, 2015), preventing the concretisation of greater environmental sustainability in most companies. It is thus evident that our adherence to the capitalist structure diverts human agency towards worsening the Climate Crisis while simultaneously obstructing human agency towards progressive practices.

Science denialism and the lack of collective action

Science denialism is another root cause that obstructs collective action by derailing human agency and backtracking discussion away from fruitful, concrete actions against Climate Change. This is achieved through the exploitation of genuine concerns that a significant or loud proportion of the masses may have, persuading them to reject the scientific consensus present and follow their constructed beliefs instead. We see this in Don’t Look Up through the counter protest headed by Orlean in response to the “Just Look Up” protest. She attempts to deceive a significant portion of the masses by emphasising that the comet does not even exist and that other “look uppers” have ulterior motives detrimental to them. For example, Orlean argues that the “look uppers” want her supporters to “be afraid” and are looking down at them, thinking that they are “better than you”. Other fears perpetuated include the loss of jobs or economic opportunities and the robbing of freedom. The emergence and perpetuation of science denialism is especially dangerous when it comes from people with power due to their greater sphere of influence. Orlean’s position of authority as the President allows her to have a far greater outreach and influence than a normal citizen, evidenced through the rallies she holds filled with “20 thousand supporters”.

This growing proportion of comet deniers is further spread through the use of media, such as social media “Vroom Vroom” and “The Daily Rip” talk show. From the masses actively supporting the first interception mission to the divergence of views near the end of the film, there is an alarming regression of discussion towards the most fundamental aspect – whether the comet even exists. Not only does this divide the public’s opinions, it also prevents any real, fruitful discussions from taking place to pave the way for more concrete actions. More attention and effort has to be spent on convincing the other side rather than on deciding what should be the best course of action to tackle this situation. This shows how science denialism plays a critical role in undermining human agency towards Climate action and distorting public discussion and consensus until it is far too late. Without much public consensus, limited collective attention can be taken towards enabling concrete actions to tackle such threats.

The depiction of science denialism in the film imitates the division of human agency due to the science denialism present in the Climate Crisis as well, especially for the right wing. This was intended by McKay who notes that “a good chunk of the population doesn’t trust the experts” when it comes to Climate Change. As analysed in The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society by Dunlap and McCright, there has been an emergence of a “well-funded, highly complex, and relatively coordinated denial machine” that challenges the “reality and seriousness of Climate Change”. Some major actors that make up the cogs of this machine include corporate America, conservative organisations like think tanks and foundations, contrarian scientists, conservative media and politicians (Dunlap & McCright, 2011). It should be noted that all actors mentioned have some power or authority in place, enabling them to successfully challenge the scientific consensus and narrative of Climate Change. Focusing on conservative politicians, we see startling similarities between Orlean and Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who claimed that global warming was the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” (Dunlap & McCright, 2011). Furthermore, the inauguration of George W. Bush “institutionalised Climate Change denial” and effectively spread science denialism in the hearts of their supporters by questioning the certainty of Climate science and suppressing governmental scientists’ efforts (Dunlap & McCright, 2011). This draws parallels with Orlean and how she influenced her supporters significantly through the misuse of her position of power. Human agency is targeted at spreading the message of science denialism rather than contributing to climate discourse. Furthermore, we see how the media serves to spread this message of science denialism against Climate Change, much like in the film. The presence of echo-chambers and conservative media is largely credited with shifting America towards a more conservative stance in recent decades (Dunlap & McCright, 2011). Through right-wing talk commentators, Fox News, conservative newspapers and magazines, Climate science is continually denigrated and assaulted and has been highly successful in influencing the right wing masses (Dunlap & McCright, 2011). Ultimately, this systematic denial machine has been highly successful in challenging Climate science across various avenues and aspects, perpetuating and reinforcing science denialism in the masses. More worryingly, we see how this has been influential in derailing important conversations and shifting human agency towards challenging the science of Climate Change instead. The division of human agency results in a lack of collective action, preventing significant change and progress from occurring.

Conclusion

Overall, the film closely commentates on the Climate Crisis by using the metaphor of a comet threat and features capitalism and science denialism as two main causes behind the failure to tackle such apocalyptic-level threats. Both causes have the ability to divide and undermine human agency, preventing substantial progress towards tackling such dangers due to the self-sabotaging cycle and lack of collective action. This closely reflects the Climate Crisis and can provide greater understanding into our lack of action even till today and perhaps, until it is too late. With this in mind, it is necessary for attention to be focused on controlling the ills of capitalism along with restricting and reaching out to climate deniers in order to unite human agency towards tackling Climate Change instead.

Bibliography:

Brangham, W. (2021, January 21). In ‘Don’t Look Up,’ director Adam McKay makes allegorical plea to follow climate science. PBS NewsHour. Retrieved October 24, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBbU-Th5lb8&ab_channel=Variety

Dunlap, R. E. & McCright, A. M. (2011). Organised climate change denial. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 144–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hayes, A. (2022, June 8). Adam Smith and “The Wealth of Nations”. Investopedia. Retrieved October 24, 2022, from https://www.investopedia.com/updates/adam-smith-wealth-of-nations/.

McKay, A. (Director). (2021). Don’t look up [Film]. Netflix.

Pomeroy, R. (2022, March 4). Climate change and science denial hit Hollywood like a comet in ‘Don’t Look Up’. Creator Adam Mckay on Radio Davos. World Economic Forum. Retrieved May 16, 2023 from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/dont-look-up-podcast-adam-mckay-radio-davos/

Wright, C. & Nyberg, D. (2015). Climate change, capitalism, and corporations: Processes of creative Self-destruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Train To Busan (2016) is a Korean apocalyptic film that follows Seok-Woo, a money-hungry, selfish and divorced businessman, who boards a train to Busan with his daughter, Soo-An, to visit his ex-wife for Soo-An’s birthday. While they are on the train, a zombie outbreak occurs and the undead begin overtaking the world. This movie follows Seok-Woo as he fights for his and Soo-An’s survival, doing everything in his power to make sure they get to Busan, the city presumed to have the best military defence against the zombies. 

Seok-Woo appears selfish at first, choosing to not look out for others for fear of slowing him and Soo-An down. However, Soo-An remains a beacon of compassion and humanity in the film, undeterred by her father’s selfishness and apathy. Seok-Woo eventually experiences character development, highlighted when the film ends with Seok-Woo’s ultimate sacrifice of his life for Soo-An and Sung-Gyeong, a pregnant lady onboard the locomotive, by pushing a zombie away from them. Soo-An and Sung-Gyeong are the sole survivors among those on the train, eventually making it to Busan.

Train To Busan is significant in the way it calls attention to female agency in a zombie apocalypse, challenging its undervaluation in society. I define agency as one’s ability to make decisions and choices, and we see a consistent contrast between male and female agency throughout the film. Female agency is characterized by compassion, humanitarianism and empathy while male agency is characterized by physical strength (sometimes violence), selfishnes and leadership. The ending of Train To Busan hence subverts the expectations of who will survive a zombie apocalypse, challenging the idea of the survival of the fittest during the end times of the world. Females, who are generally deemed to be physically weaker and possess less fighting instincts, are the only ones to make it to safety in Train To Busan, the males all becoming victims of the flesh-hungry zombies. This leads us to examine the vastly different roles and importance of male and female agency in Train To Busan, and how they interact with each other to ensure the characters’ survival in the apocalypse as well as in the governance of the larger society.

Both male and female agency are important for one’s survival in the apocalyptic world of Train To Busan, as they both have their merits and unique strenghts. One should not undervalue or dismiss either form of agency because they both play a part in ensuring one’s survival in the apocalypse, albeit in their own unique ways. I will first highlight the importance of both female and male agency in Train To Busan, examining the different ways in which they play a part in ensuring the characters’ survival. I will then link these ideas to the wider society, challenging the traditional concept of patriarchy in society, and how it can be improved through accommodative patriarchy to embrace and leverage female agency to ensure a resilient yet humanitarian society.

The importance of female agency

Female agency is important as seen through the subversion of expectations of who survives the apocalypse in Train To Busan. At the end of the film, the sole survivors among the train passengers are Soo-An and Sung-Gyeong, Seok-Woo’s daughter and a pregnant lady whose husband passes during a fight with the zombies. This ending is unexpected as it subverts the expectation that males would be the ones to survive, given the prevailing gender norms present in society. Men are deemed “invulnerable, tough, strong, aggressive, powerful, commanding, in control [and] rational”, while women are deemed as “dependent, vulnerable, pliant, weak, supportive… emotional, and empathic” (Becker, 1999, p. 27). Men are seen as the ones more capable of independent survival, while women are viewed as weak and vulnerable, reliant on males to protect and hand-hold them to safety. In light of this, it is expected that males would be the ones to survive, given that their masculine traits and capabilities make them more suited for survival in a violent zombie apocalypse. This is also hinted at in the film, where Seok-Woo tells Soo-An that she has to “look out for herself” after Soo-An kindly gives up her seat for an old lady. Seok-Woo believes that survival is contingent on one’s apathy and ability to put themselves first and that Soo-An’s kindness is a weakness that will hinder her survival. This is contradictory to the values of female agency, hence making it unexpected that the women were the sole survivors among the passengers aboard the Train To Busan. 

In view of this, the unexpected ending of Train To Busan brings out the importance of female agency. It brings forth that it is not only physical attributes that determine if one if deemed “fit” to survive an apocalypse, but sometimes having the right morals and values are what is most important for survival. The female agency displayed by Soo-An and Sung-Gyeong’s compassion, humanity and empathy is vastly different from the violence and selfishness embodied by the male agency in Train To Busan, and this is clearly seen when the train makes its first stop at Daejeon Station. As the passengers all leave the train, Seok-Woo separates from the rest of the crowd and brings Soo-An to the East Square instead of the Main Square, where Seok-Woo knows is safe according to the information he obtained from his own men. Instead of following silently, Soo-An cries and begs her father to tell the others as well, wanting to also bring them to safety despite Seok-Woo’s refusal for fear of wasting precious time. Despite the selfishness displayed by the male characters in the film, Soo-An remains compassionate from start to finish, always looking out for others and ensuring that other people are safe. The female agency seen in the embodiment of moral values can ultimately be what enables her and Sung-Gyeong’s survival, as the men are too far gone to their selfish natures and are unable to enter the post-apocalyptic world. The subversion of expectations of who survives the apocalypse in Train To Busan hence highlights how female agency is important in ensuring one’s survival, because of its embodiment of the values of empathy, humanity and compassion.

The importance of male agency and its relationship with female agency

Train To Busan also highlights how male agency is important as it aids in the elevation of female agency in the survival of the apocalypse. At the end of the film, Seok-Woo gets bitten by a zombie while trying to fight it off to protect Soo-An and Sung-Gyeong.

From this demonstration of the unique partnership between male and female agency, I propose that the wider society adopts accommodative patriarchy as a guiding principle for governance. Accommodative patriarchy is where men enable women to lead alongside them in positions of power, enhancing and leveraging female agency to build a more humanitarian society, by highlighting and enabling female agency in decision-making. This society “proclaim[s] a social and political gravitas for [all women] that far exceeds conventional calculations of their worth in reproductive, entertainment, or labor terms”, while  “masculinity [is preserved] as a necessary, responsible partner to governance” amidst the introduction of feminine authority (Han & Ling, 1998). This form of governance acknowledges female agency as more than submission and vulnerability, and male agency is used to complement female agency in governance by enabling their values to be displayed in society. Men demonstrate their agency by ensuring the safety of the country with their military skills and instinct, ensuring order in society through displays of dominance while still maintaining as the main governing body responsible for the country. This first ensures that society is resilient against external threats and that the masses are respectful of the governing body as a credible and reliable source of leadership, so as to enable women to demonstrate their agency by maintaining the ethical conduct of society, ensuring humanitarianism through education and demonstration of values like compassion and empathy, and creating a civil and caring society through displays of selflessness and kindness in decision-making. Without male agency, female agency cannot be embodied and a harmonious society that edifies its people and encourages a climate of humanitarianism cannot be established. Hence, Train To Busan highlights the importance of male agency as it elevates female agency in the survival of the apocalypse, and through this we see how implementation of accommodative patriarchy in society enables male agency to act as a platform for female agency to be demonstrated in positions of authority, creating a more humanitarian society overall.

Train To Busan challenges the traditional patriarchy

Train To Busan challenges the undervaluation of female agency in the traditional patriarchal society by displaying the importance of both gendered agencies. Under the patriarchal society, “hyper-masculinity is glorified and traditionally feminine qualities (such as care, caretaking, and valuing relationships) are denigrated” (Becker, 1999, p. 22). However, Train To Busan brings forth the point that both masculinity (male agency) and femininity (female agency) are important, and that society should not devalue female agency but instead “place greater value on the traditionally feminine values of care and relationships” (Becker, 1999, p. 22), characterized by the values displayed in Train To Busan. 

Throughout the film, Seok-Woo is observant and able to think on his feet, coming up with solutions quickly when caught in life-threatening situations. This is seen when the group of men have to get through multiple zombie-filled train carriages to first get to a toilet cubicle to rescue their loved ones, before making their way to the carriage where the other passengers are. While fighting, Seok-Woo notices that the zombies are docile and only respond to sound when the train passes through a tunnel, as the zombies are unable to see the humans in the dark. Seok-Woo then comes up with the idea of using their phones to emit sounds when the train passes through a tunnel, luring the zombies away from them so they can pass through the train carriages safely to get to their loved ones. Seok-Woo’s quick thinking and wit demonstrate how male agency is important in ensuring one’s own survival, which also allows them to protect others when faced with physical threats. 

At the start of the film, there was tension between Sung-Gyeong’s husband and Seok-Woo due to Seok-Woo closing the train doors on Sung-Gyeong and her husband, preventing them from reaching safety while the zombies were chasing after them. Despite this, Sung-Gyeong chose to show compassion towards Soo-An by giving her candy and inviting her to feel the baby’s kicks through her tummy, successfully calming Soo-An down despite the uncertain and scary situation. 

Sung-Gyeong showed her resentful husband that forgiveness is possible, and showed Seok-Woo that humanity and compassion can still be embodied no matter the circumstances. Sung-Geyong’s kindness hence played a part in breaking down the walls of selfishness and anger in the men’s hearts, ultimately leading to them helping and looking out for each other throughout the rest of the film. Sung-Gyeong’s display of female agency through her humanity and compassion led to the formation of a friendship between Seok-Woo and her husband, and their collaboration as a team is what helps them effectively fight off multiple groups of zombies to survive.

In summary, Train To Busan demonstrates that both gendered agencies have their merit and unique ways of aiding in the characters’ survival, and hence challenges the traditional patriarchal views of overvaluing masculine qualities and undervaluing feminine qualities (Becker, 1999), where society valorizes male agency and underemphasizes on female agency. 

Conclusion

Train To Busan is significant in highlighting that both male and female agencies are important for one’s survival in the apocalypse. I argued this by first examining how female agency is important through the subversion of expectations of who survives the end of the apocalypse, followed by how male agency is important as well because it helps in the elevation of female agency at the end of the film. Finally, I discussed how Train To Busan demonstrates the importance of both gendered agencies and how they contribute in their own unique ways to apocalyptic survival, before linking this to the wider society where Train To Busan teaches us not to undervalue female agency. Whether Train To Busan is a feminist film still requires more research and analysis, but what is certain is that the film acknowledges the agency of both genders and pays due respect to their positive attributes. By drawing parallels to the wider society, Train To Busan teaches us to involve female agency in positions of power, allowing women to lead alongside men because more often than not, women can bring as much to the table as men can.  

Bibliography:

Becker, M. E. (1999). Patriarchy and inequality: Towards a substantive feminism. University of Chicago Legal Forum (1), 21-88. Retrieved on May 16, 2023, from https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1999/iss1/3

Han, J. & Ling, L. H. M. (1998). Authoritarianism in the hypermasculinized state: Hybridity, patriarchy, and capitalism in Korea. International Studies Quarterly 42(1), 53–78.

Yeon, S. (Director). (2016). Train to Busan [Film]. Next Entertainment World.

From the loss of speech to the loss of sight, John Krasinski’s A Quiet Place (2018) and Susanne Bier’s Bird Box (2018) both attained critical acclaim by shedding light on disabilities through post-apocalyptic thrillers. The films both forward a similar premise: they both take the perspective of a family navigating a post-apocalyptic landscape caused by unknown alien creatures, who use their near omnipotent strength to force humankind to adapt in order to avoid death. Due to the commercial success of both films, as well as the similar themes, scholars often compare the two films. For instance, Dea Iskandar’s (2020) comparative analysis on both film’s portrayal of motherhood deepens our understanding of family as both films portray a mother traversing a cruel and uncertain world, guiding her children for a slim chance of survival.

Seeing how the films could possibly be rife with comparisons, I look at how the films differ. A clear-cut difference can be seen in humankind’s adaptive methods. The creatures in A Quiet Place have hypersensitive hearing and hyperspeed, leading to humankind silencing themselves, forming a fully silenced environment devoid of speech. The creatures in Bird Box have an ability to drive humans to suicide at a mere sight of them, leading to humans donning blindfolds, adapting by blinding themselves against the unknown entity.

Both films seemingly forward a posthumanist mindset by portraying the families constantly escaping away from the creatures, delivering a message on humankind’s insignificance against an outer-world entity and their near omnipotent powers. The concept of agency is not centralised on humanity, but is ascribed onto the nonhuman, echoing Leif Sorenson’s (2018) “The Apocalypse is a Nonhuman Story” on how certain apocalyptic texts formulate a “constellation of human and nonhuman agencies”, exposing “the frailty of the human and its codependence on the nonhuman”. Yet, A Quiet Place ends by framing a different perspective from Bird Box. A Quiet Place ends with the characters discovering a weakness in the monsters, laying open the possibility of fighting back in the sequel and inspiring a more liberal humanistic perspective by putting humanity at the forefront. The ending recognises the value of humanity’s rights to liberty against the alien creatures, placing humans back at the centre of agency and alludes to the possibility of humanity gaining back control in the sequel. In contrast, Bird Box ends with the characters leaving the root cause of the apocalypse – the creatures – undealt with, finding peace in joining a school for the blind to survive. The ending conforms with the film’s posthumanistic narrative, having the agency of humans overshadowed by the agency ascribed to the creatures.

The obvious question would then be: why the difference in endings despite the similar premises? By doing a comparative analysis on A Quiet Place and Bird Box, I argue that the different resolution direction is shaped by the disparity in agency of both the nonhumans and humans. By examining how the creatures are represented in the two films, I seek to illuminate the difference in agency ascribed to them. Through examining the contrast between the loss of agency forced upon humanity—from the loss of speech to the loss of sight—I hope to clarify the difference in agency possessed by humans, showing that the different endings in both films reflect the different perspectives they hold on humanity’s agency.

Representational Materialisation and Dematerialisation

At a representational level in the films, one key difference viewers can see is that in A Quiet Place, the viewers get to see the creatures in a material form, as compared to Bird Box, where the creatures are unknown and never seen, taking an immaterial form in the minds of the viewers. The closest viewers get to see the creatures in Bird Box are the drawings done by raving heretics who make other humans look at the creature.

The immaterial quality of the creatures in Bird Box could be reasoned to be Bier wanting us, the viewers, to experience the same blindness as the characters in the film. However, that reasoning would not explain why there was almost a scene included in the film where the creatures are shown in their material form. The scene was even filmed, but was cut out. The entire scene was described by Sandra Bullock (the main actress in the scene) to be “the stuff of surreal nightmares” (Quoted in Caulfield, 2019). It was not that Bier wanted the creature to be unknown; it was that somehow, the creatures were “a little more terrifying in theory than they were in practice”, and that “unveiling to viewers the [creatures’] appearance would take away their power” (Quoted in Caulfield, 2019). Bier further shared: “whatever those beings are, they tap into your deepest fear. […] I think to suddenly take upon a concrete shape in order to illustrate that, becomes weak. Where the conceit is really strong, trying to illustrate [the creatures] becomes almost meaningless” (Quoted in Caulfield, 2019).

Bier considered it “weak” to materialise the creatures, opting to tap into the fear of the unknown. As quoted from H.P Lovecraft in The Annotated Supernatural Horror in Literature, “the oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown” (Lovecraft 2012). Bier further uses this fear of the unknown by giving said creature near omnipotent power to drive any human who looks at it to suicide. The characters in the film experience the unknown in the form of forced blindness, whereas from the perspective as the audience, we experience the unknown in the form of the unseen and practically intangible entity. The immaterial nature of the creatures reflects the idea of posthumanism. These creatures are unknowable and beyond our, the viewers, and the protagonists’ current understanding. With the lack of understanding of the creatures, the protagonist can only run, without an opportunity to fight back. The agency ascribed to the humans is overshadowed by the agency ascribed to the creatures. 

The outer-world creatures in A Quiet Place take a material form. The viewers can see the creatures act and move even in brief flashes, staying consistent in appearance as compared to the creatures in Bird Box. There are even moments where the humans in the film take advantage of the creatures’ hypersensitive hearing to lure it away. By virtue of taking a material form, the creatures exist in our — the viewers — and the protagonists’ realm of understanding, giving rise to moments for them to fight back against the creatures. The centre of agency is wrestled back to the side of humanity as the film progresses since the protagonists gain further understanding of the creatures’ abilities, shifting from a posthumanist view of the post-apocalypse to a more liberal humanist view. The agency of the nonhuman creatures is instead overshadowed by the agency of humanity. 

Hence, the representational materialisation and dematerialisation of the creatures’ in the two films presents us the difference in agency inscribed onto the nonhuman entities, providing a possible reason as to why films chose such different forms of resolutions. 

Difference in Human Agency

To only look at the nonhuman agency would only be half the story; it is also important to examine the difference in the agency of humanity between the two films. If we were to look at human agency as humanity’s capacity to act, it would be crucial to look at the difference in sensory deprivation forced onto the humans in the films. The characters in A Quiet Place are forced to stay silent: they lose the ability to use speech to communicate, forming a nearly silenced environment that mimics a world experienced by deaf people. The characters in Bird Box are forced to don blindfolds: they lose the ability to see, mimicking a world experienced by blind people. In order to examine the difference in one’s capacity to act in each scenario, it is important to examine the difference between deafness and blindness in the real world.

A journal article collating the perspectives of medical students towards blindness and deafness concluded that the medical students viewed “blindness as a far worse disability than deafness” (Owoeye et al., 2007). The students viewed blindness as having an overall greater effect on education, social interactions, family relationships, and overall potential development than deafness (Owoeye et al., 2007). Based on the students findings, deafness has a worse impact on human agency than blindness.

One of the main impacts of deafness, as claimed by the World Health Organisation (“Deafness”, 2021), is the loss of the ability to communicate, which leads to “social isolation, loneliness and stigma”. However, the forced silence in A Quiet Place barely had any of the issues surfaced by the WHO. The characters in A Quiet Place do not lose as much agency through the use of sign language, having the loss of communication being offset by the apocalypse being all-encompassing.

However, in Bird Box, the loss in agency is a lot more apparent. Blindness “separates peoples from things” as characters traverse difficult terrain blindfolded. The loss in agency is especially noticeable when the main protagonist rows a boat through a turbulent river with her two children to finally reach the safe haven.

In Bird Box, blindness negatively impacts peoples’ connection with each other as the heretics deliberately strip off blindfolds to revere the outer-world creatures. The fact that the heretics have the ability to see, dichotomised with the blindfolded characters, further juxtaposes the difference in agency between the seeing and the blind.

In the context of the films, human agency is more negatively impacted by blindness than silence. To begin with, The agency ascribed to the humans in A Quiet Place is  higher compared to the humans in Bird Box. 

How it all leads to The End

In A Quiet Place, the film ends with the characters discovering a method to counter the outer-world creatures, finding a way to stun one of them using sound frequencies from a hearing aid. Thus, giving the characters an opportunity to kill the creature. In Bird Box, the film ends with the characters finding a school for the blind to reside in —a place surrounded by people who were born blind. One finds a method to counter the outer-world creatures, while the other finds a place that avoids the outer-world creature.

Although both films show how the characters consistently escape from outerworld creatures in the narrative, affordances given to the characters in A Quiet Place enable them to fight back, putting the agency of humans back at the forefront against the nonhumans. In contrast, giving the characters in Bird Box the ability to deal with the creatures would have instead weakened the narrative. The narrative of the story forwards the characters’ loss of agency, constantly showing how the main characters evade rather than fight the creatures. With how society views blindness, the end seems to only naturally follow, as blindness seemingly has a greater impact on one’s ability to act. 

Although A Quiet Place shifts from a posthumanist view of the post-apocalypse to a more liberal humanistic view, the shift follows from the entanglement of agencies between the nonhuman and humans, where humans never lost much agency against the nonhuman to begin with, giving them the opportunity to act. Bird Box instead conforms to a posthumanist view from start to finish, emphasising the frailty and futility of humanity’s struggle, having the agency of humanity overshadowed by the agency of the nonhumans.

By looking at the entanglement of agencies between the nonhuman and humans, it becomes clear as to why the resolutions following each of the films was as such. The end naturally follows from the narrative.

Conclusion

The incongruence between the liberal humanistic ending of A Quiet Place and the posthumanistic ending of Bird Box tells us the different perspective of humanity in the advent of nonhuman invasions. By resolving the incongruence between the two films’ resolutions, we find that agency of both the nonhuman and the human to be of utmost importance in the way the narrative leads to the different endings. By understanding how agency interconnects with the actions of the protagonists in the films, it allows for better understanding of human nature with regards to how we strive for survival.

Bibliography:

Bier, S. (Director). (2018). Bird box. Bluefrass Films; Chris Morgan Productions.

Caulfield, A. J. (2019, January 1). The real reason we didn’t see the monsters in Bird Box. Looper. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from https://www.looper.com/141723/the-real-reason-we-didnt-see-the-monsters-in-bird-box/ 

Deafness and hearing loss. (2021, April 1). World Health Organization. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/deafness-and-hearing-loss

Desta, Y. (2018, April 11). “Gross it up”: how the freaky monsters of A Quiet Place were created. Vanity Fair. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/04/a-quiet-place-monsters-effects/amp 

Iskandar, D. P. (2020). Portrayal of mothers in post-apocalyptic world as represented in Bier’s Bird Box and Krasinski’s A Quiet Place: a comparative study. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman.

Keeling, D. M. & Lehman, M. N. (2018, April 26). Posthumanism. Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-627

Krasinski, J. (Director). (2018). A Quiet Place. Paramount Pictures.

Lovecraft, H. P. (2012). The annotated supernatural horror in literature (S. T. Joshi, ed.). New York: Hippocampus Press. 

Owoeye, J. F. A, Ologe, F. E., & Akande, T. M. (2007). Medical students’ perspectives of blindness, deafness, and deafblindness. Disability and Rehabilitation 29(11-12), 929–933.

Sorensen, L. (2018). The apocalypse is a nonhuman story. ASAP/Journal 3(3), 523–546.

What is the role of superheroes in the movie Avengers: Endgame? One might consider this an answer easily derived from the synopsis of Endgame: the superheroes save humanity by reversing the effects of “the Snap”–an apocalyptic event wiping out half of all life in the universe–and defeating supervillain Thanos for a final time. To fulfil this role, we believe that the Avengers must be empowered by their exceptional physical abilities; like how in the pivotal final battle between Thanos and the Avengers, the Avengers’ various superpowers are integral to mowing down Thanos’s army and finally weakening the supervillain himself. These outlandish abilities thus seem to legitimise the Avengers’ role in becoming the main determinant of humanity’s fate, while the vulnerable non-humans can only passively look on.

Yet, we should question our assumptions that superheroes and non-superheroes occupy completely different spaces in Endgame’s narrative; doing so allows us to discover the nuances of Endgame’semphasis on qualities that are not exclusive to the superheroes but shared across mankind. Through its central motif of self-sacrifice, the movie conveys how the apocalypse is resolved only when the superheroes are stripped of their physical strength and immersed in the more understated, human qualities of selflessness. Endgame thus subverts the perceived divisions between superheroes and non-superheroes by proposing that a superhero’s true agency is only visible when their emotional, non-superhero side is. These overlaps between the superheroes and non-superheroes then demonstrate the tensions between physical power and human emotion, and how superheroes must reconcile this tension to attain their fullest agency.

The Perceived Separateness of Heroes and Non-Heroes

First, we must examine why superheroes appear so separate from non-superheroes. This is likely due to the assumption that a superhero’s agency is mostly derived from their exceptional physical abilities. These abilities can range from the bizarre like Ant Man’s ability to turn huge and tiny at will, to the more understated like Black Widow’s graceful fighting skills. In the final battle between Thanos and the Avengers in Endgame’s third act, the movie invites us to gape as the varied abilities of these superheroes come together to fight against a common enemy. As a result, the experiences of these ultra-powerful superheroes become inaccessible to non-superheroes. We cheer as Captain Marvel deals a heavy blow to Thanos by smashing through his mothership and destroying it. Yet we are also reminded that this is only possible because she is a one-of-a-kind being of immense power and invincibility, allowing her to take down such a massive structure unharmed. We are in awe of how Iron Man flies around the battlefield with ease and decimates his enemies with beams of energy, but it is evident that such power is derived from his super suit, with advanced technology far beyond the reach of any ordinary citizen.

Hence, the same qualities that earn our admiration for the superheroes also creates some distance between us and them; as a result, the relationship is not that between equals, but between the worshipper and the worshipped. An indication of this separateness is how superheroes are often expected to embody ideas much bigger than themselves due to their exceptional abilities. For example, Captain America’s physical strength and abilities make him the perfect embodiment of American exceptionalism. In The Modern Superhero in Film and Television: Popular Genre and American Culture, Jeffery Brown describes the cover illustration of the first Captain America issue—depicting the superhero punching Hitler himself on the jaw—as ‘one of the most incredible wish-fulfilling scenarios ever depicted in popular culture.’ (2017, p. 65). He then elaborates that Captain America was created in order to capitalise on American patriotism and shore up support for American intervention in World War 2 (p. 93). Evidently, Captain America’s physical strength is being used by his creators as a straightforward conveyor of strength and influence. His heroic actions are thus a form of escapism for the American public from the dreary reality of war.

As a result, Captain America is celebrated as a patriotic figure, but he is distinctly removed from the experiences of the ordinary citizen. And as superpowers grow more ridiculous and the achievements of the superheroes grow far beyond common imagination, it is no wonder that this separateness between superheroes and non-superheroes would only increase.

Based on the assumptions above, we might assume that in Avengers: Endgame, the Avengers’ central role in averting the apocalypse is borne out of their extraordinary physical powers. We presume it is their unique physicality that makes them the plausible protagonists of the plot against Thanos, while the rest of humanity stays vulnerable and remains firmly in the Avengers’ protection. This notion is seemingly supported by the gratuitousness of the fight scene in the third act of Endgame where Thanos is finally defeated. Here, the heroes’ abilities are put front and centre, animated in painstaking detail for the audience to gawk at. We see Ant Man grow to the size of a building and punch down a massive alien monster with triumphant ease. We watch as Thor uses bolts of lightning to turn columns of Thanos’s minions to ash. The strength and influence possessed by the superheroes is thus conventionally conveyed through physicality. From this, we gain the impression that the Avengers’ agency in this battle is shaped by the power they possess and their ability to overpower Thanos.

However, this assumes that the Avengers have true agency in their combat with Thanos. To understand this, we need to understand the complexities of a hero’s agency in Avengers: Endgame.

A Superhero’s Agency in Endgame

While agency might be defined as the ability to make decisions on one’s own accord, it is interesting that many decisions made by the Avengers in Endgame are based on the needs of society at large and not their own. This is best demonstrated by the sacrifices of Black Widow and Iron Man, who give up their lives to reverse the effects of the first Snap and to defeat Thanos respectively. Yet it would also be naive to suggest that a superhero’s agency is minimal simply because of their selfless, self-sacrificial natures. A superhero’s decision to put their lives on the line is still a conscious choice, with the goal of preserving the survival of mankind being one that the superhero believes in wholeheartedly. Thus, the Avengers’ heroics do not restrict their agency, but rather redefine it as putting a greater emphasis on their selfless wishes rather than any self-benefit.

It can hence be argued that during the final battle at the Avengers’ Compound, the Avengers do not have true agency until their desire to avert the apocalypse is achieved with the death of Thanos. For example, a major turning point occurs when Captain Marvel smashes through Thanos’s mothership, thwarting his plans to bomb the Avengers to oblivion and giving them a fighting chance. Yet this sense of triumph dissipates when later Thanos defeats Captain Marvel in combat, confidently knocking her out in an image that bolsters Thanos’s sheer strength in comparison to the Avengers’ growing helplessness. Thus, rather than the Avengers firmly keeping their grip on the battle, this influence is traded between Thanos and the Avengers in a deadly tug of war. This volatility means that during combat, the agency possessed by the Avengers’ is ultimately unstable and fragile.

Thus, Endgame subverts expectations by showing that the superpowers that make these heroes so unique do not empower them to their fullest. When then, we might ask, do the Avengers attain their fullest agency? Arguably, it is the moment Iron Man performs the third Snap, turning Thanos and his army to dust and therefore securing victory for the Avengers at the cost of his own life.

Iron Man’s Agency in His Sacrifice

Paradoxically, Iron Man’s agency is most visible when he lets go of his physical abilities in exchange for human vulnerability. When shielded by the advanced weaponry of his super suit, Iron Man is unable to defeat Thanos based on physical power alone. When Iron Man realises that self-sacrifice is the only way to stop Thanos, he subverts the Instead, he must willingly give up his invincibility to perform the third Snap. Here, it is clear to us that Iron Man’s agency is firmly affirmed, since it is no longer threatened by a now-dead Thanos. Yet instead of physical power, his agency is enabled by the very human qualities that motivate Iron Man to readily give his life: his ingenuity, selflessness and bravery.

When Thanos over-confidently claims, “I am inevitable,” Iron Man cockily replies, “And I am Iron Man,” before performing the third Snap. In this moment, we are distinctly reminded not just of his vulnerability in his strained expression as he takes on the full power of the Infinity Stones. We also bear witness to the humanness of his identity, that being his unique wit and sense of humour. The clear divisions between the roles of superheroes and non-superheroes are thus blurred, with the loss of power and return to ‘humanness’ paradoxically being integral to the selfless superhero agency.

The Overlaps Between Endgame and Real Life

The distance we put between us and superheroes seems even more arbitrary when we consider the many parallels between fictional superheroes and real-life figures. Specifically, the idea that tensions exist between power and human values, and that this must be resolved to attain agency is commonly encountered by people in positions of power.

For one, our politicians must often resolve the tensions between needing to retain political power and adhering to one’s moral values. Similar to Iron Man, politicians can give up their power in order to do what they see as being the right thing. For example, several American Republican politicians have been firm on their disapproval of Donald Trump, the Republican figurehead, despite knowing this would cause them to lose constituents’ support. One example of this is Liz Cheney, who lost her primary election in August 2022 after criticising Donald Trump’s lies about the 2020 presidential elections. In her concession speech, she makes clear how achieving the same electoral success as she did two years ago ‘would have required that I enable his ongoing efforts to unravel our democratic system and attack the foundations of our republic’ (Cheney, 2022). She acknowledges that retaining political power would require her to support Trump, yet she defiantly declares that ‘that was a path I could not and would not take’ (Cheney, 2022). Like Iron Man, Cheney is fully aware of the vulnerable position she is left in due to her own choices. Her willingness to accept these consequences thus affirms her agency in staying true to her independent beliefs, in comparison to how her agency would have suffered had she submitted to the pressure to preserve her political power.

Conclusion

Endgame proves that cleanly differentiating the roles of superheroes and non-superheroes in its narrative ignores the nuanced reality of how a superhero’s agency is asserted in Endgame. In particular, the resolution of the apocalypse in Endgame by Iron Man’s self-sacrifice highlights the profound overlaps between both superhero and non-superhero qualities within a superhero’s psyche. In fact, Endgame further subverts the superhero and non-superhero divide by suggesting that a superhero’s agency is paradoxically affirmed by non-superhero qualities, and that unique physical abilities lend a mere impression of agency. Understanding this paradox leads us to a more nuanced evaluation of how a superhero’s agency comes to be, and challenges how superheroes are defined by their superpowers.

Bibliography:

Brown, J. A. (2017). The modern superhero in film and television: Popular genre and American culture. New York: Routledge.

Cheney, E. (2022, August 16). Concession speech. Iowa State University: Archives of women’s political communication. Retrieved on May 16, 2023, from https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2022/08/17/concession-speech-aug-16-2022/

Russo, A. & Russo, J. (Directors). (2019). Avengers: Endgame [Motion picture]. Marvel Studios.