Masculunity is one psychological concept that is demonstrated in this scene. Masculinity is defined as possessing qualities regarded as characteristic of men, such as strong, vigorous, or manly. The man in the dress clothes and the gang members both display masculinity in this scene by trying to "punk out" the other.
The gang members initiated the confrontation by claiming that the man was trespassing on their territory. They threatened to not let the man go unless he paid his briefcase as a "toll." They used a knife in order to scare the man into doing what they wanted. The man in the tie was not going to be bossed around by the gang members. He was irritated because he had had a long day, and he was not going to back down. Instead of giving up his briefcase, he took a baseball bat and hit the gang members util they left him alone.
This is a good example of masculinity because it shows the two sides using threats, aggression, and physical means in order to solve a conflict. Though this issue could have been worked out in an easier way, this became a battle of who was "more manly." Each side was trying to establish dominance over the other, and anything was fair game to be used (words, knife, bat) in order to establish that dominance. Neither side of the argument was going to back down because that shows a sign of weakness, which is not masculine behavior.
I have no idea what this movie is about, but I know that in real life, many conflicts involving men follow a similar pattern. Though knives are not used most of the time, men tend to use physical aggression in order to solve disputes. It starts out as a verbal confrontation but then escalates into a fist fight. Thus, this dosn't just happen in the movies. Many fights between males are to prove who is more masculine than the other. This scene provides a good example of masculinity.
One of things that stood out for me in this scene was the sense of territory. First of all, perception plays a major role in this aspect of the scene. The Hispanic men are very upset that Michael Douglas’s character is hanging out in their neighborhood, even though he is doing nothing but sitting there. A lot of stereotyping is going on in this scene by both parties. Perhaps their reaction would have been different if the person sitting on the cement had been another Hispanic young male, dressed in similar clothing as their own. However, since Douglas appears as an upper-middle class white male wearing dress pants and a tie, he is perceived as trespassing in their territory. Douglas also stereotypes the young men, by making an external attribution that they are involved in a gang. The two men never confirm that they are in a gang, but only threaten Douglas to persuade him to leave (on a side note, fear is one of the most effective methods of persuasion). Both Douglas’s and the Hispanic men’s perceptions of each other play a major role in why a conflict develops between them in this scene.
On another note in my area of Biological Psychology, is the aspect of evolutionary psychology that could be extrapolated from this scene. It seems to me that people in general tend to be very territorial about their space. We simply don’t like strangers to be in our space and we often speak of having our own “personal bubble”. This is largely affected by our environmental conditioning. However, though this involves a lot of speculation, it is also possible that this sense of territory and fear of strangers could also be affected by evolution. If we were to think back to ancient times with primitive humans, it would make sense that a fear of strangers would help one survive. One should be cautious when encountering a new person or organism with no knowledge if they have good or bad intentions. Primitive humans might also want to protect their territory, because it serves as a shelter and perhaps an area for storage of resources to survive. A healthy level of fear of strangers and protection of our own territory also helps us as modern humans to survive today (i.e. locking our doors, not getting in a car with a stranger, etc.).
The first camera angle of the “Falling Down” clip is a close-up of Michael Douglas looking through a hole in his shoe. I think that this sets the stage for an abnormal clip, because usually people do not have a hole in their shoe. The other aspect that clues us in to the tension and abnormality of the scene is the music. Though it is a bright, sunny day, the director has chosen to play suspenseful music to set the mood. The music that is playing throughout the scene creates stress in audience members. I was certain something huge and bad was going to happen, which it did as the scene progressed.
As mentioned in the other blog posts, there was definitely some stereotyping and cultural prejudices happening in this scene as well. It would have made a huge difference if Michael Douglas had been a Hispanic individual, rather than a Caucasian man. The scene would have also been different it Michael Douglas would have been a female.
Depending on which culture you’re going to identify with, cultural norms were either kept or broken. For example, Michael Douglas asked for a sign that said “No Trespassing,” because he didn’t see one. The Hispanic men pointed to one of the graffiti signs on the rock, and said that that was their sign. The Hispanic men also believed that Michael Douglas was on their property, which was run down; they perhaps thought he belonged in one of the “nice” neighborhoods that would have been in the background during the scene. Douglas, on the other hand, felt like it was a “free” country, and that he could sit wherever he wanted to. This is similar to the white men taking over other cultures in other ways in the past.
Finally, the last aspect was the surprise effect of Douglas’ bat attack. The Hispanic men were clearly not expecting him to pull out a bat and try to beat them up. They perhaps had been conditioned to believe that if you are in a group, have a weapon and can gang up on a white man, you will be able to get what you want from him. This was not the case here.
I have never seen this movie, but this one scene totally sold me on wanting to. The really interesting thing about it was that it was a big cluster of things that sort of didn't fit. You can tell that he's in the city, but he's out somewhere in open grass. You can tell that it's modern time, but he looks straight out of the 50s (I love those glasses!). He's dressed like a businessman but definitely not in an office.
What I want to talk about is his reaction to the situation - and how it defies our expectations. The thing is, the situation in which he finds himself (or... puts himself, as seems possible) is inherently stressful. Sitting duck out in the middle of nowhere, confronted by not one but two local gang members, no one around... that is stressful. That is absolutely a threat to well-being. It's certainly enough to get the fight-or-flight response to kick in. Let's start from the beginning. Sitting on a big block, looking through a shoe and searching the want-ads. Normal body functioning. Gang members approach, reaction begins, adrenaline released a little. Probably pounding heart rate, maybe sweaty palms, looks a lot like nervousness. Gang members engage you, threaten you - now that's enough to get most of us running like little children. (I'm making an assumption that most of us wouldn't fight) The reason we run is that our fight-or-flight response is enacted because the situation is DANGEROUS.
But not Michael Douglas. There's one little part where he seems to be panting a bit, but he doesn't seem to be concerned in any other way. In fact, it's the opposite. He's too calm. When we were watching this scene, I just kept thinking, 'Hey, pal, now's the time to freak out' and I found myself getting more and more nervous for the fact that he didn't seem nervous at all. Our appraisal of the situation is DANGER! and he defies it (just like his outfit, the setting, etc.) by being totally at ease.
This is really interesting for two different reasons. Stress-wise, it tells us that not only do we intrinsically know (our bodies really know) when to panic in a situation, but we also can objectively and externally recognize triggers and situations that are threatening. So we fight or we run because our body tells us to, but we also know, intellectually, that we want to run, and that it's a good idea to run.
It's also interesting because Michael Douglas's lack of response tells us something about him. To me, as soon as I saw him not panicking, I knew he must have some sort of special skill-set, that he must be prepared somehow to deal with the situation. All of the idiosyncracies of the scene and then his total calm broke all of my expectations of the scene, but also allowed me to create new ones based on the new information and decide that he must be somehow prepared if he wasn't acting in the way that a "normal" person would. Also, someone said in class that he was kind of a nutter butter... that would fit nicely as well, although I would have guessed assassin first just from the one clip.
What struck me first about this clip was the incongruity that Mollie mentioned in her post. Douglas is about to get pummeled by a couple of gang members and he begins some sort of 'psycho-babble.' I was intrigued by this and so I did a little learning about some different forms of psychological treatment and therapy.
Douglas seems to be employing Albert Ellis's rational emotive behavior therapy on the Hispanic men. Though he is breathing heavily and should be under a great deal of stress, he also seems eerily calm and rational. He uses rational common-sense arguments to address the problem ("Hold up, fellows, we're getting off to the wrong foot here...We're having a territorial dispute, huh?"). Most of us in this situation would not "fight" the problem but "flight" instead. Douglas, on the other hand, continues to empathize with the men by saying he can understand that they have taken offense to his being on their ground. He ends his mini talking-it-out session by retreating in an unusual way. Instead of just saying "I'll take my problems elsewhere," Douglas responds "If you two will just take a couple steps back...I'll take my problems elsewhere."
I honestly think they might have just left him alone if he would have retreated and just said he would leave instead of asking them to step back first. By asking them this, he is making them step retreat too, if only a few steps, and therefore threatening their masculinity. The rest of the scene steps far away from any sort of connection to treatment or therapy and an apparent anger management problem or a real turn to his "fight" response emerges instead.
A big psychological aspect of this clip pertained to our schemas and how they shape our perception of things. As humans, over time we develop these schemas through our experiences in the real world, and they are continually reinforced until they have a great significance on how we view things. For instance, right away when the clip started I thought of the time period and concluded that either 1) this film is somewhat dated, or 2) this film is meant to portray a period like the 1980s. I arrived at this conclusion through a couple of observations. First, I checked out what the main character in the scene was wearing and related it to today’s dress standards. He had relatively big, thick glasses that today would be considered pretty dorky. Also, his pants and shirt were made of a weird fabric, unlike any that I see on a normal day to day basis. Finally, the briefcase he was carrying looked very dated. Instead of being all black and executive like today’s briefcases, it seemed old and worn out with its brown leather exterior. Just using this sensory input my schema was able to take the scene and put it into a context based on observations I’ve previously had, and I associated the input with a time period like the 80s.
Another schema that shaped my perception of the scene dealt with the gangsters. When they rolled up to the guy on the rock, I knew he was in big trouble. Just by the inflection in their voices I could tell they were not pleased with this random guy intruding on their territory. I’ve seen gang movies and TV shows like this before, and those previous experiences gave my mind a mental construct of what the typical pissed off gangster looks and acts like, and these guys fit that to a T. They had slicked back hair, wore earrings and other bling, and seemed like they were two dudes you didn’t want to mess with. I was able to put all this together and give these guys a label immediately because when I saw their appearance and how they acted, my schema of the typical gangster kicked in and I associated them with that class. In this instance my schema turned out to be correct, however if it had been wrong and they turned out to violate my mental construct I would have to reevaluate everything. If for instance, the gang members were volunteers at a church in their spare time, I probably would’ve felt bad about them getting beat up. But, because my schema got it right, I was able to interpret the scene in the way the director intended it to be.
Another aspect of the scene I found particularly interesting was the sounds. The music was extremely well done and definitely added the intense feeling of stress and anxiety the main character probably felt. Also, I thought the sound of the bat striking the gangster was well dubbed in. Obviously this sound must be faked, as no actor is going to take a full force hit from a baseball bat just to give an authentic sound. Because of this, the director probably added in the sound of a baseball striking another object. Although not authentic, his sound was “close enough” to what we expect it to sound like when someone actually gets hit with a bat, so our mind buys into it and accepts it as a factual occurrence.
Rachel briefly mentioned that the Hispanic men were most likely conditioned to their means of intimidation working. To expand on that, the gangsters, I’m sure, were used to wielding weapons to gain power in situations. The person they were intimidating would most likely retreat (in response to their biological “flight” instinct), and the gangsters would get what they wanted. We can tell this behavior probably worked in the past because of the ease and confidence in which they acted. In this scene, however, the reinforcement of the enemy’s retreat was not given to the gangsters. Instead, they were punished by their aggression being turned on them as Michael Douglas’ character beat them with a bat. The result of this is that the gangsters’ behavior will most likely change in the future, meaning they have learned from this situation. I would guess the next time they encounter any person on their territory, hostile looking or not, they would approach them with more caution. If this next person took advantage of the gangsters, the gangsters would view that as punishment, and their behavior would regress to its original form. Basically, each situation that either reinforces or punishes the gangsters shapes their behavior one way or the other. Eventually, their original behavior could become extinct if their new behavior is continuously reinforced.
Michael Douglas’ character is also being conditioned in this scene. He is learning that his aggression and lack of fear lead to him having power in situations. His behavior will be shaped to be more aggressive when challenged in the future, since he was reinforced in this situation. However, like the gangsters, he could be either reinforced or punished in the future, which will cause his behavior to either regress or become extinct.
The cinematographic choices for this piece were really interesting to me. The choices for music and background noises at the starts of the scene very much pulled me into the moment. But, perhaps the most interesting choices was the circling camera as the two Latinos circled Douglas. As a person who get sea sick, the constant circling motion put my stomach on edge; one would assume this was done to trigger some of the very basic responses of the viewers' autonomic nervous system. This was probably a parallel for Douglas' character, who was obviously the one in danger.
When the body is presented with immediate danger, it can trigger the so-called "fight or flight" response, both biologically and psychologically. Because the viewer is not in danger, creating a stressful situation visually and audibility can mimic some of the biological responses in the fight or flight response. (This includes effects on digestive system along with cardiovascular, muscular and respiratory systems.) Once these biological panic responses occur, the viewer may be able to emphasize better with the fight or flight choice which Douglas' is about to make. As such, Douglas' response was quite obviously of the fight category. This is more typical of males, but his response is obviously over-the-top.
As an end note, the camera choices at the end of the clip were also interesting. While the earlier choices made the viewer feel as if they were involved in the situation, the later choices made the viewer feel as if they were simply still involved, but only an observer. (Watch as the camera dips with Douglas' hand as he picks up the butterfly knife.) This adds to the overall discomfort with the situation, and perhaps even more to the fight or flight response. However, rather than needed to protect one's self from the two Latino men, the viewer/observer now feels the need to decide what to do about Douglas' obviously unbalanced character.
Since my expert area is social psychology, I really noticed a lot of social conflicts in this scene. The two Hispanic gang members have an incredibly negative attitude towards the businessman and demonstrate it through words and actions that are very stereotypical of both Hispanics and gang members. The behaviors and attitudes that they displayed were definitely negative stereotypes and showed a very negative prejudice towards Hispanics, specifically gang members. Obviously, these two male gang members were not only displaying stereotypical behaviors related to their ethnicity, but they were also showing their negative prejudice towards Caucasian businessmen. I highly doubt either of the two men would have been nearly as angry or rude to a fellow Hispanic who was sitting on their “private property.” They are portrayed as treating their Caucasian visitor rudely because of his status and ethnicity.
I also noticed that the Hispanic characters’ self esteem, attitudes, and behaviors were strongly tied to their ingroup concept. They definitely viewed their ingroup, fellow Hispanic gang members, much more favorably than the outgroup. Their attitude and behaviors towards the businessman definitely showed their negative attitudes towards members of the outgroup. On the other hand, the businessman also displays similar attitudes and behaviors towards the two Hispanic characters. He refers to them as Hispanic gang members, using very negative and prejudicial language when he addresses them. He fails to leave their “private property” when they both order him to and assaults both of them rather than simply handing over his briefcase. I found his behaviors irrational, inconsiderate, and very characteristic of his ingroup beliefs. He obviously viewed them negatively because they were members of the outgroup and treats them accordingly.
I also noticed the cultural aspects of the scene and the different appearances across cultures. The businessman appeared to be wealthy since he was professionally and expensively dressed. The Hispanics appeared as part of a lower socioeconomic status since their clothing was domestic and much less expensive. Also, their haircuts and styles fit their culture and their portrayal as gang members.
The scene opens with a view of the city from Douglas' shoe. There is no music, but rather some soft, almost eerie sounds, signaling desolation. After a bit, some ethnic music starts playing in the background along with street noises; and it's interesting because it gives us, as well as him, a sense of setting. (It's not just music for the viewers, it's music that we assume he can hear within the scene.) At this moment in the movie, prejudice sits in the front seat and we watch as the two Hispanic men attempt to bully Douglas. In fact, it is an "us versus them" situation from both sides. The Hispanic men assume that because he is a Caucasian male, he couldn't possibly be a threat so long as he is within their territory. They might have responded to him differently even if he had been wearing clothing that was "street appropriate" rather than his business attire. Of course, Douglas judges the two men as they approach him as well; the viewer can tell he assumes they are rough gang members looking for trouble because he seems to physically and mentally prepare for the confrontation. He makes a comment similar to "Maybe if your sign was in fucking English then I'd be able to fucking read it" and that statement stood out because he conformed his word choice to theirs while also making a prejudiced stab. He ignores the fact that they can obviously speak two languages fluently (a great skill) and makes it sound as though they should only speak English, and if they don't, it's not worth it for him to listen or read. He does not have the ability to read Spanish and yet the focus is on them not writing in English.
It is then interesting that Douglas most likely breaks the stereotype that the two men have built up for him. Rather than being weak and submissive due to their intimidation tactics, he talks back and ends up lashing out violently (something I am sure they did not expect). In fact, I think this surprise, stereotype-busting move is the very reason they run. If Douglas had been lower class, younger, and maybe representative of a different race, they would have had actual defenses ready, not just a weapon of intimidation. They would have most likely stayed and fought to save face.
I think the contrast in the opening frame of the scene is interesting. There is a city skyline with tall buildings,and then there is the desert-like place where Michael Douglas' character is sitting on the rock. I have never seen this movie and am about to go off on a slight tangent, but stay with me. There are signs that Michael Douglas' character is going through some rough times, especially, he implies, when it comes to his job. We can tell that he is struggling by the whole in his shoe, and the newspaper in which he has circled possible jobs. I wonder, if he has been layed off (or on the brink of being layed off)by a company that relocated to Mexico for cheaper labor. Companies relocating outside of America has been happening more and more often these days, even companies in Iowa (like Maytag) are closing production down. This causes stress for all the people who lose their jobs to the cheap labor oppertunities in countries like Mexico. And, when people get stressed they tend to take it out in ways they normally wouldnt. I doubt Douglas' character would normally have been so rude to the two Mexican men, but if he did just get laid off due to his company relocating, he could be angry at the Mexican population in general and take his feelings out on the two men. I also doubt he would get violent if he was in a good place financially and occupationally. However, since in my theory he isnt, this could exagerate his emotions of fear and anger that he already has, and make them manifest themselves in violence.
I could be totally off, but its just what I happened to come up with in my mind when I watched the clip.
One thing that I found to be very interesting throughout this scene relates to perception. At the beginning of “Falling Down” I immediately noticed the size of the buildings in the background. They were much smaller than the size of his face, the rock he was sitting on, and other things that were closer up. This all relates to perceptual constancy—the tendency to perceive sizes, shapes, brightness, and colors as remaining the same even though their physical characteristics are constantly changing. This particular example refers to size constancy—how we perceive objects as remaining the same size even when their images on the retina are continually growing or shrinking. Through experience, we have learned that objects do not physically change size as they become closer or further away.
Depth perception can also be applied to our perception of the size of the buildings. Depth perception refers to the ability of our eyes and brain to add a third dimension, depth, to all visual perceptions, even though images projected on the retina are only in two dimensions—height and width. We have monocular cues for perceiving depth—and the most relevant one for this scene is relative size. Relative size is a cue for depth that results when we expect two objects to be the same size and they are not. At one point, the actors face appears to be much bigger than the skyscrapers in the background. However, we know that because his face appears larger, we perceive it as closer, and the buildings appear smaller and therefore further away.
Another psychological concept that I noticed in this scene was social psychology—particularly stereotypes. When the scene opened up, I immediately noticed that he was in a lower-income part of the town. The houses appeared to be falling apart, there was a lot of graffiti, and there were obviously gang affiliations. The actor, on the other hand, appeared to be a businessman. He was in a nice suit and shoes and carried a briefcase. The men who approached him had sloppy clothes and just appeared to be troublemakers, based on their demeanor. At one point, the main actor even referred to them as “you people” implying that he was categorizing them. Society has helped us to form schemas on how to view certain groups and people.
This whole scene struck me as very odd. It starts off with a cityscape view with all these skyscrapers in the background and then we immediately see a shantytown. What's even more peculiar is that there is a man that looks like he belongs in an office sitting on what appears to be a gang territory hill with graffiti all around. According to our sense of perception, this scene does not look right at all. Furthermore, after I associated the actor to be a businessman, I was definitely not expecting him to not only talk like the Hispanic men, but he was also more than prepared for a threat like that with his hiding of a baseball bat under his briefcase. What further added to the confusion was that after he took the Hispanic man's knife, he couldn't use it, after he fought them off with a baseball bat I figured he would know how to flip it open.
With all the contrasting elements in the scene, our mind doesn't quite know what to make of it, because as soon as you seem to figure out what's going on with your perception schemas, the scene purposefully jolts you out of that schema, leaving you wondering what is going on and why a businessman would be in that area in the first place.
I'd also like to illustrate another concept at work when we watch these movie scenes in class. Even though we are taking in auditory information, many comments afterward are based on what is seen, therefore visual sense is dominating the other senses. This is called visual capture. This concept is also demonstrated if you've ever worn beer goggles or something else that distorts your vision. If someone throws a ball at you for you to catch, you'll go in the direction you think you see if going, even if you can hear the object going past your head on the other side. (I know I've done it, it was a day in a driver's ed class a long time ago where they had us take turns wearing goggles that simulated being highly inebriated)
Also, there is perceptual constancy at play in this scene. In the part where the camera is circling around with the Hispanic men (changing the visual stimuli we see because we are seeing them in a different light and can see different parts of the background), we still perceive the businessman as the businessman and the Hispanic men as the ones threatening him. That perception does not change with the position the camera is in.
The view in the opening of this scene is interesting. At first I couldn't even tell what it was, but after it zoomed out you can see that it is a hole in his shoe. I think this is meant to show the different perspective that he is now seeing from. I haven't seen this movie before, but picking up things from this scene indicates that he must have had a bad day and lost his job. This has caused him to see things differently. I speculate that he would have acted differently if these gang members had started to harass him the day before. Today though he felt like he had nothing to lose because he had already lost so much.
I had mentioned the use of Coca-Cola in this scene as an example of product placement in class. I did a little research and it was in fact a paid product placement. A book on Psychology in Entertainment uses it as an example. By the way, from what I've looked at of this book it looks like it would be a great one for this class.
77% of viewers recall seeing Coke in this movie. This is a way that these brands influence memory of their products in consumers. It also can affect their decisions. A study was done which asked people to imagine they were buying items for a friend's new apartment. Participants were more likely to pick items which were shown on a recent Seinfeld episode. Product placement is a tool that businesses use to persuade people to make purchases of their products by creating a sense of familiarity with them.
I think the most interesting part of this scene is how everything is so out of place and awkward. There is the city skyline in the background and the city man in the middle of what looks to be a field at first. He is so clean clut and is so clearly a working man from the city, so it is awkward that he is in this overgrown area in such nice attire. Nothing fits and I think that really grabbed my attention. Even when the Mexican gang members came up, they didn't really even fit. The area looked so calm and serene with the long, wavy grass. After the fight too when the Mexican men are running away, you see the streets and they look so clean and there is more grassy area across the street. That doesn't really fit either with the portrayal of the ghettos. I guess that's my schema kicking in.
This clip was really interesting out of the context of the movie. I have never seen this movie, so I really had no clue what was going on otherwise, but this clip in and of itself makes sense without knowing other things about the movie. It is a textbook example of confrontation. The thing I really noticed was the contrast in the clip. Right away a sharp contrast between the bustling city area and the poorer area is made. The first little conflict they have about the sign (or lack thereof) illustrates this perfectly. The man didn't see a sign, but his idea of a sign and the other two men's idea of a sign are clearly not the same thing. To them, grafitti is a sign- they had their "turf" clearly marked, and this guy is clearly trespassing on their turf. However, the man in the suit was looking for a sheet of metal with colored letters and pictures on it- he probably didn't even take a second look at the grafitti. He tries to be all rational about it- and to them there isn't anything rational about it- it's a territory dispute and he needs to get off their land- no excuses. To them- nothing can justify him sitting there. Then there is the contrast to what the guy with the suit is wearing and has with him. He's all dressed up- but there is a hole in his shoe. He has a bat...and a briefcase with him. He seems like the victim here- but then all of the sudden the roles switch and they are running from him. The whole scene is just contrast after contrast. It really messes with our schemas for gangs and white collar workers. Why did he even challenge them at first? But then he does, and then they run from him? One other interesting thing to note is that almost everytime you see the man in the suit- the city is in the background, and when you see the other two men the city is not visible.
Leave a comment
Search
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by maclink published on February 23, 2009 6:44 AM.
Masculunity is one psychological concept that is demonstrated in this scene. Masculinity is defined as possessing qualities regarded as characteristic of men, such as strong, vigorous, or manly. The man in the dress clothes and the gang members both display masculinity in this scene by trying to "punk out" the other.
The gang members initiated the confrontation by claiming that the man was trespassing on their territory. They threatened to not let the man go unless he paid his briefcase as a "toll." They used a knife in order to scare the man into doing what they wanted. The man in the tie was not going to be bossed around by the gang members. He was irritated because he had had a long day, and he was not going to back down. Instead of giving up his briefcase, he took a baseball bat and hit the gang members util they left him alone.
This is a good example of masculinity because it shows the two sides using threats, aggression, and physical means in order to solve a conflict. Though this issue could have been worked out in an easier way, this became a battle of who was "more manly." Each side was trying to establish dominance over the other, and anything was fair game to be used (words, knife, bat) in order to establish that dominance. Neither side of the argument was going to back down because that shows a sign of weakness, which is not masculine behavior.
I have no idea what this movie is about, but I know that in real life, many conflicts involving men follow a similar pattern. Though knives are not used most of the time, men tend to use physical aggression in order to solve disputes. It starts out as a verbal confrontation but then escalates into a fist fight. Thus, this dosn't just happen in the movies. Many fights between males are to prove who is more masculine than the other. This scene provides a good example of masculinity.
One of things that stood out for me in this scene was the sense of territory. First of all, perception plays a major role in this aspect of the scene. The Hispanic men are very upset that Michael Douglas’s character is hanging out in their neighborhood, even though he is doing nothing but sitting there. A lot of stereotyping is going on in this scene by both parties. Perhaps their reaction would have been different if the person sitting on the cement had been another Hispanic young male, dressed in similar clothing as their own. However, since Douglas appears as an upper-middle class white male wearing dress pants and a tie, he is perceived as trespassing in their territory. Douglas also stereotypes the young men, by making an external attribution that they are involved in a gang. The two men never confirm that they are in a gang, but only threaten Douglas to persuade him to leave (on a side note, fear is one of the most effective methods of persuasion). Both Douglas’s and the Hispanic men’s perceptions of each other play a major role in why a conflict develops between them in this scene.
On another note in my area of Biological Psychology, is the aspect of evolutionary psychology that could be extrapolated from this scene. It seems to me that people in general tend to be very territorial about their space. We simply don’t like strangers to be in our space and we often speak of having our own “personal bubble”. This is largely affected by our environmental conditioning. However, though this involves a lot of speculation, it is also possible that this sense of territory and fear of strangers could also be affected by evolution. If we were to think back to ancient times with primitive humans, it would make sense that a fear of strangers would help one survive. One should be cautious when encountering a new person or organism with no knowledge if they have good or bad intentions. Primitive humans might also want to protect their territory, because it serves as a shelter and perhaps an area for storage of resources to survive. A healthy level of fear of strangers and protection of our own territory also helps us as modern humans to survive today (i.e. locking our doors, not getting in a car with a stranger, etc.).
The first camera angle of the “Falling Down” clip is a close-up of Michael Douglas looking through a hole in his shoe. I think that this sets the stage for an abnormal clip, because usually people do not have a hole in their shoe. The other aspect that clues us in to the tension and abnormality of the scene is the music. Though it is a bright, sunny day, the director has chosen to play suspenseful music to set the mood. The music that is playing throughout the scene creates stress in audience members. I was certain something huge and bad was going to happen, which it did as the scene progressed.
As mentioned in the other blog posts, there was definitely some stereotyping and cultural prejudices happening in this scene as well. It would have made a huge difference if Michael Douglas had been a Hispanic individual, rather than a Caucasian man. The scene would have also been different it Michael Douglas would have been a female.
Depending on which culture you’re going to identify with, cultural norms were either kept or broken. For example, Michael Douglas asked for a sign that said “No Trespassing,” because he didn’t see one. The Hispanic men pointed to one of the graffiti signs on the rock, and said that that was their sign. The Hispanic men also believed that Michael Douglas was on their property, which was run down; they perhaps thought he belonged in one of the “nice” neighborhoods that would have been in the background during the scene. Douglas, on the other hand, felt like it was a “free” country, and that he could sit wherever he wanted to. This is similar to the white men taking over other cultures in other ways in the past.
Finally, the last aspect was the surprise effect of Douglas’ bat attack. The Hispanic men were clearly not expecting him to pull out a bat and try to beat them up. They perhaps had been conditioned to believe that if you are in a group, have a weapon and can gang up on a white man, you will be able to get what you want from him. This was not the case here.
I have never seen this movie, but this one scene totally sold me on wanting to. The really interesting thing about it was that it was a big cluster of things that sort of didn't fit. You can tell that he's in the city, but he's out somewhere in open grass. You can tell that it's modern time, but he looks straight out of the 50s (I love those glasses!). He's dressed like a businessman but definitely not in an office.
What I want to talk about is his reaction to the situation - and how it defies our expectations. The thing is, the situation in which he finds himself (or... puts himself, as seems possible) is inherently stressful. Sitting duck out in the middle of nowhere, confronted by not one but two local gang members, no one around... that is stressful. That is absolutely a threat to well-being. It's certainly enough to get the fight-or-flight response to kick in. Let's start from the beginning. Sitting on a big block, looking through a shoe and searching the want-ads. Normal body functioning. Gang members approach, reaction begins, adrenaline released a little. Probably pounding heart rate, maybe sweaty palms, looks a lot like nervousness. Gang members engage you, threaten you - now that's enough to get most of us running like little children. (I'm making an assumption that most of us wouldn't fight) The reason we run is that our fight-or-flight response is enacted because the situation is DANGEROUS.
But not Michael Douglas. There's one little part where he seems to be panting a bit, but he doesn't seem to be concerned in any other way. In fact, it's the opposite. He's too calm. When we were watching this scene, I just kept thinking, 'Hey, pal, now's the time to freak out' and I found myself getting more and more nervous for the fact that he didn't seem nervous at all. Our appraisal of the situation is DANGER! and he defies it (just like his outfit, the setting, etc.) by being totally at ease.
This is really interesting for two different reasons. Stress-wise, it tells us that not only do we intrinsically know (our bodies really know) when to panic in a situation, but we also can objectively and externally recognize triggers and situations that are threatening. So we fight or we run because our body tells us to, but we also know, intellectually, that we want to run, and that it's a good idea to run.
It's also interesting because Michael Douglas's lack of response tells us something about him. To me, as soon as I saw him not panicking, I knew he must have some sort of special skill-set, that he must be prepared somehow to deal with the situation. All of the idiosyncracies of the scene and then his total calm broke all of my expectations of the scene, but also allowed me to create new ones based on the new information and decide that he must be somehow prepared if he wasn't acting in the way that a "normal" person would. Also, someone said in class that he was kind of a nutter butter... that would fit nicely as well, although I would have guessed assassin first just from the one clip.
What struck me first about this clip was the incongruity that Mollie mentioned in her post. Douglas is about to get pummeled by a couple of gang members and he begins some sort of 'psycho-babble.' I was intrigued by this and so I did a little learning about some different forms of psychological treatment and therapy.
Douglas seems to be employing Albert Ellis's rational emotive behavior therapy on the Hispanic men. Though he is breathing heavily and should be under a great deal of stress, he also seems eerily calm and rational. He uses rational common-sense arguments to address the problem ("Hold up, fellows, we're getting off to the wrong foot here...We're having a territorial dispute, huh?"). Most of us in this situation would not "fight" the problem but "flight" instead. Douglas, on the other hand, continues to empathize with the men by saying he can understand that they have taken offense to his being on their ground. He ends his mini talking-it-out session by retreating in an unusual way. Instead of just saying "I'll take my problems elsewhere," Douglas responds "If you two will just take a couple steps back...I'll take my problems elsewhere."
I honestly think they might have just left him alone if he would have retreated and just said he would leave instead of asking them to step back first. By asking them this, he is making them step retreat too, if only a few steps, and therefore threatening their masculinity. The rest of the scene steps far away from any sort of connection to treatment or therapy and an apparent anger management problem or a real turn to his "fight" response emerges instead.
A big psychological aspect of this clip pertained to our schemas and how they shape our perception of things. As humans, over time we develop these schemas through our experiences in the real world, and they are continually reinforced until they have a great significance on how we view things. For instance, right away when the clip started I thought of the time period and concluded that either 1) this film is somewhat dated, or 2) this film is meant to portray a period like the 1980s. I arrived at this conclusion through a couple of observations. First, I checked out what the main character in the scene was wearing and related it to today’s dress standards. He had relatively big, thick glasses that today would be considered pretty dorky. Also, his pants and shirt were made of a weird fabric, unlike any that I see on a normal day to day basis. Finally, the briefcase he was carrying looked very dated. Instead of being all black and executive like today’s briefcases, it seemed old and worn out with its brown leather exterior. Just using this sensory input my schema was able to take the scene and put it into a context based on observations I’ve previously had, and I associated the input with a time period like the 80s.
Another schema that shaped my perception of the scene dealt with the gangsters. When they rolled up to the guy on the rock, I knew he was in big trouble. Just by the inflection in their voices I could tell they were not pleased with this random guy intruding on their territory. I’ve seen gang movies and TV shows like this before, and those previous experiences gave my mind a mental construct of what the typical pissed off gangster looks and acts like, and these guys fit that to a T. They had slicked back hair, wore earrings and other bling, and seemed like they were two dudes you didn’t want to mess with. I was able to put all this together and give these guys a label immediately because when I saw their appearance and how they acted, my schema of the typical gangster kicked in and I associated them with that class. In this instance my schema turned out to be correct, however if it had been wrong and they turned out to violate my mental construct I would have to reevaluate everything. If for instance, the gang members were volunteers at a church in their spare time, I probably would’ve felt bad about them getting beat up. But, because my schema got it right, I was able to interpret the scene in the way the director intended it to be.
Another aspect of the scene I found particularly interesting was the sounds. The music was extremely well done and definitely added the intense feeling of stress and anxiety the main character probably felt. Also, I thought the sound of the bat striking the gangster was well dubbed in. Obviously this sound must be faked, as no actor is going to take a full force hit from a baseball bat just to give an authentic sound. Because of this, the director probably added in the sound of a baseball striking another object. Although not authentic, his sound was “close enough” to what we expect it to sound like when someone actually gets hit with a bat, so our mind buys into it and accepts it as a factual occurrence.
Rachel briefly mentioned that the Hispanic men were most likely conditioned to their means of intimidation working. To expand on that, the gangsters, I’m sure, were used to wielding weapons to gain power in situations. The person they were intimidating would most likely retreat (in response to their biological “flight” instinct), and the gangsters would get what they wanted. We can tell this behavior probably worked in the past because of the ease and confidence in which they acted. In this scene, however, the reinforcement of the enemy’s retreat was not given to the gangsters. Instead, they were punished by their aggression being turned on them as Michael Douglas’ character beat them with a bat. The result of this is that the gangsters’ behavior will most likely change in the future, meaning they have learned from this situation. I would guess the next time they encounter any person on their territory, hostile looking or not, they would approach them with more caution. If this next person took advantage of the gangsters, the gangsters would view that as punishment, and their behavior would regress to its original form. Basically, each situation that either reinforces or punishes the gangsters shapes their behavior one way or the other. Eventually, their original behavior could become extinct if their new behavior is continuously reinforced.
Michael Douglas’ character is also being conditioned in this scene. He is learning that his aggression and lack of fear lead to him having power in situations. His behavior will be shaped to be more aggressive when challenged in the future, since he was reinforced in this situation. However, like the gangsters, he could be either reinforced or punished in the future, which will cause his behavior to either regress or become extinct.
The cinematographic choices for this piece were really interesting to me. The choices for music and background noises at the starts of the scene very much pulled me into the moment. But, perhaps the most interesting choices was the circling camera as the two Latinos circled Douglas. As a person who get sea sick, the constant circling motion put my stomach on edge; one would assume this was done to trigger some of the very basic responses of the viewers' autonomic nervous system. This was probably a parallel for Douglas' character, who was obviously the one in danger.
When the body is presented with immediate danger, it can trigger the so-called "fight or flight" response, both biologically and psychologically. Because the viewer is not in danger, creating a stressful situation visually and audibility can mimic some of the biological responses in the fight or flight response. (This includes effects on digestive system along with cardiovascular, muscular and respiratory systems.) Once these biological panic responses occur, the viewer may be able to emphasize better with the fight or flight choice which Douglas' is about to make. As such, Douglas' response was quite obviously of the fight category. This is more typical of males, but his response is obviously over-the-top.
As an end note, the camera choices at the end of the clip were also interesting. While the earlier choices made the viewer feel as if they were involved in the situation, the later choices made the viewer feel as if they were simply still involved, but only an observer. (Watch as the camera dips with Douglas' hand as he picks up the butterfly knife.) This adds to the overall discomfort with the situation, and perhaps even more to the fight or flight response. However, rather than needed to protect one's self from the two Latino men, the viewer/observer now feels the need to decide what to do about Douglas' obviously unbalanced character.
Since my expert area is social psychology, I really noticed a lot of social conflicts in this scene. The two Hispanic gang members have an incredibly negative attitude towards the businessman and demonstrate it through words and actions that are very stereotypical of both Hispanics and gang members. The behaviors and attitudes that they displayed were definitely negative stereotypes and showed a very negative prejudice towards Hispanics, specifically gang members. Obviously, these two male gang members were not only displaying stereotypical behaviors related to their ethnicity, but they were also showing their negative prejudice towards Caucasian businessmen. I highly doubt either of the two men would have been nearly as angry or rude to a fellow Hispanic who was sitting on their “private property.” They are portrayed as treating their Caucasian visitor rudely because of his status and ethnicity.
I also noticed that the Hispanic characters’ self esteem, attitudes, and behaviors were strongly tied to their ingroup concept. They definitely viewed their ingroup, fellow Hispanic gang members, much more favorably than the outgroup. Their attitude and behaviors towards the businessman definitely showed their negative attitudes towards members of the outgroup. On the other hand, the businessman also displays similar attitudes and behaviors towards the two Hispanic characters. He refers to them as Hispanic gang members, using very negative and prejudicial language when he addresses them. He fails to leave their “private property” when they both order him to and assaults both of them rather than simply handing over his briefcase. I found his behaviors irrational, inconsiderate, and very characteristic of his ingroup beliefs. He obviously viewed them negatively because they were members of the outgroup and treats them accordingly.
I also noticed the cultural aspects of the scene and the different appearances across cultures. The businessman appeared to be wealthy since he was professionally and expensively dressed. The Hispanics appeared as part of a lower socioeconomic status since their clothing was domestic and much less expensive. Also, their haircuts and styles fit their culture and their portrayal as gang members.
The scene opens with a view of the city from Douglas' shoe. There is no music, but rather some soft, almost eerie sounds, signaling desolation. After a bit, some ethnic music starts playing in the background along with street noises; and it's interesting because it gives us, as well as him, a sense of setting. (It's not just music for the viewers, it's music that we assume he can hear within the scene.) At this moment in the movie, prejudice sits in the front seat and we watch as the two Hispanic men attempt to bully Douglas. In fact, it is an "us versus them" situation from both sides. The Hispanic men assume that because he is a Caucasian male, he couldn't possibly be a threat so long as he is within their territory. They might have responded to him differently even if he had been wearing clothing that was "street appropriate" rather than his business attire. Of course, Douglas judges the two men as they approach him as well; the viewer can tell he assumes they are rough gang members looking for trouble because he seems to physically and mentally prepare for the confrontation. He makes a comment similar to "Maybe if your sign was in fucking English then I'd be able to fucking read it" and that statement stood out because he conformed his word choice to theirs while also making a prejudiced stab. He ignores the fact that they can obviously speak two languages fluently (a great skill) and makes it sound as though they should only speak English, and if they don't, it's not worth it for him to listen or read. He does not have the ability to read Spanish and yet the focus is on them not writing in English.
It is then interesting that Douglas most likely breaks the stereotype that the two men have built up for him. Rather than being weak and submissive due to their intimidation tactics, he talks back and ends up lashing out violently (something I am sure they did not expect). In fact, I think this surprise, stereotype-busting move is the very reason they run. If Douglas had been lower class, younger, and maybe representative of a different race, they would have had actual defenses ready, not just a weapon of intimidation. They would have most likely stayed and fought to save face.
I think the contrast in the opening frame of the scene is interesting. There is a city skyline with tall buildings,and then there is the desert-like place where Michael Douglas' character is sitting on the rock. I have never seen this movie and am about to go off on a slight tangent, but stay with me. There are signs that Michael Douglas' character is going through some rough times, especially, he implies, when it comes to his job. We can tell that he is struggling by the whole in his shoe, and the newspaper in which he has circled possible jobs. I wonder, if he has been layed off (or on the brink of being layed off)by a company that relocated to Mexico for cheaper labor. Companies relocating outside of America has been happening more and more often these days, even companies in Iowa (like Maytag) are closing production down. This causes stress for all the people who lose their jobs to the cheap labor oppertunities in countries like Mexico. And, when people get stressed they tend to take it out in ways they normally wouldnt. I doubt Douglas' character would normally have been so rude to the two Mexican men, but if he did just get laid off due to his company relocating, he could be angry at the Mexican population in general and take his feelings out on the two men. I also doubt he would get violent if he was in a good place financially and occupationally. However, since in my theory he isnt, this could exagerate his emotions of fear and anger that he already has, and make them manifest themselves in violence.
I could be totally off, but its just what I happened to come up with in my mind when I watched the clip.
One thing that I found to be very interesting throughout this scene relates to perception. At the beginning of “Falling Down” I immediately noticed the size of the buildings in the background. They were much smaller than the size of his face, the rock he was sitting on, and other things that were closer up. This all relates to perceptual constancy—the tendency to perceive sizes, shapes, brightness, and colors as remaining the same even though their physical characteristics are constantly changing. This particular example refers to size constancy—how we perceive objects as remaining the same size even when their images on the retina are continually growing or shrinking. Through experience, we have learned that objects do not physically change size as they become closer or further away.
Depth perception can also be applied to our perception of the size of the buildings. Depth perception refers to the ability of our eyes and brain to add a third dimension, depth, to all visual perceptions, even though images projected on the retina are only in two dimensions—height and width. We have monocular cues for perceiving depth—and the most relevant one for this scene is relative size. Relative size is a cue for depth that results when we expect two objects to be the same size and they are not. At one point, the actors face appears to be much bigger than the skyscrapers in the background. However, we know that because his face appears larger, we perceive it as closer, and the buildings appear smaller and therefore further away.
Another psychological concept that I noticed in this scene was social psychology—particularly stereotypes. When the scene opened up, I immediately noticed that he was in a lower-income part of the town. The houses appeared to be falling apart, there was a lot of graffiti, and there were obviously gang affiliations. The actor, on the other hand, appeared to be a businessman. He was in a nice suit and shoes and carried a briefcase. The men who approached him had sloppy clothes and just appeared to be troublemakers, based on their demeanor. At one point, the main actor even referred to them as “you people” implying that he was categorizing them. Society has helped us to form schemas on how to view certain groups and people.
This whole scene struck me as very odd. It starts off with a cityscape view with all these skyscrapers in the background and then we immediately see a shantytown. What's even more peculiar is that there is a man that looks like he belongs in an office sitting on what appears to be a gang territory hill with graffiti all around. According to our sense of perception, this scene does not look right at all. Furthermore, after I associated the actor to be a businessman, I was definitely not expecting him to not only talk like the Hispanic men, but he was also more than prepared for a threat like that with his hiding of a baseball bat under his briefcase. What further added to the confusion was that after he took the Hispanic man's knife, he couldn't use it, after he fought them off with a baseball bat I figured he would know how to flip it open.
With all the contrasting elements in the scene, our mind doesn't quite know what to make of it, because as soon as you seem to figure out what's going on with your perception schemas, the scene purposefully jolts you out of that schema, leaving you wondering what is going on and why a businessman would be in that area in the first place.
I'd also like to illustrate another concept at work when we watch these movie scenes in class. Even though we are taking in auditory information, many comments afterward are based on what is seen, therefore visual sense is dominating the other senses. This is called visual capture. This concept is also demonstrated if you've ever worn beer goggles or something else that distorts your vision. If someone throws a ball at you for you to catch, you'll go in the direction you think you see if going, even if you can hear the object going past your head on the other side. (I know I've done it, it was a day in a driver's ed class a long time ago where they had us take turns wearing goggles that simulated being highly inebriated)
Also, there is perceptual constancy at play in this scene. In the part where the camera is circling around with the Hispanic men (changing the visual stimuli we see because we are seeing them in a different light and can see different parts of the background), we still perceive the businessman as the businessman and the Hispanic men as the ones threatening him. That perception does not change with the position the camera is in.
The view in the opening of this scene is interesting. At first I couldn't even tell what it was, but after it zoomed out you can see that it is a hole in his shoe. I think this is meant to show the different perspective that he is now seeing from. I haven't seen this movie before, but picking up things from this scene indicates that he must have had a bad day and lost his job. This has caused him to see things differently. I speculate that he would have acted differently if these gang members had started to harass him the day before. Today though he felt like he had nothing to lose because he had already lost so much.
I had mentioned the use of Coca-Cola in this scene as an example of product placement in class. I did a little research and it was in fact a paid product placement. A book on Psychology in Entertainment uses it as an example. By the way, from what I've looked at of this book it looks like it would be a great one for this class.
http://books.google.com/books?id=w_kJWcaz-wcC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=coke+product+placement+%22falling+down%22&source=bl&ots=ZYUwH19DyN&sig=geHh_FQRkPd8fMeKa-zwS6bbtmE&hl=en&ei=DyCmSfeFDMiVngeolND0Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA81,M1
77% of viewers recall seeing Coke in this movie. This is a way that these brands influence memory of their products in consumers. It also can affect their decisions. A study was done which asked people to imagine they were buying items for a friend's new apartment. Participants were more likely to pick items which were shown on a recent Seinfeld episode. Product placement is a tool that businesses use to persuade people to make purchases of their products by creating a sense of familiarity with them.
I think the most interesting part of this scene is how everything is so out of place and awkward. There is the city skyline in the background and the city man in the middle of what looks to be a field at first. He is so clean clut and is so clearly a working man from the city, so it is awkward that he is in this overgrown area in such nice attire. Nothing fits and I think that really grabbed my attention. Even when the Mexican gang members came up, they didn't really even fit. The area looked so calm and serene with the long, wavy grass. After the fight too when the Mexican men are running away, you see the streets and they look so clean and there is more grassy area across the street. That doesn't really fit either with the portrayal of the ghettos. I guess that's my schema kicking in.
This clip was really interesting out of the context of the movie. I have never seen this movie, so I really had no clue what was going on otherwise, but this clip in and of itself makes sense without knowing other things about the movie. It is a textbook example of confrontation. The thing I really noticed was the contrast in the clip. Right away a sharp contrast between the bustling city area and the poorer area is made. The first little conflict they have about the sign (or lack thereof) illustrates this perfectly. The man didn't see a sign, but his idea of a sign and the other two men's idea of a sign are clearly not the same thing. To them, grafitti is a sign- they had their "turf" clearly marked, and this guy is clearly trespassing on their turf. However, the man in the suit was looking for a sheet of metal with colored letters and pictures on it- he probably didn't even take a second look at the grafitti. He tries to be all rational about it- and to them there isn't anything rational about it- it's a territory dispute and he needs to get off their land- no excuses. To them- nothing can justify him sitting there. Then there is the contrast to what the guy with the suit is wearing and has with him. He's all dressed up- but there is a hole in his shoe. He has a bat...and a briefcase with him. He seems like the victim here- but then all of the sudden the roles switch and they are running from him. The whole scene is just contrast after contrast. It really messes with our schemas for gangs and white collar workers. Why did he even challenge them at first? But then he does, and then they run from him? One other interesting thing to note is that almost everytime you see the man in the suit- the city is in the background, and when you see the other two men the city is not visible.