In Space Jam specifically Michael Jordan is taken within the conceptual world of the Looney Tunes. We are forced to view Michael Jordan's real problems and real emotions alongside the cartoons problems and emotions. Yet, who do we relate to more? The movie attempts to force us to relate to both in the same way by making their problems the same.
As I child a found myself relating to the Looney Tunes. Maybe this was just because they were humorous and human-like-animals (which brings up notions of ecoporn, but we wont get into that). And yet because Michael was in a fake world, I felt I could relate to his problems more than if he were playing a ball game in the NBA.
Regardless of reader self-imposition, I still think the dichotomy brought up by movies like Space Jam is very interesting. How are we supposed to view real humans interacting with ideas of forms? As the viewer, how are we supposed to place ourselves within a conflation of conceptual forms and real ones? How do we relate to these different characters differently?
1: I LOVE SPACE JAM
ReplyDelete2: I think that humans interacting with non-humans, and the reader identification that takes place- often with non-human characters, as you said- make us question the importance of appearances. I.e. even though you look more like Michael Jordan (because you're both human), you identified more with the Looney Toons (possibly because you share character traits with them, or something). What this indicates is that reader identification isn't simply based on appearances. As a faceless reader, we have the agency to identify with whatever character(s) strike us most, regardless of who the author intends for us to identify with. I think that the reader's freedom to identify with whomever s/he chooses is one of the best arguments for audience agency we have discussed thus far.
I'm not quite sure that audience identification forces us into just one character. It is quite possible that, especially in cartoon movies, we are forced into multiple characters. Sometimes at different points in time, and sometimes we are forced into a "collective conscious" (like when the team starts working together to win). I would also say that you're identification with Michael Jordan is not unfounded. It's not like we get a lot of background information on Michael in the movie. We know he has a family and that he is trying to teach his kids a lesson, but he isn't really much outside of a super basketball star to the audience. So maybe you aren't identifying with Michael Jordan the man, you are identifying with Michale Jordan the basketball star, which is just as much of an icon as the cartoons he is surrounded by.
ReplyDelete