Resident Evil Rorschach Tests
April 11th, 2008It appears that the Resident Evil 5 trailer controversy has returned. I’d suggest you read the entire Multiplayer Blog interview with N’Gai Croal before commenting, since it provides a lot more context for the discussion and can do a better job summarizing the debate than I’m about to. I’ve got a few additional points to add this time around.
The crux of the debate, as I see it, is whether or not the RE5 trailer is racist or uses racist imagery in order to promote the game. The evidence cited by Croal and others:
“[They're] sort of being, in sort of post-modern parlance, they’re sort of ‘othered.’ They’re hidden in shadows, you can barely see their eyes, and the perspective of the trailer is not even someone who’s coming to help the people. It’s like they’re all dangerous; they all need to be killed. It’s not even like one cute African — or Haitian or Caribbean — child could be saved. They’re all dangerous men, women and children. They all have to be killed. And given the history, given the not so distant post-colonial history, you would say to yourself, why would you uncritically put up those images?”
I’ve gone through a few reaction cycles in response to this - first dismissing the controversy, then coming back around, and repeating several times. But I’d like to speak a little bit more about what I view as the real issue(s) here and why I think people are having so much trouble responding effectively to them.
As I see it, the first issue is the distinction between explicitly racist imagery and imagery which dehumanizes or objectifies others. Croal and others see the shadowed eyes and bloodthirsty expressions as evocations of prior racist depictions of black individuals. He notes that these images were designed to portray them as less than human (i.e., non-white), and in this claim he is 100% correct. The problem that I think others are attempting to articulate with this concern, however, is two-fold:
- Dehumanization is not specific to anti-black racism, nor even necessarily racism as a whole, but rather simply used to demonize an opponent.
- The dehumanization depicted in the trailer is an established technique for increasing an audience’s distaste with the target and as such appears in a number of horror and zombie films.
What I mean by the first point is that dehumanization of the type we see in the trailer is indeed also found in anti-black racist imagery, but is not found only in such imagery. You can also find plenty of examples where similar techniques have been applied to other races, such as hispanic immigrants or the Japanese in World War 2. More to the point, dehumanization isn’t necessarily even specific to racism per se, but rather appears in many contexts where the objective is to demonize and thus demagogue against an “outsider” opponent: consider, for example, the absurdities contained in the 1936 film Reefer Madness, in which marijuana smokers are depicted as murderers, rapists, and criminally insane through many similar techniques. As a result, the RE5 trailer functions as a Rorschach test. Those who have experience (either personal or learned) with such imagery in racist contexts are likely to see the parallels in the trailer, while those who have not are mystified by the connection.
The second point explains why dehumanization is used at all in RE5 (or really, the RE series as a whole), given the technique’s somewhat distasteful past. The reason zombie films resonate so much with viewers is because they represent a perverted humanity; we are appalled to see those formerly like us turned into slavering, homicidal monsters. As a result, it is important in the genre to emphasize how dissimilar they have become in order to instill the horror and shock that are essential to creating the desired atmosphere. Similarly, in the survival horror game genre, a player is intended to feel that they’re being overwhelmed by impossible odds - hence the hordes of shambling, “other” zombies. There’s definite overlap between racist imagery (which is intended to make people hate and fear the designated race) and zombie imagery (which is intended to make people hate and fear the zombies). Yet people are not intended to hate zombies because they’re a given race, but because they’re zombies.
This also explains the music. The music is indeed reminiscent of Black Hawk Down. But it’s also reminiscent of any number of other movies where the emotions that are being evoked are fear, action, suspense, and the unknown. (If there’s an element of Africa or the Caribbean present as well, then presumably the designers are attempting to evoke the setting of the game as well.) These are fairly standard elements of composition.
I think the confluence of these two factors explains why Capcom didn’t object to the trailer, as well as why some people view it as objectionable. In fact, I’d imagine that the company might even have patted itself on the back for RE 5; they might have congratulated themselves on the diversity of their games’ backgrounds. But if this explains why this happened, it doesn’t necessarily offer a viewpoint on whether or not it should have in the first place.
It seems to me that the alternative to the risk of offending specific ethnic groups is not to feature them at all in certain contexts. But Croal specifically disavows this as an objective:
“I think, again, the point is not that Capcom can’t or shouldn’t make a zombie game set in what appears to be an impoverished country where the majority of residents are black. I’m not saying that. But what I am saying is that if I was Capcom, I wouldn’t have suggested to put out that trailer.”
Unfortunately, I think this is actually more similar to the more extreme version than Croal might think. The trailer is designed to present a specific image of the game, and one that I think I’ve argued is very much consistent with the common techniques involved in depicting the genre. It’s critical to the RE franchise to generate fear, tension, and excitement - and I think that by and large the trailer succeeds in that. If there’s no way to do that in a way that does not evoke parallels to racism in certain viewers, I’m not sure that an alternative trailer - or game - could really be made.
Croal suggests that an alternative would be to specifically disclaim racist affiliation in the trailer: ”I would have said, ‘You know what, this has tremendous capacity for being misunderstood, and we want to signal that this is not what you might think it is’ — and they didn’t do that.” Yet I don’t see this as a particularly acceptable alternative either. Such a statement is designed to reassure viewers that Capcom’s development team did not intend to be racist when it developed the game. But this only makes sense if you assume that there is a significant possibility that the trailer was produced because Capcom’s development team is racist. Frankly, outside of the trailer itself - which I think is explainable - I don’t see much evidence that this is true. And so to me an explanation is superfluous.
Rather, the main question to me is whether or not it’s acceptable to produce a game or trailer that might offend others, even though your intentions are good. This is a sticky subject, but I think it’s the real issue and one that we might be better off spending more time on.
Posted in Geoff, Impressions, Industry |
April 12th, 2008 at 12:34 am
The US has a history of multi-century racial fuckup stupidity.
/end debate.
-
-
-
No seriously, Americans cannot even simply observe a black political candidate rising into popularity without becoming, for lack of better term, stupid all around. Jesus.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:26 am
I personally don’t get why people who decry games like this cannot see their own hypocrisy. They claim to want equality, but in the same breath demand special treatment for a certain group based on race.
If RE 5 were set in the States, we would certainly be gunning down plenty of Caucasians - which wouldn’t surprise anyone. But somehow, in the name of that blasted political correctness, a culture that has an awful history of oppression and enslavement - a fact which no one denies - is suddenly exempt from media representations for which other cultures are fair game. Every time someone makes a black villain in a movie, the producer is a racist. Every time a black person dies instead of a white guy, someone gets offended. I didn’t hear any outcry when we were shooting deranged Spaniards, but suddenly it is so wrong now because the people are black?
Mr. Croal wants us to believe that his problem is not necessarily with the game but with the presentation of the trailer. Well, I have news for him - I’ll bet the game is quite similar. That’s… kind of the point of a trailer. Stop trying to dodge arguments.
I haven’t even got to the part where I go off about the fact that the studio that is making this game is in Japan, with Japanese employees that don’t have politically correct American stereotypes of black-white conflict. I seriously doubt that many of these people have any concept of black vs white racism. The world is bigger than the U.S., people.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; having a problem with the RE series’ history of violent Machiavellism is understandable, even if I disagree. But there is no room for an argument for equality AND special treatment for a group. The two things are polar opposites.
Why do we all insist on seeing color?
April 12th, 2008 at 3:22 am
I suspect you never lived in the US for a significant period or at least don’t know its unique history, Nancy. As Geff mentioned, racial tones is in the eyes of the beholder…i.e. what you see in this trailer says more about you than the trailer itself.
Stephen toltilo/Ngai Croal are RIGHT to raise slight criticisms…and yes, what they say are not MAJOR criticisms, they are relatively slight complaints. And they are right to do so, because they are Americans, and like most Americans who aren’t social conservatives, they understand racism has and still is as much a part of US as the American Flag is.
If you cannot feel the same discomfort from the trailer, then you of course are OKAY as well, because your background life is different.
Please, no more black-and-white, i’m-right-your-wrong arguments.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:23 am
wait, wtf….does your blog have just two entries? :/
April 12th, 2008 at 6:46 am
If we never allow games like RE5 to be made, we’ll never have equality in gaming, because some groups will always be untouchable. The first several times there’s going to be resistance, as we see here. But it’s the only way to help the hobby move towards color-blindness.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I hate to involve politics in a gaming discussion, particularly one where politics SHOULD NOT be present, but fuck is laspy doesn’t do it every time. I’m a social conservative and I abhor racism. If you’re going to openly insult people like me, as if we’re somehow evil and worthy of your hatred, at least get your shit straight, please.
Now, that being said, I’ve commented on other sites to this effect, but… While I totally respect N’Gais opinion because I think he’s really smart and a great writer, I think his concernes here are misplaced. I think there is a difference when it comes to things like racism. There is ACTUAL racism that comes from one group disliking another and therefore treating them differently. And then there is INSTITUTIONALIZED racism, or DE FACTO racism that arises because certain paradigms exist that have lived beyond the thought that allowed them. In this case, I don’t think the makers of this game are engaging in ACTUAL racism, meaning, I don’t think Capcom harbor any ill will toward blacks or other ethnic groups, but I think there is a certain amount of DE FACTO racism present in the depictions in the trailor. The question I think needs to be raised is if this is something that should be censored, as N’Gai has implied, or at least should be somthing where the market punishes Capcom for a perceived lack of sensitivity. I’m not sure how I feel about this because I generally prefer to delay judgement until I can see/play a game within the context it was made. In general I’m always against censorship, particularly within an argument that involves a “games as art” slant. I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea that someones idea of art or entertainment might be offensive to me (even as a social conservative)
Thats why I find N’Gais comments to curious. He’s usually a champion of entertainment that deals with difficult or potentially offensive subject matter, in that it forces the spectator to question things or to think about things he might othewise not. Yet in this case, N’Gai appears to be doing an about face.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:54 am
cisco,
I don’t think N’Gai’s being particularly hypocritical here. He champions games that directly address certain issues - but RE5 isn’t trying to start a conversation about race. The argument in fact centers on whether or not race is even an issue in the game at all, where Capcom is saying it’s not. I suspect that if the game were specifically designed to comment on racial issues, N’Gai wouldn’t be as concerned.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:51 am
@geoff,
If you read enough of his articles, you’ll understand what I’m saying. Rarely does he make the distinction that a film or game needs to INTEND to deal with difficult subject matter. He typically talks about games challenging the viewer as being a good thing, whether it was intended or not. And I’m not saying he’s being hypocritical so much as his views in this case are not typical of his previous tendencies.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Some quotes from a recent N’Gai Croal article.
“I’m extremely comfortable with material that is at or beyond the outer limits of what a mass audience will embrace. ”
“I was (and am still, somewhat) very interested in material that pushed viewers’ buttons and their limits.”
“they had no interest in trying to impose their tastes upon others, a live-and-let-live mentality for which I could only have the utmost respect”
“I still struggle sometimes to absorb a movie that legitimately challenges me.”
These are not the comments of a man I would expect to cry fowl of a game with some potentially racist elements IN A TRAILER.
April 12th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Sorry, but I still don’t really see it. There’s a big difference between material that “challenges” and material which is offensive, even if you’re OK (as I am) with allowing both.
For examle, the movie “Crash” is a film that might be described as challenging on the subject of race relations; “Birth of a Nation” is not, even though both of them are racially charged, and even though there may be some value to actually discussing each.
Not everything that is offensive is valuable, although it may be.
April 12th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
That’s the point. We’re not dealing in absolutes here. Personally, I found crash neither offensive, nor challenging but I wouldn’t argue with someone who saw it as either or both.
What I see as offensive, you may describe as challenging and vice versa.
I think what N’Gai was trying to say is that we are “challenged” to look beyond what we may find to be offensive, to look for something more. In the case of a videogame, the “something more” may be as simple as suspense, a scare or “mood”, yet the game designers may have tread on certain persons perceptions of offensive in so doing. That’s what I think happened here.
I think the most pertinent quote is, “I’m extremely comfortable with material that is at or beyond the outer limits of what a mass audience will embrace. ”
I would certainly describe the imagery in the RE5 trailer (racist or not) as “beyond the limits of what a mass audience will embrace” but I don’t get the impression that N’Gai is “extremely comfortable” with it, most likely because it’s more personal for him, and that’s why I think this imagery is more “challenging” for him than it is for some people. I’m just surprised that he can’t see that.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Cisco,
I apologize if I offended you. Didn’t think you’d blow up on me =/
That said, I think we’re thinking different things on terminology/semantics here.
To me, political/economic conservative = perfectly OK. [altho I may disagree on some important points, championing smaller government, more military, etc etc is perfectly understandable and OK].
however….social conservative = not OK. Period. We’re talking racists, homophobes, religiously intolerant, anti-Rock or anti-Rap, etc etc. You probably thinking different things regarding “social conservatism” but i think my definition is more accurate.
Again, sorry if I came off wrong. But it’s funny to see cisco angry!
April 12th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Thanks laspy, but you need to make some corrections.
I’m a proud social conservative and I’m none of those things (well perhaps a bit anti-rap) ;). You may want to revisit your generalisms a bit.