Peter Pan: The story inside the story

A couple of years ago, working with pre-schoolers in the favelas of a city close to Rio de Janeiro, Rita and I made a very strange little film: we recorded a young boy "reading" picture book based on the Disney version of Peter Pan.  In his telling -- living as he was in a favela controlled by gangs, where shootouts between dealers and cops often happened right in front of the day care center -- the story was about nothing but violence.  "Then he hit her, and she hit him, and then they all hit each other."

 

In general, I have watched the movie in little pieces, looking over Helena's shoulder in an airplane or in a bus, and... it is pretty easy to see the story as this little boy does.  There is a lot a fighting in the movie: Peter against the pirates, Wendy against Tinkerbell, Wendy against the mermaids, the Indians against the lost boys, Hook against Tiger Lilly, Hook against his crew, Hook against Snee...  Fighting is one of the two ways that people seem to relate to each other in the story.

It's the second way, however, that I find more interesting and production.  People certainly fight with each other in Peter Pan, but they also tell each other stories.  Wendy tells stories of Peter Pan to her younger brothers.  Peter Pan listens at the window to these stories, and tells them to the lost boys.  Peter invites Wendy to be a mother to the Lost Boys, where the essential aspect of mothering is to tell stories to them.  Once Peter makes peace with the Indians, they tell stories to the Lost Boys...  In the end, narrative is one of the fundamental ways that people relate to each other, and that reflects the fact that traditionally, parents have narrated the book to their children at bedtime.

What I find most interesting and subversive in the story, however, is that the characters of the story like to hear stories about themselves.  Peter Pan comes to the Darling house in London, just so he can perch on the window and listen to Wendy's stories about himself.  It's at that moment that Nana, the dog, is able to capture Peter's shadow, the event that brings together story-teller and story-told.

The way that Peter enjoys the story tells about him seems to me a good way to express the independence of fictional characters.  Once they have been invented in stories, they do have a life of their own, going in directions that their authors never planned.  In some cases, like that of little Alan who sees Peter Pan as a sort of uncontrolled vigilante, the character becomes a stand-in for the fantasies and fears of the reader, and in the process, goes far beyond what the author might have wanted.  Any author, however, may see that a personage that she herself created no longer obeys her.  As I have written fiction, I often want the story to go a certain way, but then I think, "But that character wouldn't want that, couldn't do that."  The story, supposedly mine, ends of obeying the character I created and (wrongly) thought I controlled.

Now whether, like Peter Pan, they like to hear those stories, I don't know.  I don't have a dog to catch their shadows at night.

Robin Hood: the social bandit as Republican hero

I always loved the Robin Hood story when I was a little kid.  The little guy struggling against injustice whatever the cost, the transgression of the formal law in service of a greater good, the critique of inequality and royal power.  I don't particularly remember when or where I saw the Disney version of Robin Hood, but the foxes and the archery contest are clear in my head, so my guess is that the movie was the start of a long passion for the story, one that would end even in the publication of a book on social change philanthropy, Robin Hood was Right.

Given this history, I certainly wasn't expecting the movie that Helena has been watching over the last couple of weeks.  Yes, it's the same movie it always was.  It's just that in the current political context, it seems to mean something very different than I ever took it to mean.

The movie, I saw only now, transforms the story into one only about taxes.  Injustice is not exploitation, repression, or the exclusion of the saxons by the normans.  Though Prince John, Hiss, and the Sheriff of Nottingham are clearly bad guys, the only way they express this evil is by charging high taxes.  The voiceover that tells and retells this story is a supposed "folk-singer" who "tells it like it is."

Though I was offended by the interpretation of the movie, it goes a long way to understanding the political confusion in the United States, where working class populism almost always ends up supporting exactly the people who want to screw the working class.  The Tea Party is the perfect contemporary manifestation of this problem, where (legitimate) anger at the way that the rich and businesses control the US government becomes a way for the rich and corporation to cement their control over government.  The supposed injustice of taxes (really lower in the US than in any other industrialized country) is the tool that the unscrupulous right way uses to engage in this political judo.

The movie first came out in 1973, a time when an honest movie about a social bandit (Eric Hobswawm's term for criminals who gain social legitimacy from their moral and financial support of oppressed or marginalized groups) would have been interpreted as support for communism.  Nixon was president (soon to be expelled).  But the film might also have worked in the 1950s or in the 1920s.  America has to re-interpret popular struggle as against taxes, and not against an unjust economic system.

Here, however, is the irony.  I don't remember the movie this way.  Helena doesn't seem to care in the least for the story line about taxes.  Kids, after all, don't pay taxes: that part of the story doesn't touch them.  What they like is the idea of cute animals and little kids standing up against oppression: not understood as the Tea Party or the John Birch society (mis)understands oppression, but as little kids experience it.  Helena likes the movie, and I hope that will be one little step on her way to care about making a world that is a little less unjust.  Just like it did for me.

Let it Go, Let it Grow

Helena's favorite two movies are The Lorax and Frozen, and as she has been singing the songs from both, it has become increasingly obvious that something similar is going on.  The anthem for Frozen, as everyone knows, is Let it Go.




The Lorax, though very successful, hasn't become such an integral part of pop culture, so you may not have heard Let it Grow, sung at the climax of the movie.




Let it Go, Let it Grow.  Even the melodies have something similar to them.  I don't think plagiarism has anything to do with the similarity, but that both movies are tapping into something very interesting about the zeitgeist.

Helena Iara also uses the same "Let..." construction, and quite often.  I notice it, because (informed by Portuguese grammar, which makes more sense to her) she will always say, "Daddy, let I climb on this chair..." or any other number of things she thinks I may or may not allow her to do.  This little gramattical error, however, points to the most interesting thing about Let it Go, Let it Grow, which is to say, who is the agent of the action?  When one says "Daddy, let me do x," who is the actor and who is acted upon?

Helena on the dunes near our house in Florianópolis

Let's look at how other similar sentences work: "Daddy, give me" or "Daddy, lift me" (in one case, the me as indirect object, the other as direct object), it is pretty clear that Daddy is the actor.  Daddy lifts, Helena is lifted.  Daddy gives, Helena has something given to her.  With "Let me", we seem to follow the same logic: Daddy is allowing, Helena being allowed.  "Let I," or the Portuguese "Deixa eu," confuses things more than a little bit.  I becomes the subject, the agent, while Daddy is more a barrier to be overcome.

What does Elsa mean when she declares the desire to "Let it Go"?  She is, in fact, freeing herself from social, gender, and age constraints.  There is no Daddy here to allow or not to allow he to be herself, only the unwritten rules of society, the disdain she fears that she will face, what "They" will say.  Elsa is very clearly the agent of the change, the subject of the sentence.  Interestingly, in the Portuguese translation of the song, we hear "Livre estou": I am free.

In The Lorax, the Once-ler's thneed factory has killed all of the truffula trees, and no plants can grow in the the city that has been built on the ruins of the forest.  Ted and Audrey, the young protagonists, get a last seed from the Once-ler and try to plant it in the middle of town, but the most powerful businessman in Thneedville wants to stop them.  Finally, convinced by Ted and Audrey, the people of the town sing "Let it Grow" as a way to reject the businessman's attempt to keep oxygen as a commodity that only he can sell.  (I've already written on the radical politics of the Lorax, if you are interested)  It seems, then, that the implied subject of "Let is Grow" is the businessman: "Hey, you, let it grow!"

Helena with her friend Luc

In fact, though, what would keep the tree from growing is the people as a whole: before Ted and Audrey convince them of the virtues of trees, they are fully on the side of keeping Thneedville as it is, "plastic and they liked it that way."  The command is not really given to O'Hare, the businessman, but to the people themselves.  "Let is grow" is the way that the people give a command to themselves.  Exactly the same is true of Elsa: she can only let herself be free by directing a plea to "Let it go" to some unknown figure who is the real agent of the story.

But who is the agent?  To whom is the "let" directed?  Elsa is talking to herself; the people of Thneedville are talking to themselves.  In fact, what we see here is a split between the thinking self and the acting self, where one tries to tell the other what to do.  Though this break might seem schitzophenic, in fact it is quite honest.  What is really keeping the people of Thneedville from cultivating trees isn't some abstract law or an oppressive power (even Mr. O'Hare): it is themselves.  Elsa's freedom is also limited more by herself, by her fear of what others will say, than by those others.  So in fact, while it might be more direct to say "Let's cultivate trees" or "I am free," both social agents need that detour in order to allow themselves to do what they want.

Amazing how complex the lyrics to children's songs can be...

Thinking amidst the ruins: Aladdin

Aladdin is a terrible movie.  Racist, incoherent, and the music is smarmy (and far too catchy: just try to get "A Whole New World" out of your head).  Helena and I watched it last night (Rita couldn't even stomach it, and I have to say I sympathized with her), and all of my criticisms from when I had seen it twenty years ago came back.  Even so... this blog isn't about throwing rotten tomatoes.  In spite of the aesthetic horror show on display, something is going on in the movie.

Robin Williams, in full Good Morning Vietnam manic mode, voices the genie, one of the few highlights of the movie.  The genie summarizes his existential problem: "Infinite, universal power... little bitty living space."  The genie can do anything, but only at the wish of the other.  He is, at the same time, infinitely powerful and a captive.

Some lowly scriptwriter at Disney managed to smuggle this theme into other parts of the movie: Jasmine is a princess, but she is also a prisoner of the power and wealth and little niggling rules that surround royalty.  Aladdin is completely free, but he has no power or money, not even enough to buy bread or an apple.  Finally, in the climactic scene, Jafar falls into the trap of asking for ultimate power... which also implies chains.  The movie sets up a dichotomy between freedom and possession (of power, of things) that reminds one of Janis Joplin's "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

Helena at a playground in Serra Talhada, in the northeast of Brazil

Like many little girls, Helena likes princesses.  She is pretty and dresses well, so many people in the street even call her "princess".  At the same time, she truly loves her freedom, the ability to go out into the yard and play in the sandbox, climb trees, get dirty as we walk through the jungle around the house.  Most narratives about princesses don't capture the consequences of royalty, the limitations that power puts on a child's (or an adult's) freedom.  As I suffered through Aladdin last night, I hoped that Helena would, at least, catch that message.

Aladdin offers a simplistic and deeply problematic solution to the problem of freedom vs. power: the abuse of power.  The law say that the princess must marry a prince... but the sultan can change the law!  The way to overcome the dichotomy between power and freedom is to accept a total despot, a ruler who is not ruled by the law.

As I said, it's an awful movie.  But at least it opens up some interesting questions.

It isn't the film: the Aristocats

Helena never fell in love with The Aristocats in the same way she did with Frozen or The Lorax, but for a couple of weeks, she watched the 1970 Disney movie with some regularity.  What has been interesting about the way she watches the film, however, is that she doesn't care much about the plot or the characters (except the young girl-cat, Marie).  Unlike in her Lorax or Jungle Book phases, she doesn't want to "play" the movie with me, Rita, or her friends.  Instead, she wants to sing the songs.

The first time that Helena watched the movie, she started at the beginning and went all the way through to the end, but since then, she has only really wanted to watch a couple of scenes, and she uses the iPad expertly to find them.  First, she finds the scene where Adelaide Bonfamille's lawyer comes to re-write her will.  The old lawyer sings a bowdlerized version of "La Donna è Mobile" from Rigoletto, and Helena and her cousin would watch the man prance up the stairs, laugh uproariously, and then run through the house and into the yard, singing "Ta da da bom-bi-yei, ta da da bum-bi-ye..." in a way that Pavarotti just might be able to recognize.  Helena's cousin Gabriela is now 9, and has a pretty decent singing voice, so the two of them managed to pull the music off.

Next, Helena and Gabriela would scan the control on the iPad to the next song they liked, "Scales and Arpeggios."

And then the would run through the house again, singing arpeggios and scales.  

Cartoons have long been a way to introduce children to "high culture" music, especially with the use of humor.  I clearly remember from when I was a little kid a Pepe Le Peu and singing opera, and of course many of the classic Looney Tunes used classical music as a background to the antics of the comical animals onscreen.  The Aristocats does something very similar, with the ridiculous lawyer and the three little cats giving kids and excuse to enjoy opera and even voice training exercises, but the movie tried to do something even more interesting, including French chanson and jazz in the "high culture" to which a cartoon could be the entrée.  

Unfortunately, Helena hasn't enjoyed the jazz as much as she enjoys the opera (the reverse of what I would prefer, especially in the coded economic language the film uses), but it has been great to watch her come to enjoy new kinds of music, both in this film and elsewhere.  She has always loved Brazilian country music, Motown, and some ballads, but this weekend she had a wonderful time dancing samba and forró at a party we went to, and she is now even "composing" songs on her guitar.  The most interesting part of the process is seeing how she enjoys sounds that are not normally considered "childish:" she loves minor scales and invents sad songs to go along with them.

If we let Helena chose what songs she wants to listen to on YouTube or the iPod, she will always list her favorite kiddie tunes.  Challenge her, though, and she comes to love many sounds you would never expect a kid to enjoy.  With that in mind, maybe Rita and I can put our own music on the stereo again without feeling that we're excluding our little girl...

Would you eat it in the favela? (Part 3)

The last of three posts on Green Eggs and Ham: Click here for the first and second.

------

            It turns out that Marília had her own Sam-I-Am, her friend Adriano.  Adriano is a classic “good kid,” but even when Marília was deepest in the gang, he always insisted on their friendship.  “He wasn't pedantic,” she told me.  “He never told me what to do, or that I was being bad, but he was always there, living a different kind of life from me and my friends.”  They chatted in the alleys of the favela, he listened to the funk lyrics she composed, and from time to time he would invite her to join the dance group he organized.  And one day, months after her boyfriend had murdered her sister's boyfriend, when Marília felt like the funk gang had gotten boring, when she was tired and run down, Marília heard Adriano's voice.  She accepted his invitation to dance in his group, and together they invented a choreography that told the story of her life.

 

Adriano (the "Sam-I-am" of this article) with Helena and me in
Triunfo, in the interior of Pernambuco.

           In Dr. Seuss's story, it took a train crashing into a boat and everyone nearly drowning before the un-named nay-sayer decided to say “yes” to green eggs and ham.  The series of tragedies that befell Marília were more violent, but something similar happened in the favela of Arruda: exhausted and beat up, she decided to try something else.  In the end, though, the result is the same: “Thank you, thank you, Sam-I-am” was mirrored by the depth of gratitude I saw on Marília's face as she and Adriano described their choreography.  “Thank you,” she told him, that secular manifestation of grace.

            The recent craze among parents for Pamela Druckerman's Bringing Up Bébé, a book about the superiority of French parenting, brings to light a fantasy adults have about their children: that kids need not force adults out of their perfect, ordered, and pleasant lives, that children need not disrupt.  For Druckerman, French parenting means that babies always sleep through the night, kids eat all their food, and mothers can continue to talk about fashion and art with their friends as they sit in cafés.

            But whether it's Sam-I-Am, street kids, Adriano, or my daughter, we have to remember that children disrupt.  That's what they do.  They threaten our comfortable order, our received ideas, our schedules, our sense of propriety and modesty.  This threat is painful, difficult… and in the end, liberating.  I spent most of my life declaring that I never wanted kids, but when my daughter Helena came along, I found out that I did, in spite of all of my protests, like green eggs and ham.  That conversion didn't come with a lightning bolt out of heaven, but with laughter and crying and playing, sleepless nights and the constant learning of a baby.  Working in the midst of gang wars, child soldiers, and gangsters, I've had lots of opportunities to walk the road to Damascus, but nothing has changed me like Helena has.  I think most parents would say something similar.

            One can make a pretty good argument that iconoclasm in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a way of saying, “Religion is not about a person's relations with things, rituals, or symbols.  The only route to God is by loving and being just to other people.”  Iconoclasm delivers this message in the visual realm, but I wonder if we can't say something similar in the field of hearing: might the disturbing silence of God be a way to force us to listen to the other?  Instead of listening for the voice of God, does that silence force us to listen directly to widows and orphans and foreigners, those three great figures of Levitical law? 

            Sam-I-Am and Adriano remind us, I think, that our listening isn't enough.  The silence of God also means that street kids, undocumented immigrants, and others who stand in for the orphans and sojourners of lore have to talk.  God isn't going to do it for them.  They needle and irritate and offer and persist… until finally we hear the call of justice in strange words like “Would you like them in a box?  Would you like them with a fox?”

            I wonder if Sam-I-Am doesn't also help us to re-read the Bible.  Saul walking the road to Damascus may have a parallel in Green Eggs and Ham, when the train falls into the boat: the voice of God is only the final moment in a long story.  As Saul persecuted Christians, can we imagine victim after victim looking into his eyes with a persistent, questioning “Why?”  Or seeing a child pull at his cloak to say, “Please don't hurt my mother!”  Without them, would Saul have been able to hear God's voice?  Saul and God get the leading roles in the drama of Acts, but in his desire to tell a clear and compelling narrative, Luke may have missed the real protagonists of the story.

            Dr. Seuss and the favelas of Brazil make for a strange juxtaposition, but for me, conversion and grace will never look the same again.

Would you eat them in a Favela? (Part 2)

Last week, I began a long reflection on Green Eggs and Ham.  If you missed the first part, you can find it here.  The conclusion is here.

------

            There is an important reason for this difference between the conversions in the Book of Acts and the one in Green Eggs and Ham: power dynamics.  The un-named nay-sayer in Green Eggs and Ham has all the characteristics of an adult: he is taller, he reads the newspaper, he is easily irritated by Sam-I-Am, he is set in his ways.  Sam-I-Am is clearly a child: smaller, playful, unafraid of rejection.  Unlike the Hebrew God, Sam-I-Am cannot convert his opponent with pyrotechnics and miracles.  His only resource is his playful persistence. 

            It might be useful to think through the problem spatially.  When prophets hear the voice of Yahweh in the Tanakh, they always have to look up.  Paul's conversion follows the same model:

And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh unto Damascus: and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of heaven: and he fell upon the earth… [Acts 9:3, my emphasis]

Yahweh calls on prophets to support the suffering, the poor, and those who suffer from injustice (those “below”), but this call comes from “above”.  That's the voice we're used to hearing and obeying, after all: parents, judges, leaders… they all come from above.

            Let me turn back to Marília for a moment.  In the favela, she stands at the top of the hierarchy: she reigns over the gang as she wishes.  In the stateless zone of the favela, no police officer or politician can tell her what to do.  Unless some God decides to intervene, there is no figure who can call her to conscience from above.  And from below?  Why should she listen?  Her world is working as it should.  Unfortunately, few powerful people – whether in a small pond like the favela of Arruda, or at the peak of state power – feel the weight of an ethics that calls us to hear the pained cry of the other.  The powerful and evil may be the ones most in need of conversion, but it's unlikely they are going to do it themselves.

            Enter Sam-I-Am.  In the face of the constant “no”, the unwillingness of the un-named interlocutor even to countenance the possibility of green eggs and ham, Sam-I-Am keeps trying.  He refuses to hear the “no” that his powerful interlocutor always calls back to him.  He persists.

•  

             Half a dozen years ago, I worked in a Colombian shantytown controlled by paramilitary gangs, teaching children how to make movies; the kids were excited to use this new technology to show a bit of their community.  As we filmed in this very dangerous place in the mountains above Bogotá, a gang member would often come up, point at where the kids were filming, and say “You can't do that.”

            “Oh, no, that's not what we're filming,” the kids would say.  “We’re shooting there.”  They pointed their fingers to something off to the side of what worried the gangsters, indicating that they were interested in something else.  With this simple motion, they felt like they could continue to film as they liked.  The gang authorities, completely unprepared for anyone to disobey their orders, accepted the kids' explanation with a bemused grunt.  Then, we moved on to the next spot and had to do it again.  There's a wonderful obverse here to the parental lament that “you aren't listening to what I'm saying”: kids persist, even in the face of words that try to stop them.

            It's interesting, I think, that Sam-I-Am has the name Samuel, based on the Hebrew verb that means “to hear,” when he, like the kids in the Colombian shantytown, is most characterized by the remarkable ability not to hear.  Sam-I-Am reminds me of the street kids I've worked with for almost two decades, their cleverness, humor, and their capacity to annoy an adult until they get what they want.  Without the power or theological fireworks available to God, they have to use the tools they have on hand to get what they want.