Snakes on a Plane

Even though I'm terrified of flying and only do so equipped with an Ipod, yogic breathing exercises and Xanax, I can't wait to see Snakes on a Plane this weekend. For those of you in a total culture vacuum, this highly-anticipated action/horror flick stars Samuel L. Jackson and 500+ would-be terrorist snakes on board, yup, a plane. Violence, swearing, hissing, writhing, tongue-flicking and CGI effects ensue -- at least according to previews and media buzz. At one point, Samuel L. Jackson reportedly exclaims, "That's it! I have had it with these motherf---ing snakes on this motherf---ing plane!"

Forget the internet hype and anticipatory spoofs (Snakes in Ukraine, Snakes who Missed the Plane, Sharks on a Rollercoaster, Snakes on John McCain), I'm pegging Snakes on a Plane as the political satire of the year. Seriously.

As Bill Greider points out in his last post, the suspiciously timed announcement of a thwarted plot ("suggestive of al-Qaeda") to blow-up "multiple commercial aircraft" plays into Bush's "fear and smear" campaign. "So, once again in the run-up to a national election, we are visited with alarming news. A monstrous plot, red alert, high drama playing on all channels and extreme measures taken to tighten security," he writes. Beyond the coordinated spin of US and British officials and the now-discredited suggestion that the attack was imminent (in fact, scheduled for today, August 16), this latest "victory" in the "war on terror" has all the markings of a mass-mediated panic.

As in all great horror plots, the mundane has been transformed into the terrifying; the line between the two blurred. Is it lipstick or liquid explosive? Is your High Wycombe neighbor a 2nd-generation Pakistani-Brit or an "al-Qaeda inspired" Jihadist? The list of banned items grows longer, so do lines at security checkpoints. Mothers taste-test bottled breastmilk in front of airport screeners. Women ditch full bottles of Chanel No. 5 into garbage bins (talk about horrifying!). Diabetics abandon their insulin. And those damned colored alerts -- Yellow! Red! Orange! Red! -- continue to flash meaninglessly across our TV screens.

All of this commotion sows confusion. And since we can't tell the difference between a bomb and a balm, we might as well trust our government to do so for us. (Though apparently, airport screeners equipped with X-ray machines can't distinguish between an ordinary Nike sneaker and plastic explosives either.) So high-pitched is this hysteria that, just this morning, a passenger's claustrophobic incident on board a Boeing 767 instigated a military fighter jet escort and emergency diversion to Logan International Airport in Boston. And the "matches, screwdriver, Vaseline and two notes referring to al-Qaeda" that CNN excitedly reported were in this poor woman's possession? They don't exist, never did. According to a Transportation Security Administration spokesman, "there is no nexus to terrorism with this event" -- a surreal quote quite on its own.

When reality gets this crazy, an absurd movie like Snakes on a Plane might just be a welcome antidote. I can already imagine the reality-informed sequels: Shampoo on a Plane (radical gay hair-stylists, armed with gossip, curl relaxer and Tresemmé, hijack a flight to Miami but are foiled by Samuel L. Jackson and his extremely kinky afro) and Baby Formula on a Plane (fanatic breastmilk advocates force-feed Enfamil to terrified passengers, causing Samuel L. Jackson to shout, "I have had it with this motherf---ing infant formula on this motherf---ing plane!")

Alright, clowning aside, let me just suggest that comic horror films like Snakes on a Plane and the mass-mediated, transatlantic spectacle of this past week are two sides of the same coin. The former inspires laughs and thrills; the latter instills fear and acquiescence. But both appeal to the shop-worn conventions of the mass disaster, and both, in their way, are pleasurable. In his brilliant essay "The Mass Public and the Mass Subject," social theorist Michael Warner argues that airplane crashes -- rather than more frequent and more deadly car crashes -- fascinate because they cause injury to a mass body to which we identify and aspire. "Disaster is popular, as it were, because it is a way of making mass subjectivity available," he writes. It's this tendency, to become a mass public through scenes of real and imagined disaster, that the Bush administration and the docile press corps exploit, for political gain (as Greider suggests) or merely for the sake of audience share. But we don't have to look, or if we do, we can laugh. So turn off the tube and go see Snakes on a Plane.

Comments (24)

1. wait a minute, you haven't seen it?

   so how can it be the "political satire of the year"?

   anyway, i'll go see it and find out for myself.

   Posted by darladoon at 08/16/2006 @ 7:53pm

2. So Mr Kim, there's some "connection" between terrorism...

   and a horror movie?

   What's next? "'Dancing with the Stars' is an indictment of the oppressive capitalist system which prevents poor people from winning dance contests"?

   Posted by Mask at 08/17/2006 @ 08:59am

3. Any nudity in the movie?

   Posted by woodyee at 08/17/2006 @ 09:11am

4. Re: "So Mr Kim, there's some "connection" between terrorism... and a horror movie?" by MASK.

   Perhaps there is. Movies come in different forms, genres, and with different characters (but mostly the same actors recycled).

   Kind of like the "war on terrorism". The only true distinction is that while theaters may rip you off for popcorn and soft drinks, the amount is small and paid for right away. The "war on terrorism", as fought by this Administration, costs blood, breeds further hatred, and is a ticket paid for by the individual watching, their children, and great- grandchildren.

   The only difference seems to be that horror movies have a sequel burnout (around 17 or so) but "the war on terrorism" is perpetual. It can be an epic (lasting generations), a long running multiple location series (see: CSI), or even sequels carried to the degree of infinity.

   Posted by AmeriPundit at 08/17/2006 @ 1:43pm

5. Posted by AMERIPUNDIT 08/17/2006 @ 1:43pm | ignore this person

   It always seemed to me that one of the SUREST signs of political hyperbole is comparing real life to entertainment....

   whether it's the Right claiming that rap, video games, or pornography are somehow "corrupting" us...or the Left now trying to find some linkage between a MOVIE and the very real threat of terrorism.

   And yes, I said "very real threat"...because, despite the fact that Bushism has been a failure, there STILL IS a large "blank space" in southern Manhatten.

   Posted by Mask at 08/17/2006 @ 1:51pm

6. Fun stuff! Thanks for the laugh, and the reality check! (Who is Mask, and why does he rain on every parade?--Lighten up, guy!)

   Posted by jbettis at 08/17/2006 @ 2:31pm

7. Posted by JBETTIS 08/17/2006 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person

   How serious do you think Mr Kim is taking this??? I think a bit more than needed for a movie!

   Posted by Mask at 08/17/2006 @ 2:45pm

8. Bush may be a dunce, but that does not equate to the lack of a real threat from Islamic terrorists. If the 9/11 perpetrators had been caught I do believe you would have been among those rising indignantly to their defense.

   Posted by coolplace at 08/17/2006 @ 2:45pm

9. "So Mr Kim, there's some "connection" between terrorism...

   and a horror movie?"

   --clearly mask has never taken a course in "critical thinking"

   Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 2:48pm

10. Posted by DARLADOON 08/17/2006 @ 2:48pm | ignore this person

    DARLA, still awaiting your "critical thoughts" on why living in a gentrified urban neighborhood is more "un-selfish" than living in a suburb, if both are for equally "selfish" reasons like quality of life for your family.

    Posted by Mask at 08/17/2006 @ 3:07pm

11. Mask,

    I am not sure how the "ignore this person" concept works. Perhaps it is because I find it hard to ignore people.

    I do note that you have "ignore this person" at both the top and bottom of your comments responding to other comments. Other comments do not have this level of "ignoring".

    Naturally, I would think that you have chosen to really, really "ignore" the people to whom you are responding but that assumption seems to be wrong as you are responding to them meaning you are not ignoring them.

    When you have an opportunity, perhaps you can clarify the mystery of choosing to "ignore persons" (while not ignoring them) and, if possible, explain why you are such an "angry Mask".

    Promise, your response and you will not be ignored. After all, you're not just a "person"... you're an adventure.

    Posted by AmeriPundit at 08/17/2006 @ 8:56pm

12. Mask,

    That is, of course, unless you are simply copying and pasting the post names and titles in which case the lack of effort to actually write out and personalize your comment simply shows a lack of respect. That is, unless you're using a "Rovian" technique and including "ignore this person" in your posts when you know you can copy the name of the one who posted and the time and leave out the "ignore this person" as a "subliminable" message- in which case... ingenious!

    No offense is intended by not capitalizing all the letters in your name. Written in capitals, it just seems like one is yelling at you when that is not the case.

    Posted by AmeriPundit at 08/17/2006 @ 9:05pm

13. I've been excited about this movie since I first heard about eight months ago, just looked so alluringly ridiculous. But now that it also doubles as timely political satire (never thought that), that adds a new layer.

    But is it political satire? Judging by the preview, YouTube et al satires and the larger Web groundswell of cultish hype, etc., can't say. "Snakes" just looks damn funny. And dumb. Completely dumb. But hilariously so.

    Posted by antiPartisan at 08/17/2006 @ 10:53pm

14. Posted by AMERIPUNDIT 08/17/2006 @ 9:05pm | ignore this person

    Not sure what you're talking about...All I do is "Right Shift-Drag" across the name of the poster. The fact that it includes the "ignore this person" phrase is simply because I'm starting at "the end" and dragging across to the "Posted by ****"".

    Nobody else takes this for anything more than just a short-hand way of directing my response directly to the specific post, so as to avoid confusion with multiple posts.

    It's not a "Rovian technique"...if anything, it's just trying to be clear about which time-stamped post I'm responding to.

    Posted by Mask at 08/18/2006 @ 07:29am

15. Looks like your article inspired this blog entry: Snakes on a Plane is the Parody Even a Conservative can Understand [thankyoujoedarby.com]

    Terrorists + Liquids = What else do you need to know? Vote Bush!

    Snakes on a Plane (SOAP)... not just another cult movie, but perhaps the only political satire a Bush supporter can understand.

    When Bushie finally sees the light, he has two choices before him. He can:

    (1) Call his Senator and demand tighter reptile security on all our flights, because, let's face it, snakes are probably more dangerous than breast milk.

    -or-

    (2) Bushie can lift that veil of ignorance off his eyes and finally see that our president, spurred by the insatiably sensationalistic 24-hour news networks, has created a perfect storm of fear based on fiction that is just as (if not more) ridiculous than a Samuel L. Jackson repolitation film....read more [thankyoujoedarby.com]

    Posted by n2002 at 08/18/2006 @ 08:49am

16. Mask,

    Someone as talented as you on a keyboard can certainly "Right Shift-Drag" to the point just prior to the "ignore this person" part.

    Stopping there would show an indication that you intend to address, not demean, the person that you are responding to. There are no rationales for including "ignore this person" in your "Right Shift-Drag" exercise (as typing the name seems difficult) other than intention to demean, laziness, or a lack of control over your hand due to a physical limitation. If the latter is the reason, please accept my apologies.

    Incidentally, my comment is not an accusation. It is merely an observation of the manner in which your comments address others and the "content" contained therein.

    Posted by AmeriPundit at 08/18/2006 @ 11:53am

17. Posted by AMERIPUNDIT 08/18/2006 @ 11:53am

    Put it down to "laziness" if you like...as I just didn't see leaving the "ignore this person" as some kind of "attack" or "technique". I note other people have done it, even using my post time-stamp, and I never took the "i.t.p." section as some kind of "subtle dig" at me.

    Posted by Mask at 08/18/2006 @ 12:49pm

18. ignore this person

    Heavens to Betsy, people (as Rummy might say), they are just MFing snakes on an MFing plane! Lighten up!

    Posted by bjkron at 08/18/2006 @ 3:50pm

19. Posted by BJKRON 08/18/2006 @ 3:50pm | ignore this person

    Posted by bjkron at 08/18/2006 @ 3:50pm

20. Karl Rove's message "keep us in office or your safety will suffer" works because the GOP is very good at conflating and confusing people's real fears with fake fears.

    If you talk to average, independent voters who can actually swing the election, they will say their biggest concerns are:

    protecting their children from harm money and 3. their own personal safety

    probably in that order.

    The Rove message is that the "homosexual agenda" is a threat to their children, Democrats will stop them from becoming as rich as they have a right to be, and that Bush & Co are the only thing stopping al Qaeda from blowing them up while they shop at Walmart.

    It's a ridiculous message, and it needs to be exposed. Snakes on a plane just might help.

    Posted by jenforclark at 08/19/2006 @ 09:37am

21. I always leave ignore this person off

    Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 09:03am

22. It's not a "Rovian technique"...if anything, it's just trying to be clear about which time-stamped post I'm responding to.

    Posted by MASK08/18/2006 @ 07:29am

    see

    Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 09:04am

23. but if you have no self control mask...

    Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 09:05am

24. Posted by WILL C. 08/21/2006 @ 09:05am | ignore this person

    WILL, I swear I think you're "LILLIAN's" brother or husband or something....

    and that if I said "Nice sun-rise this morning", you'd say "Hamster astronomy, huh? The Sun didn't 'rise', the Earth rotated!!!!", just to have something to go after me on!

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2006 @ 09:52am