[Border Officer]: Well, shoot!
Looks like no one put up your photo.. [B. O.]:..Frida! [Hector]: Okay, when i say that was Frida just now.. [Hector]: that..that was a lie
and i apologize for doing that [B.O.]: No photo on an ofrenda,
no crossing the bridge. [Hector]: You know what? I'm just gonna zip right over.. [Hector]: You won't even know i'm gone [Border Officer]: Hey [Punch SFX]
[Cop]: Stop resisting arrest! [Punch SFX] [Music - Bad Boys] [Music Stops] [Cop]: Skeleton? [Cop]: More like.. [Cop]: Felon-ton [Rewind SFX] [Hector]: I'm just gonna zip right over,
you won't even know I'm gone. Within seconds of arriving to the Land of the Dead, Pixar's Coco lets us know that its version
of the afterlife runs on very specific systems. Systems that permeate nearly
every scene of the film and are initially used for everything from characterization and conflict to world- building and comedy. [Border Official]: Welcome back, amigos! [Official]: Anything to declare? [Julio] :As a matter of fact..yes. [Miguel]: Hola.. But as the film goes on, it'll slowly but surely demand two very contradictory things from its viewers. First. for them to clearly understand
these systems and their consequences, so they can empathize with
one of its main characters and his motivations. Then, to shrug them off as mostly background when they're no longer that
relevant to the film's narrative. And it's this relationship the film has
with the systems it's portraying that i want to explore. But to do that I'm going to have to tackle
Coco's world of the dead as just a fantasy world like any other, instead of a fantasy world specifically
inspired by Mexican culture. [Bridge SFX] And I'm going to be doing that for a couple of reasons. Seeing as how i come from literally
halfway across the world, it's basically impossible for me to be less of an authority on Mexican culture or Latino representation. There are way more qualified people who
have written about this aspect of the film and you can find all of that online. But the second and most significant reason,
is that the systems that play in Coco's world are a lot more universal than the
Day of the Dead coating would have you believe. So, I think distancing the film a bit
from that cultural coating could actually help highlight
the working parts underneath and bring to the forefront
the fairly insidious implications that come up as a result. [Scanning SFX] [Ding] In creating the World of the Dead, Coco
makes use of one of the most ubiquitous world building tropes in fiction: interpreting a fantastical setting in a way that directly reflects modern society. Foing this is at least as old as cinema,
and if we're being honest, as old as storytelling. But modern animated films *really* like this trope. And Pixar, specifically, really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really like it. As a quick side note, when you put
all of these films side-by-side, it makes sense that some patterns
are going to come up but it's kind of unsettling how one
specific part of modern life keeps rearing its ugly head in the exact same way regardless of the verisimilitude of the interpretation.. [Bing Bong - struggling]: Ow..careful..don't squue.. [Bing Bong]: You can't do this! [Mcqueen - Afraid]: He's shooting at me!
Why is he shooting at me?! [Ralph]: Guys...she.. [Ralph screaming in pain] [Shrek]: Alright, alright..let me go! [Donkey]: Why you grabbin...Ow!
Police Brutality! Police Brutality! What is up with animated films and their obsession with portraying
some form of police control? What does it say about us as a society that it's basically impossible
to portray the modern world even in the most abstract sense. without this coming up? [Music stops]
No, like seriously, that wasn't rhetorical.. I'm asking: "What does it say about us?" I'm not smart enough to draw any conclusions
about this specific point without ending up in a fetal position on my bed depressingly watching old vine compilations. [Vine]: Fresh..*laughs* Freshavakadoo Heh....Freshavakadoo Coco though stands out from all that company by choosing to portray a different part of modern life in the type of detail that most avoid. The World of the Dead in Coco
has class struggle and wealth inequality. It has border control and a screening process. Its citizens have clear rights. And, as is often the case,
it's easier to pinpoint those rights specifically because there's a group
that's excluded from them. [Border Official]: No photo on an onfreda,
no crossing the bridge. The audience's vessel for said group,
as well as most of the systems in this world, is Hector, the film's second main character, who we're introduced to as he
tries to trick his way into the most important right that his group is refused: crossing the border into the
Land of the Living to visit one's relatives. [Hector - indignant]: Dumb flower bridge! You see, this society functions on two core principles. The photo on the ofrenda,
which you can think of as state-sanctioned ID, and the offerings you receive by those
who remember you, which basically act as wealth. So, these two principles lead to a social
and economic hierarchy that is also two-fold There's the binary of whether you have
this ID or not and thus whether you're eligible for*
a lot of the most basic rights. Then the no group is shoved off to the margins and the yes group gets to experience the spectrum of a not-so-equal distribution of wealth. Where at the very top, we have the few
who are overflowing with offerings. [Ernesto]: They leave me more offerings
than I know what to do with. Below them, we have those who are getting by on the offerings they get from living family members. And at the very bottom, those in Hector's group, who have to scrounge up whatever they can,
whenever they can, and often end up having to share with one another
the little they do get. [Hector's friend]: Muchas gracias! [Hector]: Hey! Save some for me! And by having such clearly defined groups that come up as a result of the systems around them, the portrayal of their experiences and the way these groups interact with each other end up being quite believable. [Hector - shy]: Come on, stop pestering the celebrity.. So, while the scenes in the living world
are more than happy to succumb to the ugly tendency of portraying
working class struggle through an idyllic lens, Look how happy he is.. just your plain.. common.. joyous.. [Voice pitched down] Victim of child labor! The World of the Dead is less delusional. The people at the bottom are having
no fun being at the bottom. Their economic status directly affects
every aspect of their lives: their clothing, their health, their living situation, their presence in public spaces, the way they're treated by other citizens, the way they're treated by authority figures and all of that for the worse. [Border Official]: You need to clean up your act, amigo. Whereas with the middle group,
two interesting dynamics that tend to happen in our own world
get reflected here as well. Showing how the hierarchy
also permeates their thinking. First, there's this constant hope
of upward social mobility as if there's always this lurking chance that the stars will align and move you
up a couple of notches to your rightful spot. And the reason this idea is so pervasive,
in the film as in the real world, is because, in fact, there is actual upward mobility, but only just enough to keep the illusion alive. [Musician]: If you really want to get to Ernesto, [Musician]: there is that music competition
at the Plaza de la Cruz. [Musician]: Winner gets to play at his party. So, if you exhibit talent in a way that's deemed worthy, or, in our case, maybe go viral. If you have some sort of connection, an in of some kind. [Migeul]: I need a favor.. Or, if you perchance prove to be
particularly useful in some way, then..yeah, there might be some mobility here. But, otherwise, don't count on it because
for the hierarchy to function the way it does, it runs on the core principle of
the least possible mobility for the fewest possible people. [Migeul and Guitar SFX] And this leads to the second dynamic, a delusional 'us versus them' narrative. The way it goes is the 'us' includes the middle group and those above while the 'them' are those below. [SFX of Hector falling] Basically, replicating a version of the binary split the systems around them already cause. The effect of this, of course, is dehumanizing the group at the bottom to such a degree where the middle group now only interacts
with them in one of two ways. Either by mocking them.. [Musician - derisively]: Chorizo! [Band]: Hey! It's chorizo!
[Laughing] [Hector - frustrated]: Haha..very funny, guys.. Or by pitying them.. [Rosita]: Aww..I don't know what I'd do
if no one put up my photo. In reality, if the middle group took a moment
to examine this narrative, which we all tell ourselves, they would realize that the 'us' and 'them'
would pretty much be the inverse. Because, not only is there no conceivable possibility that they ever get as many offerings as those at the top. But also, all it would take is one mishap.. Say, their photo being removed from the ofrenda. [Desk worker]: Sorry señora, it says here
no one put up your photo.. Or..you know, a medical emergency for them to basically be in the 'no binary',
struggling to survive. Something those at the top don't have to deal with because it's implied that they aren't as reliant
on a single ofrenda, the way everyone else is. [Hector as Frida]: I'm on so many ofrendas,
it'll just overwhelm your blinky thingy. Now, I do want to say that, while the way the film portrayed the bottom group was intentional, i don't think these two dynamics i brought up about the middle group were. Instead, I think they were a byproduct of
the film taking real-life systems wholesale and just putting them in its world. Because, while Coco isn't an allegory or
a one-to-one parallel with some specific situation, like say Animal Farm. It *is* using specific real-world images and the systems attached to them
to try and evoke very specific experiences. And, by importing these images, they're also importing a whole lot of baggage with them, because *this* isn't just characters vaguely being restricted from entering or leaving an area. It's a screening process that determines
who gets through based on relatively arbitrary rules that are
beyond the individual's control. And *this* isn't just characters
vaguely down on their luck, it's systemic wealth inequality that is a direct result of many of the same seemingly arbitrary rules. [Hector]: We're all the ones with no photos or ofrendas. No family to go home to.. [Hector]: ..nearly forgotten, you know? The film has taken clear inspiration from the real world to make these well-defined systems. The requirements of which inherently favor a portion of the population and disadvantage another and the consequences of which just
enlarge in the gap between the groups. And...what does it do with all that? Well.. not that much. Though the systems technically
permeate the entire film, their relevance are
mostly front-loaded for setup. Their consequences are used as
characterization for Hector and their rules are used as an excuse
for the conflict and its macguffins. After that, they're pushed off to the side
to focus on the twists and turns of the story before they come back real quick for the big "..and in the end everything was all right"
moment when Hector gets through the border and crosses the bridge. And look, as far as priorities go, focusing on the character drama at the
center of your film makes sense. Especially when it's going to culminate in a scene that is *so good*, it single-handedly elevates the film. But the fact that the film decides
not to engage with the systems or all of that baggage, in any real way, after leaning so heavily on them
for characterization and setup, is not just disappointing.. ..it's straight- up insidious. Because while the film doesn't *do* all
that much with the systems, it *does* end up saying quite a bit about them. I mean..
[Pause SFX - Stop Music] Did you notice what i said back there? [Rewind SFX] [Repeated]..before they come back real quick for the big [Repeated] "..and in the end everything was all right"
moment when Hector gets through the border and crosses the bridge. [Pause SFX] Hector still has to get screened to
cross the border at the end of the film. In Coco, we're introduced an entire section of the population that is pushed off to the side, placed in slums, and basically left to die a slow and painful death. And, at the end of the film, the systems
that exemplify the marginalization are *all* still in place. And that group presumably still exists
in the exact same way and are still being left to die in the slums. Coco tells a story with a happily ever after ending where.. [Music starts] [Scanning SFX] [Ding SFX] It doesn't feel that morbid initially
because when you're watching the film it's pretty easy to get swept up in the
feel-good narrative. That no one outside of our core cast of
characters is affected in any way doesn't really click at first. And the big reason for that is that the film builds on its ideas in
such a pernicious way that you don't quite realize what you're being fed until you've already swallowed. [Mom]:..like you're enjoying..
[Daughter makes loud gag noise] [Mom]: Ok! You ok?
[Kids laugh] To see what i mean we could take
a quick look at Wreck-it Ralph [Music] There's a similar scene in the beginning of the film where Ralph was discriminated against
at a border crossing. [Officer]: Step aside, sir.
Random security check. [Ralph]: Random my behind! You always stop me. Much like in Coco, this is used as
a key moment of characterization to show us the strain the system puts
on a specific group. In this case, video game villains. [Officer]: Anything to declare? [Ralph]: I hate you [Officer]: I get that a lot.. So, if we put these side by side and compare how each story builds on its own scene, we notice a key difference. In Wreck-it Ralph.. this is unjust. In Coco.. this is unfortunate. The people around Ralph go through
as much change as he does in the film. The way he's treated at the end is drastically different from the way he's
treated in the beginning. [Nicelander]: There's no room for you up here. And an important point here is that
as far as the system is concerned his situation and role haven't changed. He's the same video game villain at the
end that he was in the beginning. So for *this* to happen, those around him
had to actively change. [Felix]: You don't know what it's like to be
rejected and treated like a criminal! [Ralph]: Yes I do.. [Ralph]:..that's every day of my life. [Felix]: It is? He was never the problem. The way he was classified
and treated was the problem. [Door slams]
[Nicelander - shocked]:..Ralph! [Screams] [Nicelander 2]: He'll wreck the party! The film also manages on top of all this
to deal with its homelessness crisis, which is always a plus. In Coco, almost the exact opposite happens. The only reason hector is
treated differently by the end is because his situation has significantly
changed in the eyes of the system. i mean, look at that!
She's all about ready to shut him down because she's under the assumption
that he's still in the 'no binary'. [Buzzer] But instead his photo is on the ofrenda and he now has that state-sanctioned ID, so he gets through. The wrong here isn't the system that's
placed countless people in the situation. It's the specific series of events that
put Hector among them. [Ernesto]: You're being forgotten.. [Hector - angry]: and whose fault is that?! It's Ernesto and what he did.. The problem is the singular bad actor
who *abused* the system and not that the system is inherently ripe for abuse. Nor that it marginalizes people based on
an arbitrary requirement that automatically puts
certain folk at a disadvantage. And..look, i'm aware that a happily ever
after ending where the only change is that a baddie at the top is no longer
there is a widespread narrative trope. Both, in fiction and..depressingly in the real world [SFX - Furniture moving, curtain being pulled]
[Music slows down] [Whispers] [Biden]: ..then you ain't black!
[Reel back in shock] One of the ways the film gets away with this bullshit of siphoning all of Hector's problems
solely through Ernesto and not having anything else change is by underlying it with another concept. That being, that all of this is just the
natural law of the afterlife in this world. The systems we see are beyond control
and therefore beyond change, and that's that. [Hector - assuringly]: Hey, it happens
to everyone eventually Now, you might notice that correlating a
supernatural and unchangeable law with our current economic and social systems, which are both very man-made and very changeable is kind of fucked up, to say the least. And something I'd almost call
'genius propaganda' were it intentional which, for the record, I don't think it was. It also brings up the question of 'Why even use the modern elements and
draw such a screwed up correlation?' As others have pointed out, the border
control isn't necessary. Hector can't get through no matter what. The bridge won't let him
because of the magic or whatever. So, if it's unnecessary and it's not
going to be explored in the story, why bring in these pretty accurate portrayals
of border control and poverty. instead of leaning into a more magical
and myth-like tone as some other films have done? The kind answer would be that Pixar
thought including the modern elements and riffing on them would be fun,
as they've done so many times before. The more cynical answer would be that they thought having one of the main characters
in their Mexican-inspired film struggle with crossing a border would constitute
as some vague commentary and win them brownie points with critics. Which it did [Woosh SFX] Whoops how'd that get in there! Either answer though doesn't really shed light on
why it plays out in such a tone-deaf way. Can you imagine if Wreck-it Ralph ended
with his typical montage of positivity but in one of the vignettes he's stopped
again for a random check and he just smiles at the guy like
"Oh you!".. ..and then he pets a homeless Qbert
on the way back to his game? [Ralph]: Hang in there, guys.. I don't know.. Maybe you can since that's like
basically what happens at the end of Coco, a film that made an even bigger point about the negative consequences
of its system than Ralph did. And i want to be clear, I'm not saying that Wreck-it Ralph is the height of
social commentary in fiction. In the end, both films were designed to pass
the least problematic, most milquetoast message to achieve the ultimate goal
for their corporate overlords. [Cha-ching SFX] Nor am I saying that stories that decide
to portray unjust systems have to endwith those systems being toppled.
Of course not! Stories need to have the room
to play out in whatever way fits them best. But if part of the point you're making
is how fucked up these systems are then you can't just end the story by
completely ignoring that point like Coco does. And it's not like they were limited for
options of what to do.. They can end with a depressing message
that systems like that will ultimately overwhelm any individual
who tries to question it. Or they can give it a dark, satirical touch
to highlight that specific people actually benefit from these unjust systems. [Bonnie]: Griffin, please, can we talk about it? [Griffin]: Bonnie..you'll land on your feet, I know it. They can also keep either one of those darker tones but swing get a bit more to the hopeful side by having their characters realize
that the only way to fight back is by organizing. So, they end up fulfilling their small role
as part of a bigger movement. In fact, even if we stick to animated films, since they often deal with different expectations
than their live action counterparts, they still have a fair bit of room to work with. Take Zarafa, for example. A film that tells the fictionalized story of the first giraffe that was ever transported to Europe. A film that also decides to include no
less than slavery in that story, making it so clearly a point as to open with it. And, like in Coco, at the end, the main
characters are able to get out of their situation, the slaver in their specific story gets his due, and the film ends on a happier note even though slavery presumably still exists. But, if we take a moment to explore
how Zarafa engages with its ideas, we notice that the dissonance in its
ending is kind of the point because the characters actually failed their mission. The entire reason for the trip in the first place was that Alexandria was under siege by the Turks. So the Basha thought if he
sent a giraffe as a gift the King of France might help him. In the end, he doesn't. And the main character's goal is that he wants to keep the promise he made to the giraffe's mom that he take her back home to Africa. In the end, he can't. In fact, the specific reason he fails is because, in the time he was trapped as a slave in France, she grew too big to fit in the carriage anymore. And he has to learn these unjust systems can result in direct and irreparable consequences to individuals but that when one fails the best thing they can do
is to keep their head up, adapt, and still try to change the world around them for the better to the best of their ability. And, despite some pretty big tonal problems
in a couple of scenes in the middle of the film, the story does a pretty good job of
maintaining that idea throughout the runtime. All of the main characters have clear
principles when it comes to these systems and are able to affect the
people around them in direct ways, but, conversely, those in power are for
the most part beyond their reach. The amiable Basha ultimately has priorities
that don't include dealing with any of these systems. And the shitastic King of France is so out of touch
with anybody's reality but his own that all he really does is perpetuate
nearly every problem the film brings up. So even though these unjust systems seem
unlikely to change anytime soon, Maki is able to metaphorically
reverse the situation and push ahead. The story starts with his village
being burnt to the ground and his lineage basically being wiped off the map, abhorrent actions with irreversible consequences, but it ends with him founding a new village and ensuring that his culture lives on in some form. Then again, modern French films
seem to be particularly good at finding that balance of ending on a
hopeful note for their characters while not trivializing the real-world
issues in their stories. And I've focused here on examples where the unjust systems remain at the end of the films because, as we've discussed, that's what happens in Coco. Which is odd when you think about it
because it otherwise fits quite easily alongside other animated films from
Hollywood in the way it wraps up its story. As we know these mainstream animated films almost universally end with an ideal, or some version of an ideal. In Monsters Inc. they completely revamp their energy system from something that scares kids to something that brings them joy unless you consider a bad stand-up scary.. In Ratatouille, the critic changes his ways
and they open a brand new restaurant in Paris where humans and rats can coexist. In Wall-e, the entirety of the fucking human race
returns to a post-apocalyptic earth to restart civilization. Making a big and often near-unbelievable leap of logic between the moment we fade out from the climax
and the moment we fade into the conclusion is a common technique in these films. [Music from Tangled]
[Flynn]: You can imagine what happened next.. And Coco does it as well.. We fade to a year later and the biggest musical artist
in the history of Mexico is cancelled at the drop of a hat, Hector is recognized for his musical genius, and Miguel's family, who for generations have based their entire identity on the sole fact that they forbid music, have done a complete 180 on their stance because the dead matriarch in a scene
none of them were around for told Miguel that she no longer hates music. And i'm not pointing these out to criticize them. These leaps of logic have become
established staples of the medium and they kind of make these films
our modern-day fables But they also show us that there's very little that limits how far the filmmakers push their conclusions. These endings often ask us to let our
imaginations run wild, to put our pessimism aside, and to dream big so we can take these leaps and see the best outcome, the best version of how
these stories can play out. So. when the border control remains at
the end of the movie, that is a choice by the filmmakers
that is distinctly separate from a desire of wanting to maintain
the integrity or logic of their setting. Domething none of the other films seem
to struggle with. It makes you wonder how it remained in the film.. Like, did it not come up as a red flag
in any of their story meetings? I would be shocked if it didn't given Pixar's work ethic and the iterative process
of how they write these stories. But then, what does that imply? Was it a deliberate choice to leave it in? It was either that or an oversight and,
to be honest, I'm not sure which is worse. And to a certain degree, it doesn't matter because both of them end up giving us the same thing. A weak middle ground that doesn't tackle
the bitter-sweetness of giving its characters a happy ending in a world where countless others are still struggling with the problems that affected them, nor a happily ever after that presents
some core change to the systems in its world. On top of this, it also manages to missthe one thing
that the two endings do have in common. The fact that they both understand that the systems
in their stories are inherently unjust. There is no version of Zarafa, as it is, where any of the characters were supposed to relate to just shrug slavery off. And there is no version of Monsters Inc., as it is,
where Sully goes back to scaring kids after he sees the direct effect it has on Boo. And, look, it's clear that the film sees the
consequences of the systems in its world as There's no denying that,
it milks the shit out of that suffering. But since it never fully commits
to how inherently unjust systems are, Coco ends up becoming the film equivalent of: [Rosita]: Aww..I don't know what I'd do
if no one put up my photo.. A detached and ultimately meaningless pity that, at best, serves to make the viewer feel good for recognizing that And, at worst, continues to normalize
a very harmful system because, let's get one thing straight, it is a harmful system and unjust too. And by doing that, by appropriating real-world
struggles with a specific system for characterization and conflict, and then trying to pass off an ending
where the system is completely unchanged, where the characters still have to worry about the possibility of being marginalized, and where officials are all but ready to
push them off to the edges, as an ideal happily ever after, Coco betrays an underlying misunderstanding of and a foundational disconnect with the very struggles it's appropriating. [Scanning SFX] [Buzzer] [Music stars] [Music] So, what is the system that Coco
is using as a basis for its own? Well, simply put, our border system. Specifically, that which limits or provides access
to the freedom of movement across borders, based on a couple of factors. Primarily, the country your passport says you're from. And it's important to emphasize that last point because the requirements for this access can vary drastically depending on your passport
[Gfx: No. of countries you
have free access to] [Gfx: No. of countries you
have free access to] like it's not even close
[Gfx: No. of countries you
have free access to] If you come from a "first-world" country then the majority of the places
you're probably gonna go to in your life have basically no requirements. You just have to show up with a valid
passport and you'll get stamped through. This idea of just showing up with a valid passport is nothing more than a fantasy for the rest of the world. Remember when I said I came from halfway
across the world in the beginning? That wasn't just an excuse for not discussing
the Mexican context of the film. It's actually quite relevant to what I want to say here. And that's called.. Foreshadowing Motherfucker! Think of it as a Chekhov's gun
that I planted in the first act. and now we're in the third, so I have to... do whatever it is you do with
a Chekhov's gun in the third act. [Gunshot] [Tripping and Falling] You see for those of you who come
from "first-world" countries, let me put it into some perspective. It's basically impossible for us,
those who come from "third-world" countries, to go almost anywhere, even for a short period of time, without explicit approval
beforehand in the form of a visa. [Anastasia]: Exit visa? [Ticket seller]: No exit visa, no ticket! [Ticket windows slam] One of the main myths that the film subtly perpetuates, and that more people than I expected
from "first-world" countries kinda low-key believe, is that at its core the system requires
the same thing from everyone. [Border Officer]: No photo on an ofrenda,
no crossing the bridge. Which just isn't the case. Now..yes, we did mention a bit that, even though the requirement in the film was
technically the same for everyone, it inherently puts certain people at an
advantage and others at a disadvantage. And we'll talk about the direct connection
between an individual's wealth and how the system affects them in a bit. And, yes, people from "first-world" countries sometimes need visas as well to go to specific places, but that experience is often streamlined to such a degree as to not even be comparable. For us, the mere task of applying for a visa
is an arduous, mind-bogglingly dumb experience that often consists of a series of convoluted demands that are worthy of any fetch quest that's ever been designed to pad out on rpg's length: Bank statements for every account you have
going back years. A signed document from your employer proving that
you do, in fact, work for them and/or ensuring that you're coming back, and that when you do they'll still want to employ you. A detailed itinerary of what you plan to do
every day you're in the country you want to visit. Some random fucking official document
you've never heard of, from some random fucking governmental body
that's only open three days a week, stamped by some
random fucking government employee who only comes in
one of those three days. To name a few And, of course, which of these is or isn't
required in your specific application depends on the country you want to go to, as well as the country you happen to be in while applying. So, it's basically procedurally-generated
bureaucratic nonsense designed to... well, make you question your value as a human being. And we haven't even mentioned the fact that this is all accompanied by a
not-too-small non-refundable fee and often includes an interview with
some indifferent employee at the embassy, or the private firm the embassy hired, who it often seems gets the final say
on whether or not you get that visa, because.. ..is it even necessary to say at this point
that refusals are pretty common? [Interviewer]: Mr. Singh, I've considered
your application today, [Int.]: but i'm not satisfied that you
meet the requirements of the rules this time. [Int.]: So, I'm going to refuse your application. [Int.]: Do you understand?
[Singh - quietly]: Yes. Even skipping over the fact that
these requirements, in and of themselves, automatically exclude portions of the population, the mere task of going through the experience
can often play out in pretty heartbreaking ways. Like, there's this lady who works behind the desk
at the small gym in my neighborhood, who's in her late 50s or early 60s, and one day a while back, I walked in and saw that she had done up her hair and was
wearing full makeup. So, I commented on how nice her new hairstyle looked. She told me she'd just got done with an interview
at the Spanish embassy that morning. Her son works in Barcelona and she was
hoping to visit him for the holidays. She explained that she hadn't seen him
and god knows how long since she'd already been refused the visa
in the past on two different occasions. So, she thought fixing herself up that day would hopefully give a better impression at the interview. She told me that this time she did a pretty good job of presenting herself in the way she knew she was, in the way her application couldn't. And I think it's nice that she felt that way, that she was able to get something
out of the experience, because.. needless to say, she was refused a third time. But...let's assume you're lucky. You get the visa and all goes well. You can now look forward to the always pleasant experience of getting through passport control, armed with the knowledge that,
unlike at the end of Coco, finally getting the right papers.. and that the passport that currently houses that visa
will almost always ensure that you're greeted with some level of suspicion. You know how the whole tension at the end of Inception hinged on whether he would actually
get through passport control or not? I promise you I've gone through that exact tension every time I've walked up to passport control. Handing an official a "third-world" passport
can often feel like the equivalent of telling them "Hey, by the way, the system considers me
a second-rate human.. ..and you can legally treat me like garbage." Over the years, I've become acutely sensitive
to this dynamic because of a particularly layered situation I'm in. You see, I sound like.. well, like this.. and you can't see me, but I pass for white. Which means that in my day-to-day life
the majority of the people I meet tend to assume i'm white and from the West. As a result, it's not unusual for me
to automatically get social privileges often reserved for white foreigners. So, I'm treated with kindness and respect and people just assume I'm honest and nice and trustworthy and to tell you the truth.. [Music cuts out]
I am none of those things ..and since I've been lucky to travel quite a bit, in a restricted fashion, but quite a bit nonetheless, I've been put in a position over and over again to see the contrast between how I'm treated when officials assume I'm white and how I'm treated after that assumption is cleared up. And it basically comes down to this
insane whiplash of going from undeservingly being treated like I can do *no* wrong to undeservingly being treated like
I can *only* do wrong. [Over-dramatic narrator of a border control TV Show] Oooooooor they may be dealing
with a very tired passenger, who just got off an 11-hour flight
from Honduras to Spain and is currently flummoxed because airport officials are interrogating her on every tiny detail, and have just revealed to her that
the predatory travel agency she probably bought *that* ticket from ripped her off by a whole lot, all..while a production group sticks a
fucking camera in her face and films the entire thing. [Tongue click]
I don't know I'm just spitballing here... Anyway...
[Music starts up again] Anytime I'm put in a situation
where my passport is relevant, I just hold my breath, tense up and hope
that this unknowable wave of suspicion that's gonna hit me doesn't wipe me out in the process. and this leads to situations where even
the most unremarkable interactions are fucking tense as shit. Like, the first time I went to the UK, I landed in Gatwick airport and the guy at passport control looked through
my passport for like five minutes. Then, without telling me anything, got up, and walked over to this other guy, who I assume was his higher up because he was walking along the counters. And then they just talked over my
passport for like 10 minutes, glancing at me every few seconds. And I couldn't hear what they were saying so I would just smile every time they looked at me, trying to look as nonchalant as possible. But, in my mind, I was slowly going mad. I was just like, "I'm going to get arrested, aren't I?" "This is it. This is what it's all come to!" I began to remember all the stories I've heard of people being stopped at airports for no justifiable reason, which somehow then led me to start quietly compiling a list of every sin I've ever committed in my life, trying to pinpoint the exact moment
of when it all went wrong. You know.. for the autobiography I'm probably
gonna be writing while I'm in jail But, then he came back and nothing happened. He stamped the visa and off I went. Basically the same person I was
when I stepped up to his counter, except now with a detailed list of all my sins
neatly stored in the back of my mind and an extra 15 minutes of self-loathing
and stress to add to my then net total. And automatic suspicion like this
by officials is so common that I know I should have already come to terms
with the fact that this is just.. ..my reality. But I can't. By the time you get to passport control,
you've had to juggle and balance so much nonsense that you're just waiting for it all to topple over. [Cards falling SFX] And when it doesn't and you, somehow, get through.. [Sigh] I don't know.. I don't think I've ever felt joy crossing a border, just relief. Relief that somehow nothing went wrong. [Music stops]
Or Bitterness I've definitely felt bitterness before. [Music starts up again]
Like, I know the suspicion ultimately has nothing to do with whether I have the appropriate visa or not, but it's difficult *not* to get bitter
when it's so fucking blatant. [Border Officer]: Clearly, he hasn't done the exam
because he can't talk about it. I remember a time I was crossing a land
border in the Caucasus with three friends from France. We were obviously all in the same group because our backpacking gear made us stand out. They all went before me
and the border official smiled at them, stamped their passports and they crossed. When I handed him mine,
his demeanor suddenly changed, which was a given,
he probably thought I was also French. So, he inspected my passport, then, he continued to inspect my passport. He turned to the page of my visa, then, went back to the first page and.. pulled out on of those like diamond inspector things and proceeded to methodically go through every single page of my passport one-by-one, checking the stitching that held the pages together. I remember glancing at my friends who, at this point, had been standing there for nearly 20 minutes just waiting for me to cross to their side, then, looking back at the official, who was still completely entranced
by the details of my passport, and thinking.. The first three people in this group all had one of the most coveted passports on the planet and the one you think is forged.. For people from "first-world" countries, a lot of travel stories of this sort sound like
regular bureaucratic inconveniences because to them that's all they are. But to folks from the "third-world", it's impossible to look at the situation as anything but systemic. When the difficulty of the most basic tasks
is directly tied to the name of the fucking country
on the front of your passport and there are entire industries
dedicated to ranking said difficulty. You become disillusioned real quick [Woman]: Can I just say something?
[Border Officer]: Sure. [Woman]: I think it's really wrong that your airport
detains people who are.. [Woman]: ..mostly colored
..and people who look different [B.O.]: Listen, let me explain to you
why that might be the case [B.O.]: and why you might see it like that, okay? [B.O.]: The reason being that any of these people
are here is because [Music Stops]
[B.O.]: we have an immigration issue with them. [Laughter] Remember that woman from Honduras? Let's catch up with her for a minute.. So, they go through all her stuff,
they interrogate her they do a body search, they x-ray her. And, when they can't find anything
wrong in her possession, they drug-test her to see if she's on something. And though she's clearly
bewildered by the whole thing, she cooperates completely. [Super dramatic music from the source] [Narrator]:..but when they get the results.. And when all of that comes back negative
and everything checks out, what do they do? [Narrator] They hand her over to
the national police for further investigation. [Music cuts out]
They hand her over to the police! This poor woman probably spent a chunk of her savings on this overpriced three-day trip to Madrid. And she's going to spend at least a third of it
being interrogated by officials, because of her passport and And all these stories are just about visiting a place, it's so much worse if you wanted to move, the process can get much more convoluted. Also if you haven't guessed by now, wealthy individuals are
mostly unaffected by this system. Ignoring the fact that a large portion of
the wealthiest people in "third-world" countries are directly involved in politics and completely skip this system with diplomatic passports or opportune connections. The rest just buy their way out of it.. Investing in another country, say,
moving your company or opening a new one will either just plainly get you another passport or put you pretty far in the
stages of getting another one. Actually, it doesn't even have to get that complicated. Just buy a summer home in Spain or Greece
and you're good to go. This is so prevalent that, honestly,
I'm more confident in the fact that any wealthy person in a "third-world" country
has a second more convenient passport than I am in the knowledge of whether or not I'm going to have a normal bowel movement tonight. It goes without saying that these options
are well beyond the reach of regular folk who have entirely different legal channels
to *maybe* achieve the same thing. With a governmental body, they can go into debt to go through a humiliating and expensive legal process that often takes years
and more often just leaves them in limbo. Or they can sign a predatory contract
with an international company that'll keep them trapped in another country
away from their families working nightmare jobs for slave wages. If neither of these sound particularly attractive, they have the option of remaining in their countries, where they can sit at home, stare at their college degrees, and rot in an economy that's too busy
trying to pay off its debt to the IMF and World Bank. Or perhaps work in a factory
earning less than two dollars a day making the t-shirt you're currently wearing. So then, is it any surprise that people
often resort to dangerous alternatives which if they get lucky enough to
survive they're then lambasted for and treated like criminals. I guess they should have just bought
that summer home in Spain. Honestly, I could go on and on about this
for quite a bit longer because there is *a lot* here
and it's *all* fucked up. Like, we haven't even talked about how
these systems are affected by capitalism and colonialism, both, the historic version which created them and the current version which perpetuates them. Or the fact that the modern iteration of the passport and border control is only about 100 years old and was initially Instated as
a temporary post-war measure but then just was never dismantled again. Or even about how everything I've told you so far
in this part of the video, though honest and true for me,
is still coming from a relatively privileged place because while it is a nightmare to have
a "third-world" passport today, the people who are absolutely fucked
over by these systems are those who are stateless or refugees, those living on occupied land or territories, like every day is a human rights violation for them. But I've decided not to go into any of that,
beyond the quick mentions just now, because i realized: 1. I've already gone on about this for
far too long and a piece that is, if you remember, about Coco. 2. Though these topics are *very* important, they're not strictly relevant to the point
I'm making in this dumb video. and 3. it would just add so much to the stress
I'm already feeling about this section and I'd almost definitely end up spending even more days curled up in a fetal position on my bed despondently
watching old vine compilations [Girl] Look at all those chickens! and if, I'm honest, I think I've reached my quota
of those days for the year.. So..with all that said, do i think that Coco is about all of this bullshit? No, of course not. It's about family and remembrance
and all that lovely stuff. But it does lean on very specific images
to evoke very specific experiences. Like I mentioned, this isn't a vague restriction
from entering or leaving an area. It's characters who are nervous and agitated as they're being screened at a
border control for a relatively arbitrary set of requirements that are
beyond their control. And now that we've gone through some of
the real world context around these system.. [Music stops]
Oh my god, will you look at all that baggage
in the background.. This is where I feel I need to re-emphasize
that I'm not saying stuff like this shouldn't be used in stories, but rather that they should be used.. And if the film is going to rely
so heavily on these experiences to characterize Hector's struggles, then I don't think it's a lot to ask it
to engage with them as well. In its decision to instead quietly push them
to the background in its second half Coco ends up becoming
a remarkably telling case study on how easy it is to normalize oppressive systems when you wrap them up in feel-good stories. Particularly those that might
present themselves as underdog stories of individuals struggling with the exact
same systems they end up normalizing. It's in much of the feel-good narratives
that surround us. Both, fiction and non-fiction. A success story here of someone
who was a refugee and now is a celebrity, a profile piece there of someone
who grew up in the slums only to become rich later in life. Much like with Hector, the images and
experiences of these struggles are primarily used for characterization and setup. Something that's incredibly effective
at getting us invested because.. who doesn't like a good underdog story? Especially one where a minority group
might actually get some representation. But, of course, the sleight of hand here is that we feel like we've engaged in a
critical look of the systems we're being presented with, when in reality, we haven't done that at all. All we've done is get so caught up
in the feel-good narrative of someone getting through the cracks of the system that we forgot to take a step back
and ask the important question of why the system still is what it is. It's an insidious dynamic
and it's incredibly effective because, in our seemingly overly self-aware era, the viewer can now feel good for feeling bad
about a shitty system, despite the fact that the happily ever
after ending they just saw didn't* even indulge in a fundamental
change of that system but instead focuses on the compromise of
lifting a single individual out of their specific.. unfortunate.. situation. [Ding] [Border Officer]: enjoy your visit, Hector. [Rewind SFX] [B.O.]: Enjoy your visit, Hector. [Rewind SFX] [B.O.]: Enjoy your.. [B.O. - repeating]: vis. [B.O.]: ..it, Hector. [Music]
That was some good shit. 👍
His 3 videos so far are so good and was so happy to see him post here.
I really enjoyed Coco, and def cried during the movie. Was lovely to see part of my heritage celebrated and get the love. But i hadn't even put these thoughts together of the systems that Coco presents and just how often Pixar and other kids media depicts police brutality.
Flawed.
1/2/3 world stuff is incorrectly defined and leans on the premise it means rich vs poor.
This is cold war expression for US/UK democracy aligned countries as first world. USSR/China aligned as second world. Everything else third world.
The friendliness a country has with other countries determines the visa type at entry.
Thailand, third world country, 77 countries on its visit list.
Mexico, first world country, 133.
Only 1k difference in GDP.