Such a feelgood film to watch, pretty girl, awkward guy, paths cross, a twist of fate, simple, delicious visuals, uplifting music
and a happy ending. This film has many layers, and I don't believe there is
much about the production and storyline that is accidental. So it's safe to say
that inferences can be made about almost every aspect, with the assumption that
there is an underlying message embedded.
In Inbox, the utopian ideas are very much about the nature of
relationships: that communication between people is complex and that spoken language is only one means by which we can come to know another person. At the very
simplest level, two people who have not met in person engage and connect through "technology" in the form of mysteriously connected red shopping carry bags through which they are able to send notes and small personal items. They grow their relationship by first exchanging personal
external manifestations of their identities: the teddy (youth, immaturity,
naivety), the makeup (female, sexual)), the underwear (male, mature, sexual).
As time progresses, they explore each other's level of interest in short
exchanges before participating in friendly, arm's length games and eventually
committing to meet one on one.
Technology plays a supporting role in the very human centred interchange, and the visually appealing metaphor of the red bags and the post
it notes represent the functional, spacial and temporal aspects of social
media. It reminded me of those awkward early teenage relationships before sms and social media, where an intermediary was used to pass on little messages to gauge interest and
facilitate that nerve racking first date. In the past, relationships were often
"mediated" in written exchanges that preceded an introduction, and
even this may have been orchestrated by others so that only
"suitable" relationships were pursued. Letters were laced with
perfume, adding another sensory layer, something depicted in the film as not
necessarily always getting the desired result when the woman reacts badly to the
scented objects she receives in her red bag.
In this respect, the film reminds us that in establishing
relationships we feel vulnerable and those early exchanges are fraught with
danger as we decide which aspects of our persona we will lay bare for another
to either accept or reject. This is clearly depicted in the scenes where the
man in his comfortable home environment is without clothes, his fundamental
self, but puts on his glasses, as if through them he may gain insight of sorts.
Into what we don't quite know at that moment. When the time comes when he realises the potential for some sort of relationship with a woman, there is a frenetic moment of dressing, creating a
persona that is crafted to impress. In this representation of technology, we sense that "digital dualism", the separation of the"real and the virtual" in online identity plays no more significant a
role now than it did in the past, and that contemporary technology may be
intrinsically neutral in this regard.
The dystopian ideas are embodied in the plethora of images
of consumerism and financial transactions. The opening scene uses the apparel
store as the setting for face to face opportunities for relationship building.
This scene is a powerful representation of how consumerism is intertwined with
relationships, technology, identity and social interaction. The couple holding
hands are shopping together. The men who work in the store are
highly attuned to the presence of unaccompanied women and either make unwelcome
suggestions, or in the case of our awkward hero (a customer), see his attempts at quietly
observing a woman in the store come unstuck as he knocks over the whole display
of underpants. Fabulous images of packaged masculinity tumbling like dominoes.
And a clear statement of the shortcomings of technology free human interactions. There is a sense that relationships may be purchased, and I am not sure if there is a suggestion of arranged marriage and dowry payment given the cultural context of the film,
In that scene alone, we hear the sound of the receipt
printer (above the music) and are bombarded with consumerist images of
advertising, the computer, the printer (which is a repeated zoom image) and the
processes of social and financial transactions enmeshed with technology. As the
story unfolds, we see that the exchange of objects and messages through the
"inbox" are still connected with economy as messages are written on
the receipts. Finally, when the technology "fails" and the lines of
communication are cut, we are presented with another powerful image of the man
returning to the closed apparel store. I interpret this as meaning that technology will
only be available when there is money to be made from it. No shop, no technology and
dystopically, no relationship. We are
left with the idea that something else, even fate, will serve us better than
technology which has one fundamental purpose in being a tool of capitalism.
OK, that sounded very much like Marxist technological
determinism, and that's exactly how I see it being depicted in the film.
How does this translate to online learning?
I think that if we agree with the ideas in the film, then
technology itself will be neutral in the social interactions required for
social constructivist or connectivist pedagogy. The film suggests that the tool
is immaterial. However the warning is clear, that technology will be a driver
for the most economically beneficial model, which is a gloomy vision for the
future. But this I will explore more fully in another post after I have
reviewed all the films for this week.
