Does Society find your "intelligence" attractive?

You know how films since some  time ago consistently feature protagonists who are total geeks? Even shows like say, The Big Bang Theory does this. It's a reversal of the times when a lot of the protagonists were Jocks who were well- built and athletic. Of course, if it's  Spiderman  we're talking about, then Tobey McGuire gets  to be both a nerd and athletic-looking(obviously looking the part is all that matters) because well, a spider bit him .

And then there were all these people talking about how smart is the new sexy. Is it true? Are your days of loneliness numbered?(You're obviously an intelligent person! You  tell that to yourself all the time!)

Eh, I don't think so. Because contrary to what people would have you believe, societal standards are never about living up to the standard, but rather about appearing to live up to the standard. Now, when it comes to physical attractiveness, the idea is fairly straightforward: "if you look the way we want you to, you pass". But it's easy to make the mistake of thinking that this means that the standard of smartness means  being smart is what is required to be considered attractive. Let me rephrase my earlier statement to explain: "If you're intelligent the way we want you to be, you pass."

You see, when society has a standard of intelligence, it is not that this standard means that everyone within a certain range of IQ is attractive. Because society defines intelligence on its own terms. What really makes you attractive is appearing to be "intelligent", because appearances are all that matters in this scenario. We're not talking about if you get to fall in love that beautiful woman or that beautiful man(let's assume such things require more than mere appearances), but rather if these people would even find you attractive in the first place. But to get to how people perceive you, let's first discuss society's definition of intelligence.

One of the most common traits I've seen that are shown to be possessed by "intelligent" people is a certain degree of social awkwardness(Sheldon from TBBT, Sherlock from 'Sherlock', House from 'House'.....am I the only one thinking this or do these latter two shows' titles sound suspiciously narcissistic? Not implying anything!). This social awkwardness is explained by the idea  that intelligent people have a hard time communicating with people of lower intelligence(pop-science at its best!). But this is nothing  more than a stereotype. Yet,  it matters. Because now that this one characteristic is attached to intelligence, it is important that you act socially awkward to be intelligently attractive. It was never the intelligence by itself that made Sherlock or House attractive, but  rather the many characteristics attached to the intelligence associated with these characters. So, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that that shabby looking  person is actually a genius who does not care for societal standards. Except, he is following the standard for a non- conformist.

Another important way in which the system dictates what is intelligent is by having you dismiss things that a lot of people like as "mainstream" or"mediocre", and pursue some vague obscure works of art that more than anything helps define your taste. Regardless of whether you know it or not, those books you read, or the arthouse films you watch, are important to you primarily because they make you appear intelligent. These are all standards. If you even think that acting a certain way makes you rebellious, it's because a system has laid down the tenets of what makes a person rebellious. Of course, buying into it makes your ego feel all warm and fuzzy, so it's all fine, right?

Well, it is fine...until the system fails you. Because all of this is a lie. No one is really going to perceive your rudeness to be symptomatic of a genius' behavior, like that of House's. They are just going to perceive it as straightforward rudeness. Because it's easy to forget something: that characters like House and Sherlock act the way they do within specific contexts set up for them by the narrative so that they are perceived the way they are. So, if you're socially awkward and justify it in your mind by thinking that House and Sherlock are that way too, it is only you who makes this comparison of yourself  and no one else. To them, you're just socially awkward. You might not be liked  by other people, but you may comfort your ego by thinking of the narratives of all of these people who are not well-liked either but are highly successful anyway. You might think it's only a matter of time before people notice your genius and you end up successful, but yeah, keep dreaming...

It only matters to you: the artsy stuff you like, the justification for your behavior,etc. Just like the people buying all of the different varieties of make-up in the hopes that they will live up to a standard, you behaving the way you are is also only because you're trying to live up to a standard. And like all standards perpetuated by impersonal systems, the people in these systems care little about whether you live up to any standard. But you, or your ego, or your subconscious mind does care very much about these things.

And that's why you'll try so hard. But here's the kicker: It was rigged to fail you from the start. 

'Frank' and the culling of the ego (Why I like 'Frank' more than 'Whiplash')

Am I the only one who thinks 'Frank' is a largely better film than 'Whiplash'? Maybe not, but the latter is easily the more popular film, and is definitely the one more accessible to a mainstream audience. Because as  revolutionary as people claim it is, it still does a few things 'right' to meet an audience's expectations. A young dude who's the underdog, but has something distinctive about him(we're told  so by an authority figure, so it mist be right), and is pushed to his limits by some authority figure and finally rises out on top. The ending here is important because it gives us the audience closure and thereby a sense of catharsis. It does not matter if this sense of catharsis is based on a false premise (after all, the protagonist may just die of a heart attack for all we know) but the movie tries its best to inform us that success and  good fortune lie ahead for the protagonist. One of the ways we've  been acculturated to interpreting  and understanding 'art' is by identifying with the 'hero' figure and by sympathizing with him and looking at the world through his eyes. As such, the protagonist's success is ours too. We want to know that in the end, success can be achieved through hard work, and the fact that the protagonist did this seems to provide us with a sense of comfort  that could be argued to be a false one.

On  the other hand, in a film like 'Frank' which I would say relies on such a narrative technique so that the audience identifies with the protagonist, we  are not left with a catharsis the way we are after a film like 'Whiplash' because 'Frank' portrays the narcissism associated with the very idea of  protagonists and the way we interpret them. I don't think that we as  an audience want the underdog drummer to succeed because we see something distinctive about him also, but rather because we think we can be him. This does not mean that we want to be good drummers, but it may apply to any field in our lives. What's important to note is that we want the protagonist to 'win' because we want to 'win'. We are rooting for him because we see the world through his eyes and we want the world to conform to, or to justify this perspective. It is the definition of narcissism to think that your perspective is the only one, and that everything else exists only to justify this. I'm not criticizing such behavior in itself, but am only trying to point out the reasons why we interpret such a narrative the way we do. So, it's important to remember that the 'hero' figure does not have to be morally upright or particularly heroic to warrant our unconditional support(it is after all unconditional). He warrants this support simply by virtue of being the protagonist (see any number of antagonistic leads for reference: Walter White, the Taxi Driver(yes, i forgot his name), Batman (don't bother telling me he's heroic), Light yagami from Death Note, and so on). 

Unlike 'Whiplash' which can either be interpreted as a somewhat grotesque understanding of music, or an exaggerated critique of the growing sense of elitism attached to Jazz music, the music only exists to show us how 'difficult' it can be. On the other hand, in 'Frank', the music itself tells a story of the quirkiness and a feeling of exclusiveness that exists in any band. and there are multiple interpretations of music  shown to us as an audience through the different interpretations of the music the band members themselves hold. And this is why the protagonist's- Jon's- venture into the band causes problems: because he does not understand the varying interpretations of music that exist, and more importantly, how important these interpretations are to the identity of Frank and the other members of the band.

Just like in 'Whiplash', in 'Frank' too we are shown the world through the eyes of an aspiring musician (a keyboardist/songwriter) and once he gets into the band 'Soronprfbs', he tries to- in his own words- "earn his place in the band". And we see how he attempts to have his songs played in the band, even though Frank appears to be, even to him, a genius songwriter. 

To Jon, earning his place in the band is important because of his ego. He  wants the band to become famous because he's in it. And like usual protagonist stories, it's likely that you rooted for Jon even though he's not a particularly likable person. He is however, the most sane person in the band and with the most 'normal' sense of music. He still sees music as a combination of chords used in a fixed progression. On the other hand, to Frank, the chords do not matter and he revels in the possibility of dissonance within the music. Because like their dissonant music, Frank and Clara are difficult to make sense of in society. And anything that can't be made sense of is dismissed by society. But in their music, they find solace not because it's great or because it could make them famous, but because it is who they are and they put everything of them into the music.

In the beginning, you must have noticed how Clara is painted as a kind of antagonistic character and the only way Jon is able to interpret her behavior is that she's crazy, not even giving  a second thought of why she is the way she is, and chances are you bought his interpretation.  This is because Jon like the rest of society fails to try and understand these characters. He's only interested in having his lame and generic crap played by the band. But of  course, to understand Jon as a one- dimensional character would be a mistake, but it's easier to identify with Jon in the first place, since he is the protagonist.

However,  towards the end, we see how the band starts falling apart. Frank is still interested  in being loved and accepted by people unlike Clara and this is why he goes along with Jon to perform in front of all those people. And this seems to be why Frank wears the big head, because he doesn't think people can accept him because of  his appearance. He doesn't want this to  be a hindrance in how people judge him.

And it's only when Jon starts singing  his own song in front of the crowd that Frank can't take it anymore and collapses saying "the music is shit". It's after Frank runs away that Jon's catharsis begins because now  we see that he seems to genuinely care about Frank. Perhaps he did all along, in his  own narcissistic way. But now, he's able to make sense of Clara's actions as well: she was only trying to protect Frank. Maybe she didn't want Frank to know that they'd never be accepted by society the way they are. And Jon seems  to realize this when he apologizes to the band: "I ruined everything". It's self- pity sure, but he's now able to understand the consequences of his actions and with the way he perceived  his band members. It was only because he was thinking that these people existed only in relation to his own existence that he acted in a way that ended up causing damage all around. (You can actually see the protagonist in 'Whiplash' act in a similar way as well: he pushes away his girlfriend, acts like a douche towards other drummers in their group, and so on. But the difference is that in 'Whiplash', the protagonist seems justified in his actions because he's able to drum really fast by the end, and obviously that's all that matters!)

In the end, Frank is disillusioned and no longer bothers wearing a mask and we get to see his scarred  face. Because wearing the head has lost its significance to him. It's not that society now accepts him: they or rather we don't. But it is that he has realized that his fellow band members who are every bit as weird as  him will always accept him regardless of whether he wears a mask or not. Jon realizes why he mustn't stay in the band and why the band needs to maintain a certain sense of exclusivity. And as  he walks away, if you're still watching this film as you would 'Whiplash', you feel sorry for him. But if not, you should be able to see that this is Jon being heroic, this is Jon changing. But this causes his ego to take a hit and this is why we don't want this to happen either. We want to be told that he was right,  not that he's a better man.

'Frank' is not like 'Whiplash' in the way that it's not about Jon's journey to fame and fortune, but it's rather about his journey to understanding  that he's not some main character in a film.

And the more we realize this, the closer we are to accepting those who aren't quite like us. After all, it isn't that when Frank sings "Lonely little carpet tuft", he is doing  so without any reason. There are reasons behind the weirdness no matter how strange or unreasonable it may seem or sound, and all we need is a little bit of context to know this to be true.

It isn't brave to think you're the hero, but I think it is to accept you aren't.