What does Bell Hooks mean for 'white supremacist capitalist patriarchy'?

Bell Hooks talks about “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy” (bell hooks Pt 2 cultural criticism and transformation, 2006) in that it involves the topics of race, gender and social class. Hooks describes that in the mass media promotes the white man is the more dominate person than women with coloured skin. She continues by saying that in the mass media a person of colour would have a lower probability would have a better life than the white man in any film or TV series when the director or producer was a white male. In the title “capitalist” means that the people with the money are people that have the power to influence who is cast in the media, which is typically the white man from the European countries and United States. This has a subconscious effect on the spectators and supports negative view of people of colour in film and real life. It's not only colour of skin that Bell talks about, but also gender. When Bell talks about “supremacist” and “patriarchy” she is describing how the mass media attempts to influence women to an traditional male view on what is feminine. In the mass media attempts of getting women back into the home, to be house wife and to be desired, rather than doing hard labour and not looking after what the western man sees as “beauty”. Because the people that have the money, the power to influence and the knowledge to create what the viewer sees in the media are white men, they create images that the white men are superior to all other kinds of people. The Sherlock Holmes (Doyle, 1892) interpretations are the examples that I am going to use, specifically BBC's 2010 Sherlock (Sherlock, 2010), CBS's 2012 Elementary (Elementary, N/A) and Guy Richie's Sherlock Holmes (Ritchie, 2009). All three texts fall under Hooks argument about “supremacist capitalist patriarchy”. They all fall under Hooks argument because most of the main roles are played by white men who are influential to the story line.


The “white supremacist” is quite clear in the BBC's and Guy Richie's interpretation of Sherlock Holmes. The character in Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch), Elementary (Jonny Lee Miller) and Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downy Jr.), all are played by a white male where he calls himself a 'Consulting Detective' and goes around solving police cases and often 'helps' the police. Then there is Doctor John Watson which is played by white men in Sherlock (Martin Freeman) and Sherlock Holmes (Jude Law). In both cases Dr. Watson is an ex-military surgeon who 'supports' Sherlock in his little quests. This gets changed in Elementary where the character is played by a Chinese American female called Doctor Joan Watson (Lucy Liu), who was an ex-surgeon, then became a sober companion and then a detective consultant supporting Sherlock. Then there is Sherlock's brother Mycroft Holmes played by Mark Gatss in Sherlock, Rhys Ifans in Elementary and Stephen Fry in Sherlock Holmes, who are all white men, who works for the British government. And finally, Professor James Moriarty played by Andrew Scott in Sherlock and Jared Harris in Sherlock Holmes, who both are a white male, who is just as clever as Sherlock and creates puzzles for Sherlock, which later becomes enemies. This differs in Elementary where Moriarty who you find out is Irene Adler (Natalie Dormer), who is a white female, which goes against Hooks argument of patriarchy. It goes against the view of patriarchy because Moriarty is just as clever, if not cleverer, than Sherlock who is played by a white man. In all the texts Detective Inspector Lestrade, the head of police is played by a white man (Rupert Graves in Sherlock, Sean Pertwee in Elementary and Eddie Marsan in Sherlock Holmes). In Sherlock and Sherlock Holmes the viewers are encouraged that the white men are to be desired and someone that are the best in what they do (even if it was to do wrong). In Elementary, the white men are not always the people to be admired but can have flaws and that the people of colour can also be admired.

In Sherlock and Sherlock Holmes all the women are dominantly white and just play a supporting role. The most common female role is Mrs. Hudson (Una Stubbs in Sherlock, Candis Cayne in Elementary and Gealdine James in Sherlock Holmes), a white female, but she doesn’t have a main role. She only fills the gap between the each scene or moves the story line along. Mrs. Hudson dose not solve any problems and she dose not have any major influence over any decisions made to solve the puzzle. She is portrayed as frail, kind woman who is prone to flattery. The prone to flattery also spread this over most women.


In the BBC's Sherlock did not just has gender stereotypes but also have a racial stereotypes worked into the show. This is seen as soon as episode two in the first series where Sherlock has to solve a murders, which involves with Chinese mobsters. The stereotypes that they have are that the main female character in this episode, Soo Lin Yao (Gemma Chan), was born in Beijing who came over to Britain and moved into a flat in China Town, London. She was also given a job in a museum as a Chinese tea artefact specialist. In the episode they also lead the viewer to believe that the Chinese are good with origami, demonstrated in the episode with a Chinese mobster regally giving people an origami black lotus flower once the victim is killed. It is done again with the racial stereotyping in that the Chinese are experts in martial arts, circus skills and importing and exporting oriental artefacts. Whilst, in Guy Richie's Sherlock Holmes there are no people of colour in the movie, even though the film was set in the Victorian era, where racial migration was growing. There were still racial stereotypes the people from other countries even amongst other white men. The most common that they have is the people from France. The film assumes that the French are willing to be destructive if paid or if they are travellers. Even though the French are white, this still reinforces the racial stereotypes that Hooks argues.


In Elementary, which is funded by CBS and attempts to be less patriarchal towards there characters. This is demonstrated by Dr. Watson breaking the typical patriarchal view in that she is a strong coloured female character influencing the decisions and actions of a white male character. In the TV series they also have a African American male cop, Detective Marcus Bell (Jon Michael Hill), who Sherlock is especially fond of. Alfredo Lamosa (Ato Essandoh) who is an African American male who used to steal cars but now works to develop car security systems and becomes Sherlocks sponsor. He later is seen by Sherlock as more of a mentor than a sponsor, especially when Sherlock becomes too much for Watson to handle. And finally there is Irene Alder which is Sherlocks long lost lover who later find out that she is also known to be Moriarty, Sherlocks arch enemy. Irene Alder (Natalie Dorma), also known as Moriarty, is a white female who often attempts to outsmart Sherlock and keep him from working out who she is. Most of these characters backgrounds and traits goes against Bell Hook's argument about “white supremacy capitalist patriarchy” in the mass media but in Elementary still has Sherlock as the white male which has to solve the majority of the cases and the women are very attractive who are either the dead body, a supporting role and emotional or to fill in the gaps in the story, which is the same in the BBC's Sherlock, apart from Elementary's Irene Alder, who is a crucial to the progression of the story. Also Alfredo Lamosa used to be a car thief but now works in car security, and is a dark African American. All which can be argued, fits in with Bell's argument. This does not mean that the directors have not addressed the problems of “white […] patriarchy” but it has become such the norm that we, the viewer, expect these things to happen. Elementary does not enforce these ideas but also does not completely break away from what the viewer expects to see.


Also Sherlock Holmes (Ritchie, 2009) directed by Guy Richie, which is more of a period piece, set during the Victorian London era which makes the “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy” even more apparent than Elementary and BBC's Sherlock because of the emerging racial tensions during this time. In Sherlock Holmes, there were not was not a single coloured person in the movie, the women were either treated as maids or do not have a major part of the main story line. Sherlock is a white man who is good with deduction skills and hand to hand combat, Dr. John Watson is a white male who came from the army. Then you have Inspector Lestrade, who is a white male, works in the police department and closely with Sherlock and then theres Lord Balckwood (Mark Strong), who is a white man, who came from a rich influential family that believes in combining “magic” and science together, which Lord Blackwood then attempts to take over the world with this skill. All four characters are white men who have a main role to play in the story line and they have a huge influence on what happens to each other. The women you don't see much of, like Mrs. Hudson (Geraldine James), she is the house owner and you only see her twice in the two films. Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), who is Sherlock lover, does not seem to be that wise or clever compared to Sherlock, Dr. Watson or Lord Blackwood. She also doesn’t seem to demonstrate any dominance over anyone but is capable of suduction, especially over Sherlock. Irene doesn’t appear to have any main role in the story since she only in very few scenes and doesn't do much in the them. I know that she, along with Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly) who is John Watson's fence, in the few scenes that Ms. Morstan is in the movie, she is shown to be looked at and objectified with just the way the camera shows the tension between Dr. Watson and Morstan. The viewer could ignore all the seance where all the women appear in and the movie will still make perfect sense. Even though the movie dose not have any black characters it still has French characters who gets employed by Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris) to do his deeds to destroy a building which still suggest that that foreigners are people that cannot be trusted.


In all three cases, film and the two TV different series, made in two different countries, almost all the directors were men who where white and was funded by companies whose chairmen, CEO's and Governors are all white and almost all men (“BBC Executive,” n.d.)(“CBS Corporation,” n.d.). Even though it is funded by companies which are majority men and almost all white there, and most of the important roles are taken by white men, CBS Elementary is the TV series that least conforms to the “white supremacy”, with there female characters being just as clever as the main male character and that they use people from other races to be role models for the whit man and guide Sherlock to become a better person. Whilst Elementary differs from the norm Sherlock Holmes directed by Guy Richie and Sherlock, funded by the BBC, both have the cliche of racial or sexist views of “white supremacy...patriarchy”. Elementary changes the characters ethnicity and gender to counter balance the white gender balance in the western media. In all three mediums, Sherlock is a white male and Irene Adler is a dainty white women who is there to be looked at and sexualised. Whilst Moriarty and Dr. John or Joan Watson differs from TV series and movie, also the sort of people that Sherlock becomes attached too differs. This still dose not eliminate the backgrounds of the characters fall under the idea of the racial and gender stereotypes that the viewer has. The BBC Sherlock is the best example of the “white supremacy capitalist patriarchy” out of the three because of its racial and gender stereotypes, which is payed by a company, controlled by mostly white men. The TV series shows the perception women as sexual and to be obsessed over, the main characters are white men and the white men are viewed as clever than the average person.

Many science fiction films embody a profound ambivalence towards technology.

The Matrix 1999

Both Serenity and The Matrix give the viewer the idea that technology is frantic and disorganised but it is not completely rejected by the people. They both have a dystopian view on humanity with technology. They both see technology as something that people should keep under control and not allow become part of the people. So, to make sure that the technology doesn’t completely take over the human race, then they have a select number of people to use their own ideas and technology to take over the people or computers that are in power.

Technology has a big part within science fiction and so there is going to be both resistance and acceptance towards it. In all the films of The Matrix trilogy, The Matrix Reloaded, The Matrix Revolution and the animated series The Animatrix is resistance towards fully automated technology that is able to think for itself. The Matrix tells the audience that having technology that can think for itself will not be beneficial to the humans and might develop into something that will eventually destroy humanity or use humans for either research or an energy source.


Steven Tomkins argues that the films, besides the obvious signs of sci-fi, have are strong hints of religion. He says “Neo's (Keanu Reeves) mission, foretold by prophets, is to reveal the truth that will set humankind free. And if that's not messianic enough for you, he gives his life for others and then rises from the dead more powerful than ever. He even ends the movie ascending to heaven.” (“Forget sci-fi and guns - The Matrix is really about religion,” 2003) This hint of religion gives the film a feeling that it is favoured towards humans and an all powerful (with the acceptance that the all powerful was someone who was able to control technology) rather than technology. Tomkins also argues against the idea of it being a religious movie by saying “...there is no idea of sin, repentance, or forgiveness in The Matrix. Instead people just need to be liberated from illusion...”.

Morpheus (Laurence Fishbourn) says early in the film, “The Matrix is a computer-generated dreamworld built to keep us under control.”. This says that the computers are controlling people and keeping them in a sleep-like state. Whilst Andy Clark mentions that “The (apparent) deception practiced by the machines, we can now see, comes in two potential varieties” (Clark, 2014), which is in support the idea that the humans may be taught to accept automation in machines. Even Neo was a computer hacker before he was brought to the 'real world'. The only reason that the machines lost against the humans was because of the 'chosen one' defeated the main computer that was controlling the people.

The Matrix is based on the philosophy of Jean Baudrillard that technology has become part of peoples lives, that we have become part of that technology and we are being controlled by it. The whole world that we live in is just a simulation created by technology (Baudrillard, 1994).

Firefly 2002

The Matrix isn't the only film that has an ambivalence towards technology. The film Serenity (Whedon, 2005), based on the TV series Firefly (Firefly, 2002), is more subtle on being against the technology. They are more willing to use the technology even though their spaceship is the really old and had lots of problems. The negative side to the technology was the government experiment, where they tried to create a chemical that would make people calm and non-aggressive. This went wrong when the whole test planet became too calm and stopped doing everything, including eating and going to work. The planet just went to sleep, but there was a group that become more aggressive which where called Reavers.

It has been suggested that River Tam (Summer Lyn Glau) is a cyborg, with calms like “...turned into a machine/killer (a la The Manchurian Candidate), and apparently also deprived of her ability to filter things (and so both a "reader" of others' minds, and someone unable to block out the thoughts/emotions of others, including the dead).” (Mentor) but you find out that she was “versed in spelling and grammar from the age of 3, understood Quantum mechanics, physics, biological functions and took dancing lessons...scientists there began to experiment with her brain (cutting into it), developed her in the areas of being a seerer or mind reader, plus she was also trained for combat and programmed to fight on command.” which mean that she isn't a cyborg. She never had anything taken out or any technology put inside her. She was only trained and experimented on.

Serenity's view on technology is positive and that it is just there to assist the user rather than to create destruction and havoc. The only reason that technology went wrong was because a biological weapon designed to calm people down went wrong. This is something that is similar with The Matrix in that both went wrong with technology because someone or something with power and influence wanted to control everyone. This ended up with people resisting the thing or person with the power. The difference that Serenity has, is that the one that is in power is government and human, which means that the things that goes wrong is due to human error.

However Serenity has undertones that depicts technology (especially with biological technology) as something that is violent and to be feared. The violence and fear are an underlying messages within both the film and associated TV series but the main message in Serenity was the resistance to the law enforcers. This was because of the enforcers' idea of control and order and become of the extremes that the Alliance (the law enforcers) would take to create this idea. This included the use of chemical weapons to create calm and peace that as I mentioned earlier didn't work as intended. But for all the problems with the technology, it's creators intended it for what the perceive as correct and good.


Even though The Matrix and Serenity have a dystopian view towards technology they both do not reject the idea that technology provides assistance or guidance. The Matrix has a strong negativity towards automation of technology and a subtle hint of automation of people. But with the fight against automation they demonstrate a compliance to the use of technology to be able succeed there mission with the assistance from technology defined specifically to transport, discover and destroy the automated machines. Serenity openly uses the technology they are often getting into difficulties, have the lower hand and get into trouble, especially with law enforcers and gang members. They do not resist or fight against technology in the same way that The Matrix does.

The Matrix may initially seem to reject technology and rely on human power the viewer will find that as the trilogy progresses the more they are reliant on technology that humans are able to control. But Serenity's open approach to technology and rebel against the people in authority, shows the problems that can created if people uses technology to change or alter peoples behaviour. Serenity gives the viewer a sense that technology equals power. Meaning that the people that create and owns the most advance pieces of technology, they become the law. Both films fight against the most advanced in technology so that they are able to live there lives as humans rather than being part of technology or being afraid of it.

Superheroes are iconic cultural figures that embody values of order, fairness, justice, and retribution

Batman [DC comics 1939]

I will argue that Superheroes embody the western values of order, fairness and justice, especially during the time when the most iconic and celebrated Superheroes first appeared (such as Superman, Batman and Spiderman). This is because the Superheroes clearly demonstrate the willingness to fight someone that is causing trouble such as a criminal or villain, often without the help of police, law enforcement or military support. But it wasn’t until recently and the reboot of many of the comic books that the characters have more complex personal moral issues, personal retribution and personal justice.

Many of the well known Superheroes such as Batman started just before the war and might of been influenced by it. Batman was originally called “the Bat-Man” and it had the same types of criminal activities typical of the time, for example robbing of secret documents. Even with the original comic book you can find the typical Superhero ideologies of order and justice. You are also already seeing the stereotypical American Superhero and villain. Just like Batman's well known enemy, the Joker. He fits the stereotypical American villain of being erratic, disruptive and a causing all round panic. With Batman you normally didn't have any criminal activities involving race, ethnicity or class. You had a rich, white male, who had mastered martial arts whilst the the villain was also male and rich but often foreign.

In 1939 “the Bat-Man” comic book the hero was always more clever, quicker, stronger and better equipped than the villain. Also he would capture the villain by himself. With exception of the appearance of Robin, also known as also known as Boy Wonder and the spin off comic books afterwards. The police would even congratulate “the Bat-Man’s” efforts. This changes with Frank Miller’s version of Batman which started with The Dark Knight Returns. He still has the sense of justice and retribution but often has complex moral issues which he is often distracted by the implications that may occur from the situation he is in or yet to come. There more complex moral issues are also seen across many comic Superheroes in both DC’s and Marvel’s most popular comic book heroes.

Spider-Man [Amazing Fantasy/Marvel 1962]

Alongside the comic book Superhero values of order, fairness, justice and retribution I believe that they also have the value of individualism as described by Terrence Wandtke. He talks about how Superheroes, especially from the comic book provider Marvel, “present interior life, suggesting a more literate sense of self-consciousness”. The idea of individualism is well demonstrated from a quote in the comic Spiderman when Peter Parker (aka. Spiderman) is talking about his uncle and aunt where he says “They're the only ones who've never been kind to me! I'll see to it they're always happy, but the rest of the world can go hang for all I care.”.

They are isolated from other people and do not trust or attempt to be better than the law enforcement because they feel that they have been betrayed by them, and they feel that they are undervalued by there peer group or people within similar social circles. Similarly, the movies Spiderman and The Amazing Spiderman demonstrate clearly that he only works by himself. Superheroes are also typically unsocial people which adds to their feeling of being undervalued and betrayal.

Watchmen [DC comic 2004]

Comic book Superheroes also raise questions on what is just and fair. This is most apparent in the graphic novel Watchmen. Rorschach's idea of what is just and fair is different from Doctor Manhattan's view of what is fair and just. Rorschach's idea of fair and just is to punish the people that believes have done the worst criminal act that hasn’t been discovered by any law enforcement. He punishes them they way that he deems fit to him; this normally ends with violence. On the other hand, Doctor Manhattan is detached from humans because everything that he thinks about is scientific. He doesn’t punish people that have done wrong because he sees that life and death are just different states of molecules. He doesn’t see that the earth should be any different than planet Mars.

It brings up questions of who's says what is fair? Who's says what has been done is just? With Rorschach you will find that he view towards justice, order and fairness changes when he is faced with a highly emotional situation. He thought that at first he was too soft on criminals and the people that are involved with the criminals when he discovered what happened to the child that he was trying to find. This makes you have to question if what he did was the right thing to do? Was it just to kill the person that killed the child the way that Rorschach did?

On the other hand Doctor Manhattan saw things from a physics point of view and cared less about the values of order and retribution. He didn't care if the human race would have been wiped out but the nuclear bombs during the hight of the Cold War. To him it wouldn't have changed anything that matters in the universe if the planet Earth had no living things. This view changes at the end of the novel but he is put into a situation where he has to leave the earth to save it.

Alongside with the value of fairness, order, justice and retribution there is a strong sense that most Superheroes also have a of heteronormative value towards sexuality. I believe that the Superheroes have this value because the male Superheroes are always fighting, chasing women and enjoying a variety of technologies. This is most noticeable with Batman from the comic book Multiverse where he is often seen chasing after Catwoman, has a large archive of high tech gadgets and he gets into a lot of fights. But you do get women Superheroes having the same enjoyment with technologies and getting into fights, like Catwoman. This does follow a more modern view of women's roles and nature but they are still sexualised, very feminine and in the case of Catwoman is stereotyped as woman unable to resist the allure of jewellery.

You can also see this heteronormative value in Spiderman and Watchmen, which drives most of their values by, especially the values of order and justice, whilst the value of retribution is usually fuelled by a family loss or they viewed or were involved in a highly emotional criminal act. These are the most popular reasons that the Superhero fights crime, but it reinforces the insecurity that a lot of the Superheroes have.

With the heteronormative values, Superheroes often show a sign of enjoyment with finding and catching the criminals. They also have an obsessiveness of retribution and justice, they are constantly looking for the next big crime. Not just obsessed with finding crime but doing right for themselves and impressing their love interest, even when their love interest doesn’t know who they are.

In conclusion Superheroes do embody the values of order, justice and fairness but they also have values of isolation, obsession and heteronormativity. Like Spiderman's view towards people which is a clear representation of his isolation.

Even with the questions that are raised with the comic book heroes like those in Watchmen, between the different views of what is just and fair, the iconic Superheroes still hold the same values. During the time a lot of iconic Superheroes were created, it was believed that people (the readers) needed the values of order, justice and fairness. In Watchmen there are conflicting views on what is just and fair with all the characters. The biggest difference is between Doctor Manhattan and Rorschach.

Finally Superheroes are seen as an idolised super human attempting to create a utopia and to correct personal wrong doings. There are the Superheroes which challenge the meaning of justice and order, such as the characters from Watchmen which may be seen as the antiheroes and are focused more on retribution and the heteronormative values but they still have these values to justify what they are doing. Batman and Spiderman still raise the similar kind of questions but are less rough and dark and enforces more on the iconic view of justice, order and fairness.

Film Review of Paul

Paul is a film that has plenty of laughs even from early on in the film if you are watching the Directors cut. It has a lot of subtle hints to other science fiction films which makes it even more entertaining for sci-fi lovers.

The film is about two British Science Fiction lovers, Greame Willy (Simon Pegg) and Clive Collins (Nick Frost), who go on a road trip of UFO hotspots in America after going to comic con. They then viewed a car incident along the Nevada State Route 357, which they soon found out that the car was driven by an alien named Paul (Seth Rogen). They then make there journey to get the alien back home with many different issues along the way.

It was written and stared by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost which is has similar style of other films that they have also written and stared in such as Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and The World's End. It's similar in the sense that it is a relaxed, laid back film which the plot could be enjoyed by the whole family but often has explicit language and often have a heavy handed slapstick violence which wont be suable for children and young viewers. The unsuitability for children and young people is demonstrated with the age limit put on all the films. Such as age limit on most of the films which stared Simon Pegg and Nick Frost is 15. Both Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are well known for a lot of Comedy, Science Fiction and Action films.

It is said in a review, The Telegraph, that Paul is like “ET meets Superbad” which I agree with. It is also described as it's a bit like the film Close Encounters of the Third Kind. With these mix of films it makes this particular film is rough around the edges but it makes it more enjoyable to watch. The director and the scriptwriters wanted Paul (the alien) to be deliberately human, not perfect. But Paul had a big influence in popular culture which goes beyond the idea that aliens are on planet earth and held in a secret bace.

The film has plenty times that it is funny but through out the whole film I felt that there were to much swearing. For about 20 minutes the swearing was alright and made the jokes funny but after that it just seemed to be that the swearing was overused. This is shown in the film with Ruth Buggs (Kirsten Wiig). It was understandable that in the film that she was new to swearing and it was entertaining to start with but it stared to become repetitive. Also there was a joke that they repeated more than once where just about everyone doesn’t know who Adam Shadowchild (Jafferey Tambor) is. I felt that after the first time was enough and all the other times that the joke was being used was too much. The joke was no longer funny.

A number of critics are disappointed by the film, either after comparing it with other Simon Pegg and Nick Frost films or other similar family Alien films (e.g. ET, Mac and Me) and the amount of non-family-friendly language it uses. I agree with the critics in a way that if you compare it to other films that was written and stared Nick and Simon also comparing it with other similar films to Paul then I am slightly disappointed. There is fewer laughs than I thought that there would be and some of the Sci-fi references were too neach for the majority of people to get. I felt that you needed to either Nick Frost or Simon Pegg to be able to get the joke.

Another critic commented on Seth Rogen's character. They were criticizing the fact that Seth has such a good screen presents that if they was going to use him in the film, then have him in the film not as a voice for a character. This is debatable because the film needed someone to be the voice for Paul and the person need to be able to be rude but likeable. They needed to be able to fit into this characteristics because this is what Paul is presented. I believed that Seth was the right person for this because he is the sort of person that is able to swear in such a way that he is still likeable afterwards. He is able to transfer what he is expressing in his body into his voice.

If I don't compare the film to any other film made by, or stared Nick and Simon, then it is a film that is very funny with plenty of Star Wars and Star Trek references. (Sometimes you have to know the films well and have to be concertinaing to find the references, which sometimes spoils the joke.) They also have jokes about the unanimity of Sci-fi writers, Creationists and Aliens (mostly about probing). I did feel that the film was against Christians and making them look like complete loonies and unreasonable people which made me feel a little uncomfortable. It's not until I watch it few times when I realised that they making fun of a very neach sort of person.

The film is a good film if you haven't seen any other Simon Pegg and Nick Frost films or if you want to see a light hearted film about a rude Alien trying to get home. It's not a film for people that are sensitive to bad language or have strong views on divine creation. You will need to have good working knowledge in Science Fiction movies to get a lot of the little jokes but the film still has many jokes that the non sci-fi fan will find funny. There are jokes that are repeated and may not be funny by the end of the film but has a quality to the film of 'realness' to the film. It really makes you feel that, 'that might actually happen to me' to the film. There are also plenty of stereotypes references in the film which a lot of them are blatantly obvious but you can tell that they are light hearted and funny.

Tiny fox approaches two men for help

The young red fox had got itself in a bit of a jam. There was only one thing for it - the notoriously shy creature was going to have to ask humans for help. It clearly couldn't resist having a look at a discarded glass jar and ended up with its head stuck inside.

In this short but sweet footage, the fox is spotted by two men on a Russian dirt road.
Instead of running away, like a wild fox normally would, the trapped fox scurried up to the men. One of the men reached down to grab the jar, which made the creature wriggle to try to escape. But the fox quickly realised that tactic wouldn't work and stood still for its rescuer.

The man, who appeared to be wearing camouflage army gear, grabbed the fox by the scruff of its neck and pulled the jar away with his other hand. In a flash, the fox made the most of its freedom and ran away.

The man joked in Russian: 'Where is the thank you?'
He then said: 'Thank you' in a higher-pitched voice, pretending to be their bushy-tailed friend.
The other man pointed out: 'He would have died that way.'