No, not just a song, but a legitimate question. Where have all the cowboys gone? Not my fellow cattlemen of course, but the good guy heroes of our culture? Where is Gary Cooper, wearing a white hat, defending the innocent and taking down the town bully? Where is John Wayne and the US Cavalry riding to the rescue of embattled settlers? For a more Old World example, where is the lone knight defending the honor of his beloved lady? Where is the God fearing hero with the strong arm and loyal heart ready to charge into the barbarian hordes for his king and country? We are told over and over again that the modern masses are too sophisticated for such figures, who (we are reassured) never really existed anyway. However, it seems to me, particularly in that dominant media of modern pop culture -cinema- the public still loves its traditional, good guy heroes.
For example, “Braveheart” was a hugely successful film and I will submit that, to a large extent, this was because it was an historical epic with really bad history. William Wallace was a good guy, about as close to a traditional hero as modern film seems capable of producing, struggling against King Edward I who was portrayed, in a simplistic and historically inaccurate way, as the blackest of Hollywood villains. And it worked, it was stirring, it was moving and people loved it. Contrast this with other historical films like “Kingdom of Heaven” or “The Alamo” (the latest version) in which traditional heroes are cut down and everyone on every side, be they ‘good guys’ or ‘bad guys’ are portrayed as having positive and negative aspects and so on. Unlike “Braveheart” both of these movies were major box office bombs. Surprisingly, people want heroes and villains in movies and they do not like to see traditional heroes denigrated no matter the justification.
Would a movie about George Washington that was exactly accurate really be a big success? Do Americans want to see their revered founder marrying money, driving slaves, cussing out his own soldiers after their constant defeats, blaming his men for lack of success or whining endlessly about how unappreciated he is? Of course not! The fact that it is all perfectly true makes no difference, that is not what people want to hear even if they know it to be true. Now, if a movie did this, it still could work (at least in some countries) if this was contrasted to a heroic portrayal of King George III, but we all know that is not going to happen. A movie might be made that tore down George Washington but it would invariably tear down King George as well. It would not be inspiring, it would not motivate anyone to see it and would basically leave those who did feeling rather down. Another example covered here was the St Joan of Arc film “The Messenger” which certainly did not make the English look good but made the French look just as bad and portrayed Joan as a lunatic. Audiences want someone to root for and more often than not these days they are not getting it.
I tend to be of the opinion, whether with movies or some other such media, that history should be taught with a point behind it. Naturally, I do not mean to change or revise the facts of what have happened, but in the telling of any story we always emphasize some things over others. However, there should be a moral to a story and some benefit to the telling of it. Once upon a time history was viewed as learning from the past so as to avoid mistakes in the future. A noble enough goal. However, if we are to follow the current trend of ‘everyone was bad and no one was better than anyone else’ I have to ask what lesson can we possibly learn from that? Call it what you like, moral relativism seeping into pop culture or simply bad filmmaking but it makes for some pretty mad “entertainment” and a very … Mad Monarchist.
For example, “Braveheart” was a hugely successful film and I will submit that, to a large extent, this was because it was an historical epic with really bad history. William Wallace was a good guy, about as close to a traditional hero as modern film seems capable of producing, struggling against King Edward I who was portrayed, in a simplistic and historically inaccurate way, as the blackest of Hollywood villains. And it worked, it was stirring, it was moving and people loved it. Contrast this with other historical films like “Kingdom of Heaven” or “The Alamo” (the latest version) in which traditional heroes are cut down and everyone on every side, be they ‘good guys’ or ‘bad guys’ are portrayed as having positive and negative aspects and so on. Unlike “Braveheart” both of these movies were major box office bombs. Surprisingly, people want heroes and villains in movies and they do not like to see traditional heroes denigrated no matter the justification.
Would a movie about George Washington that was exactly accurate really be a big success? Do Americans want to see their revered founder marrying money, driving slaves, cussing out his own soldiers after their constant defeats, blaming his men for lack of success or whining endlessly about how unappreciated he is? Of course not! The fact that it is all perfectly true makes no difference, that is not what people want to hear even if they know it to be true. Now, if a movie did this, it still could work (at least in some countries) if this was contrasted to a heroic portrayal of King George III, but we all know that is not going to happen. A movie might be made that tore down George Washington but it would invariably tear down King George as well. It would not be inspiring, it would not motivate anyone to see it and would basically leave those who did feeling rather down. Another example covered here was the St Joan of Arc film “The Messenger” which certainly did not make the English look good but made the French look just as bad and portrayed Joan as a lunatic. Audiences want someone to root for and more often than not these days they are not getting it.
I tend to be of the opinion, whether with movies or some other such media, that history should be taught with a point behind it. Naturally, I do not mean to change or revise the facts of what have happened, but in the telling of any story we always emphasize some things over others. However, there should be a moral to a story and some benefit to the telling of it. Once upon a time history was viewed as learning from the past so as to avoid mistakes in the future. A noble enough goal. However, if we are to follow the current trend of ‘everyone was bad and no one was better than anyone else’ I have to ask what lesson can we possibly learn from that? Call it what you like, moral relativism seeping into pop culture or simply bad filmmaking but it makes for some pretty mad “entertainment” and a very … Mad Monarchist.
What did you think of the 300 movie? ;P
ReplyDeleteI thought it was okay. It looked really good but I've always said the technical side is not where cinema is lacking these days. Other than that, what to say? It was a movie about a comic book. I really did not understand why some people got so worked up about it. It wasn't even trying to be the least bit historical or even look realistic. It was a live-action cartoon. That was what they were going for and they hit the mark. Don't know why all the fuss.
ReplyDeleteAnd the fact is that I quite agree with you, but a postmodern world like ours sometimes need to be told what is good evil saying, or conversely, that power to see that "human being" amounts to be half evil / half angel in traveling survival, we are bound to learn and act in a morally correct, when the former is clearly lacking respect for what is moral, traditional and correct positively to society.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about the Capra film "Meet John Doe"?
First of all Mad Monarchist, I might recommend Le Chevalier D'Eon (I'm featuring the closing song as this week's Track). It's historical fiction, containing many movers and shakers from the 1750-1780 period, and plenty of historical in-jokes. You'd enjoy it, especially for the character of D'Eon (and his sister Lia... I won't spoil the end of the first episode though).
ReplyDeleteSecond, I was down in Melbourne a while ago for the 68th World Science Fiction Convention, and a panel there was discussing villains primarily, and I asked "What about when someone becomes unstable and loses perspective?" and the answer from one panelist was "That's a copout". Basically, the idea is that both sides believed that they were doing good.
However, it's that issue of perspective I believe to be key. Consider that Hitler viewed the Jews as scum, and Aryans as the ideal people. He lost perspective that all humans are brothers and sisters. But, in exactly the same way, pacifists and anti-war protesters take the declarations "Thou shalt not kill" and "Love your enemy" as absolute. I have it on authority that the command not to kill refers only to the innocent, so it's "Thou shalt not kill the innocent". And the statement that you should "Love your enemy" doesn't mean that they're going to stop being your enemy and that you won't have to fight them. Like I said, perspective.
As a final note, I've gone into some detail into this (though more in regards to cultural institutions than fiction, one example does relate to comics) in my post Deconstruction and Reconstruction. It's the same thing you're complaining of. Too many deconstructions (they're called award bait for a reason, you know), and not enough reconstructions.
You know, I am frequently criticised, especially by Atheists, for saying that everyone is Religious, that no one is Irreligious, all of us have some sort of Religion. But, the reason I say this is because I don’t define Religion as belief in God or reverence for Supernatural Powers, and neither does anyone else I know. Not when they use it generally anyway. When Atheists complain about Religion or in the UK want Faith Schools closed, they talk about how they create problems, as they exist to indoctrinate and to proselytise. One need not believe in God for that, and Atheist do the same thing with the Bus Ad Campaign and recent books that attack belief in God, don’t they?
ReplyDeleteReligion is simply a set of beliefs that create an Intellectual framework by which we then understand the world we live in. It is the basic beliefs we have regarding our very existence. Religion is simply our beliefs about the nature of our existence.
You may ask, that’s all well and good but, what does this have to do with the topic? Its simple: Our Religion is the only thing we really write about. All of the things we write in Fiction generally exist to express some Idea we have had, and even if the material was written purely to entertain, it will still contain some aspect of our thought process in it. Religion is about creating a Narrative, a sort of story that overlaps onto everything else explaining to us how things are suppose to be. Religion serves the purpose of supplying such a basic narrative, which enables us to make sense of our world by making the events of our world fit into a pattern that is intelligible.
A Large part of Religion also happens to be Storytelling. The Bible and its Prophets and Kings, for example, or the Vedas of the Hindus, the gods and Mortal heroes, and Greek Mythology, similarly with gods and Heroes. Those stories exist more than just to tell us of past events, but to instil in us the same Character the Heroes had, and to show why their Ideals were important. In a way, the stories transcend the events they tell of, and speak to a Universal Truth about Humanity, as understood by the Storyteller. Good, solid stories then tell of great Archetypes, both in terms of the Characters, and events.
The Stories we tell; are both of past events (If True for example) but of ideals and Principles. They are about Objects of our deepest beliefs. This is why men, such as George Washington in your example, is always presented as a Dauntless Hero, a Man of Valour and Honour, standing up to Tyranny and Oppression, rising up to free his people and found a Nation, all on the basis of the American Ideals the Revolution was (Presumably) Fought for. He is never shown displaying doubt, becoming angry and fatigued, or cursing his own men and blaming them with his Failure. He can’t be, for he no longer is George Washington, the real man living in the 18th Century, he is George Washington, the god, whose existence is the personification f an American Idealism and Triumphantly that Represents who and what America is.
ReplyDeleteAnd, in today’s world, which has largely Embraced Democracy and the Ideals presented by the Enlightenment and earlier thinkers like Locke, he now represents a sort of Highest Human Ideal. The Ideal of Democracy, of Freedom, of Hope against oppression and Tyranny.
He is now a part of that, a Man who would be extraordinary only, for he is the Ideals he represents. It is much like Platonic Philosophy, in which the objects in this world represent ideas and a perfect reality in the next. Washington is a reflection for a Higher Reality. For that matter, the American and French revolutions are Idealic and Idealised events, which set up today’s modern world and the recurrent Theme of Liberty being won after a Revolution, and how all Monarchs are Tyrannical Despots. To that end, your right, there won’t be a film made which shows King George the Third as a Good, Saintly man and Hero, fighting a lost cause against the vile and corrupt George Washington. Perhaps in a few centuries, but not right now. This is because it contradicts the Narrative, the Story we tell ourselves about how the world is supposed to work. The world is suppose to work in a way that Democracy is better than Monarchy, all Monarchy is Tyranny, and Democracy brings Freedom. All Revolutions against Monarchs then are justified because it’s just the people yearning to be Free.
As Monarchists, I’m sure we’ve run into this sort of problem, and no matter how much we try to explain our views people reject what we say. That’s because what we say can’t be True. We aren’t simply discussing Historical Events, we are trashing an Ideal, a Fundamental belief in how the world works, that they just can’t challenge. Sure they can mock and ridicule Politicians, sure they know they aren’t a great lot, but bring up the obvious alternative, the Politicians then become Saintly and all Kings Tyrants. Its because we aren’t really discussing simply the facts, nor even a Political or social Ideal, but someone’s Fundamental understanding of existence, and one they will not question lightly. It is a Religious belief as much as anything else. Of course our Monarchism can be as such to us, but that’s the point.
ReplyDeleteOur Movies reflect the Ideals the Writer wishes to express, and these days, Movie makers are not shy about telling you openly what they believe, and will write from this perspective. Many Movie Makers are simply the product of the Modern Academic setting and Liberal Hollywood or artistic Culture, that is Hostile to Christianity, yet very accommodating to Islam simply because it is politically correct to be so, and because they have bought the idea that the West is always wrong and other Cultures always misunderstood and somehow Innocent. Its their Narrative that tells them that Minorities are abused, and Westerners, especially America, are always at Fault somehow for not being tolerant enough or being too arrogant or Imperialistic. We bully them and they react in the only way they know how. So, this recurrent theme, a part of how they see Reality and our world, seeps into the Movies they make. America is a great Global Villain of a Superpower, and the Islamic Characters Victims of Harassment. The same is true for economic classes. As most of Hollywood has bought into Marxism to some extent, they see Corporations and Capitalists in general as evil, wealthy tycoons who have become the new Kings and Lords of our era, by whom the Common Man is crushed under Heel. The Common Man is oppressed and exploited by wealthy Elites who simply want more power and control, and are thus Victims. Never mind that the Hollywood crowd is itself composed o the Fabulously wealthy and well connected, they never think of themselves in the Capitalist Class.
To them, its wrong to be an evil Capitalist, but being a Hollywood elite is OK. After all, they aren’t exploitive; they are trying to change the world through Art.
ReplyDeleteBut you didn’t discuss that; you discussed the lack of Real heroes. Well, that too is a part of the same general pattern. If They have been educated in Nihilistic, existentialist thinking, and if they continue to Harbour those sorts of thoughts, you will get Existentialist films in which things just happen and the Characters will largely be generic because no one is really better than anyone else.
In “Kingdom Of Heaven” Riddley Scott wanted to depict the middle Ages as his Agnostic Mind saw it after absorbing the generally Anti-Religious, specifically Anti-Christian sentiments that pervade our Culture, and after being taught of the Crusades by such Sources as Runciman. He saw the Crusaders as invaders, and a having no Legitimate reason to be in the Holy Land. Muslims are of course Victims, and overall decent, caring people, as opposed to the Degenerate Christians who came only for power and money, and who are Cruel and Corrupt Hypocrites. The “Hero” is an Agnostic, like Scott himself, who espouses modern Atheistic platitudes and represents Scott’s Ideals. As Scott see’s a world in which there are no Heroes, no one in the film is allowed o be fully Heroic either. As he see’s Muslims as Victimised Easterners, they are depicted this way and made Sympathetic. As Christianity is a Hypocrisy laden Religion, most especially Catholicism, that’s how the Knights Temple are depicted as being.
His Film is about how no one was really good, both sides fought over Religion, and Religion is divisive and horrible, though the Christians started it and are worse than anyone else. Being an Agnostic like Bailan was good, though even he was Human. No this is not an inspiring film, no the Audience didn’t really root for Bailan the Agnostic. How could they? He was a whiney brat who complained about everything. But Scott saw this as masterful, because of that. It fit his expectations based on his education and the Narrative he had embraced.
In the minds of a Modern Materialist, a Secular humanist, there are no Heroes. People are driven by selfish desires and self-interest. They are only motivated by a need for food, sex, and security. They want attention. They re all flawed, and no one is really better than anyone else. Multiculturalism even teaches that no one is truly form an inferior culture and all Cultures are the same, all people are the same.
ReplyDeleteOur world venerates Equality and that we should see all people as he same, and they do.
But of course that’s not inspiring. That’s not Reality, and worse, that’s not how people CAN see things.
If I hold a position then I can be mature enough to understand someone disagrees with me, but I cant think they are right. If I did, why am I holding a position I don’t believe to be True?
It’s Human Nature to take sides and want a clear-cut good guy and bad guy. That’s why George Washington is not reflected on in how he truly was, but always presented in Heroic Light. We want to Justify Americas Revolution, after all. Tats why most successful movies have clear good guys that they don’t depict as just as bad as their rivals. We want to feel good about ourselves and we identify with the Heroes of our stories. If we’re following a Character that’s explicitly sated to be as bad as the other side, we don’t get to feel good about beating them. However, the Hollywood educated crowd can’t get that. They don’t feel good about themselves, and don’t want to because they think that’s for the uninitiated, the less enlightened. They want to be “Realists”. They forget that most people don’t want that, and don’t go to movies for reality. They project onto everyone else their own beliefs about who everyone is, and so want to make “Meaningful” movies that either speak to that presumed Universally accepted Standard, or at least gets the ideas into peoples minds so they too can realise the Truth and have a Changed World. That’s just how it is.
The Messenger is the same thing. Christianity in and of itself is horrible, and so is Imperialism. The movie was made by Atheists and Socialists, who viewed the English as Invaders oppressing a weaker France, but France at the time was plagued by Deep Rooted Catholic Devotion, which of course means they have forsaken reason, logic, and common sense. The Author couldn’t understand someone motivated out of Love for a King, because no one can Love Kings. They weren’t elected by the people and are just tyrants. He cat understand someone driven by National Patriotism, for he is an Internationalist. He cant understand someone driven by the Love of God, for God is simply a delusion, a Fantasy we create because we fear death or need something to cling to in life. Deep down we all know these things, and if we act on them, out of Loyalty to a King, or Love of our Nation, or Devotion to God, it must be a mask that covers our real motives, a sot of excuse to justify our actions. We must have some sort of personal reason for our actions, for no one Tries this hard for those wretched nonsense things that just don’t make any sense, it must be for something real.
ReplyDeleteThey project their own beliefs onto Joan of Arc, in an attempt to defame her. Her existence in our History Books stands in a Stark Contrast to how they view the world, how they think Humanity is. The result is, they have to explain her, and instead of expanding how they see the world to include those who disagree, they make everyone agree with them, but some are corrupt in that they refuse to admit the Truth. Joan refused to admit the Truth, she was driven by hatred and a desire or Revenge after what the English did to her sister, and Religion simply enabled her to justify herself.
That way, Joan of Arc fits into the way they see the world.
It’s all about the Narrative behind the Narrative, the overarching story that the Script is based on, that the Film is Drawn from. The events and Characters you see in Screen are simply representatives of a deeper Philosophical point or ideal, and reflect that Ideal to us in the form of a Story told to us.
In the minds of a Modern Materialist, a Secular humanist, there are no Heroes. People are driven by selfish desires and self-interest. They are only motivated by a need for food, sex, and security. They want attention. They re all flawed, and no one is really better than anyone else. Multiculturalism even teaches that no one is truly form an inferior culture and all Cultures are the same, all people are the same.
ReplyDeleteOur world venerates Equality and that we should see all people as he same, and they do.
But of course that’s not inspiring. That’s not Reality, and worse, that’s not how people CAN see things.
If I hold a position then I can be mature enough to understand someone disagrees with me, but I cant think they are right. If I did, why am I holding a position I don’t believe to be True?
It’s Human Nature to take sides and want a clear-cut good guy and bad guy. That’s why George Washington is not reflected on in how he truly was, but always presented in Heroic Light. We want to Justify Americas Revolution, after all. Tats why most successful movies have clear good guys that they don’t depict as just as bad as their rivals. We want to feel good about ourselves and we identify with the Heroes of our stories. If we’re following a Character that’s explicitly sated to be as bad as the other side, we don’t get to feel good about beating them. However, the Hollywood educated crowd can’t get that. They don’t feel good about themselves, and don’t want to because they think that’s for the uninitiated, the less enlightened. They want to be “Realists”. They forget that most people don’t want that, and don’t go to movies for reality. They project onto everyone else their own beliefs about who everyone is, and so want to make “Meaningful” movies that either speak to that presumed Universally accepted Standard, or at least gets the ideas into peoples minds so they too can realise the Truth and have a Changed World. That’s just how it is.