Meeting David Simon.
Last Sunday I attended a book signing and a Q and A by David Simon, Journalist, writer, filmmaker, AKA the creator of the Wire and Generation Kill.
The event was held at Ulster hall Belfast, sponsored by the Guardian. It was part of the 2009 Hay festival. I thought my friend was pulling my leg when he sent me a text saying that David Simon was coming to Belfast. Though, sure enough, when I checked online, it did indeed say he was going to be in the City of yours truly, a great opportunity to meet the man himself.
The Wire is, the best Television show I have seen, belonging to the same elite rank of shows that came out of HBO in its hayday. Simon is no one trick pony, though, his book-Homicide a year on the killing streets, is a masterpiece of crime reporting, subsequently made into the long running TV show of the same name. Working as a Baltimore city crime reporter, especially spending a year observing the homicide unit, give Simon the necessary experience and material that would form his future career. Fans of the Wire will instantly recognise many characters, jokes and situations, from the book that made it into the HBO show.
It was not just experience and material from working in the homicide unit that helped Simon, it was where he forged the partnership with ED Burns (former police detective and teacher) the Co -creator of both The Wire, The Corner, and Generation Kill. Simon was clear on this point, Ed Burns along with three or four of the top key writers were crucial to the brilliance of the show. In this sense, the Wire is a fascinating case study in so called authorship, or auteurship. What is especially brilliant about the Wire (the same could be said for “his” other shows) is that it really is a team effort. Not only that, the majority of the writers, and this is especially true of the two main creators, have worked, lived and breathed in the environments they portrayed. This is a stark difference to what is the norm of the film/TV industry. This difference is especially apt when compared to David Chase--the creator of the Sopranos.
I was not able to ask how important this aspect was to the success of the Wire and The Corner, but I think that it cannot be overstated. In many ways this makes the Wire one of a kind: a brilliant multi layered narrative, that contains a tremendous amount of anger and social criticism. I do not expect a show like the Wire to come along again anytime soon.
My friends and I arrived towards the end of the book signing, I was not expecting much of a crowd, to my surprise though, the cue for signing was end to end (I just about got my original copy of Homicide signed) Even more surprising, was when I looked around at a packed Ulster hall to see a more or less full house of several hundred people.
My Homicide book now reads “To Michael, its all in the game, David Simon”. I got a laugh from both Simon and his PA, “that’s good, original”. I made some small talk with Simon, telling him how much me and my friends appreciated his show. I mentioned that his book was probably my favourite book in the field of journalism, comparing it to Michael Herr’s Dispatches ( Herr’s account of being embedded among the US armed forces during the Vietnam War.) he agreed saying he had a lot of time for that book. And that was that.
During the Q and A, Simon came across self deprecating, funny and articulate. He knows what he’s talking about without an air of intellectualism or elitism, the kinda guy who pollsters like to say “you could have a drink with”. We were sitting near the back of the hall and, at times, his soft, rolling, Baltimorean accent was hard to pick up at.
A taste of some of his opinions.
He thinks Obama has a good handle on what he is doing, though he doubts that any real progress will be made, ie drug reform, inner city schools etc.
It was revealed that in Season 3, where they were shooting a scene in a gay bar, a previously considered heterosexual character was to be shown - the writers quickly settled on Rawls-the “anal” stats obsessed Deputy Director. This got huge laughs from the audience, especially, as Simon noted, Rawls had been spouting homoerotic references and sexually suggestive remarks throughout the seasons. The funniest was his reply to Daniels in season two, Daniels - “I need McNulty” Rawls - “I need an extra 3 inches of meat-aint going happen”.
He responded to the question of why he killed of the likes of Stringer, Omar and Prop Joe by referencing the Greeks, Greek tragedy and Antigone. “ these characters aren’t going to change, they aren’t going to go into therapy or get a real job”.
He revealed how surprising it was for him to see how successful the show became. He quipped that he did not expect the show to be understood in Philadelphia never mind London, Belfast, Amsterdam etc. He was also, once again, full of praise for HBO. He confirmed an idea I had while reacting to the end of Season 3. Season 3 was meant to be the end of the show. By this time, everyone knew that the Wire was not going to become a commercial success. Simon went to HBO, told them his ideas for season four and five, and, they agreed. He quoted a huge number, maybe four million that HBO could have used creating two new shows, which could have been money makers, but they decided to stick with the Wire. This display of gratitude on the part of Simon was sincere, he has been know to harbour grudges and has been publicly vocal in his criticism of people (the editors of the Baltimore Sun for example), so it was a suprise to hear him giving his due.
Simon explained that when he and Ed Burns were working on the Corner, they wanted to detail all the socio-political factors that created the malaise and arguments they had realized living and working in Baltimore, they could not show this in the personal and microscopic Corner. The Wire then, was conceived as a panoramic response to this.
I asked Simon an out and out political question. I wanted to get him on record over his views of drug criminalization. “ I have a simple question, do you support drug decriminalization and if so how should it be implemented, and what consequences good and bad are likely to flow from this?”.
Simon was surprisingly candid and forceful (as usual) in his response. He believes it should be legalised, his reasons are that the war has failed, it has created failed societies and has essentially became a war on the American underclass. He cites that US prisons lock up legions of non-violent criminals and carry out early release for violent criminals to make way for drug convicts. He makes an interesting point concerning the image, perception and terminology of the use of the term war “War on Drugs”. He says that when fighting a war, you create an enemy, in order to perpetuate that idea of an enemy you essentially have to stir up hatred, you have to demonise them and stereotype them. Simon asserts, that this is what has happed to the underclass of which the black underclass make up a large proportion.
In terms of consequences, he envisions that the violence and gang culture would drop off, police would go back to real policing, communities would not be torn apart. He says the risks would be that slightly more middle class children are likely to become addicts. I, myself, support drug decimalization, believing it to be the only sensible policy we can do to fix the mess that The Wire documents. However, its highly unlikely we will see any progress on this issue.
One final observation, this time on the audience. I cannot help but notice that the overwhelming amount of people who attend the event were from the upper middle class. Indeed, the Guardian: darling of liberal left middle class did much to promote The Wire in the UK. How many people from the kinds of backgrounds that the Wire portrays are aware of the show? Did any of the people in attendance intend to take a greater political interest: in political reform and social justice? There is a kind of irony here, The Wire is down and dirty, dealing with many characters and situations that mainstream society does not want to look at, yet it is predominantly watched by people, in comfortable homes and jobs, from the kinds of places that Bubbles gazes vacantly at when he is accompanying McNulty to his kids soccer game.
Best
Michael.
Essays, Thoughts and Opinions on Politics, Philosophy, Religion and Culture.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Friday, 5 June 2009
What Obama can and cannot say. Reactions to his Cairo speech.
The reactions to US President Barack Obama has left me somewhat perplexed and baffled. Perplexed as to what they (the liberal and Muslim commentators) expect of America and likewise of Islam, and baffled as to the sloppy moral equivalence, inaccuracy, and chronic myopia of the writers. That of course, is not to say that I found the speech profound, persuasive or likely to mark a new rapprochement in the West’s relationship with Islam, on the contrary if anything its likely to make the extremists more determined (As America does not have the stomach for a fight--what Bin Laden predicted) and the more moderate Muslims will remain defiantly sceptical.
I want you to pause over the sentence. “ West’s relationship with Islam”, Obama in his speech mentioned repeatedly the US relationship with Islam. This is curious terminology. Is it not suggestive, that, on one hand we have a President of a sovereign nation entering into dialogue with a single, monolithic and monotheist religion? (never mind all the factionalism and irredentist, ethno-chauvinist tribalism).
Indeed, During the cold war, no President ever talked of our relationship with Marxism or communism, or our need to reach out to the communist world. The fact that a democratically elected politician, a secularist, and a liberal would frame such a rapprochement in these terms is already begging the question of the gulf between Islam and America and of course the West. Obama’s speech is covertly giving credence to Samuel Huntingdon’s Clash of Civilizations model. That is, the Americans and Europeans identify themselves in political and national terms not religiously or in terms of race. Our values are ultimately democracy, Human rights, freedom and liberty. Muslims, do not see themselves in such terms, they define themselves religiously. For them no authority is greater than God, society is to be governed by Sharia law, and concern for fellow Muslims trumps concerns for other non Muslims. Needless to say, this, is a problem, and it will continue to be a problem for the demands the Muslim world will make on us, are not likely to be political, social or economic, but religious.
Obama’s speech was, though, politically excellent, but historically naive, factually inaccurate, and morally dubious. This is a strange feature of our discourse, especially when it comes to Islam. That is, the perfect acceptance of lying when it comes to this subject. Imagine the world reaction if Obama has of said this--
“On September 11, America was awakened to the fact that it is deeply hated and resented in the world. That this hatred and resentment is, in large measure irrational and unjustified. America woke up to the fact that there are millions of people in the world who think it is perfectly acceptable to use violence in the name of God. America was starkly awakened and reminded, that the end of history has not been reached, that secular democracy, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience, the values that our forefathers fought so hard to achieve and maintain are not shared by most of the world. But, America, was not alone in being awakened, the rest of the world was awakened, awakened to witness the failure of Islam. Its failure to adapt to modernity, its failure to undergo an enlightenment, failure to progress, to commit itself to universal education, equality for women and respect and tolerance for non-Muslims. Islam, as it is practiced today, cannot continue, it is not only in America’s best interest but the world interest that Islam undergoes a radical process of change.”
Pie in the sky? Riots in the streets? Death to America? Probably, what I wrote above, is I believe, a honest assessment of our relationship with Islam, but to utter such words would entail political suicide and most likely a violent reaction. I am sceptical that Obama’s speech will do anything of substance. However, caveats aside, he was right to do this speech. Why? Because I think no other President and no other President for the long conceivable future has a hope of repairing America’s “tarnished” image in the world. So, while the make nice policy will quickly go down the drain, if America is attacked, the Israel-Palestine conflict rolls on, or Iran gets the bomb or another riot breaks out in the lands of Islam over a cartoon, a comic or a book. In short, we await the next terror attack, the next Muslim riot, and the next example of western liberal masochism as it censors or refuses to publish some author on the subject of Islam.
Now as to the commentators.
Consider what Ahdaf Soueif an Egyptian short story writer, novelist and political and cultural commentator had to say…
“There is a difference between believing that ultimately the interests of the inhabitants of the planet are genuinely interconnected and believing that the interests of the world can be made to seem compatible with America's. Obama has said that America should have not only the power but the moral standing to lead the world. Today we waited for him to demonstrate that moral standing and assume the leadership of the world. He did not; he remained the President of the United States.”
This is rich considering that state of Egyptian democracy and Human rights records. More ironic, is that this is the birthplace of Sayid Qutub the intellectual grandfather to Al Qaeda and birthplace to AQ number two Ayman Al Zawahiri.
Here is Ali Abunimah a Palestinian working in Washington for a 1 state solution to the problem with Israel.
On Palestinian dislocation and what Obama could not say.
“Suffered in pursuit of a homeland? The pain of dislocation? They already had a homeland. They suffered from being ethnically cleansed and dispossessed of it and prevented from returning on the grounds that they are from the wrong ethno-national group. Why is that still so hard to say?”
Perhaps this, and I will be boringly unoriginal here--is simply not true.
And on the origins of Muslim terrorism.
“It was disappointing that Obama recycled his predecessor's notion that "violent extremism" exists in a vacuum, unrelated to America's (and its proxies') exponentially greater use of violence before and after September 11, 2001. He dwelled on the "enormous trauma" done to the US when almost 3,000 people were killed that day, but spoke not one word about the hundreds of thousands of orphans and widows left in Iraq – those whom Muntazer al-Zaidi's flying shoe forced Americans to remember only for a few seconds last year. He ignored the dozens of civilians who die each week in the "necessary" war in Afghanistan, or the millions of refugees fleeing the US-invoked escalation in Pakistan.”
A short counter to would be to remember what author of Terror and Liberalism Paul Berman and Islamic historian Bernard Lewis had to say on America relationship to Islam prior 9/11. That no other country has done more to help Muslims, from expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, helping, if belatedly, the Albanian Muslims and Muslims of Kosovo from the tyrant Milosevic. To all the aid we send Pakistan, the help we sent Afghanis over a clear example of imperialism--the Soviet invasion. never mind all the patience and time and money spent over the Israel-Palestine conflict, and all the navel gazing and masochism that followed the 9/11 attacks. But, Perhaps, as Sam Harris wryly notes this is just another contribution to “Muslim humiliation”.
It was not just Middle east writers who were expecting some kind of apology from Obama, Robert Fish was at it.
“There was no mention – during or after his kindly excoriation of Iran – of Israel's estimated 264 nuclear warheads. He admonished the Palestinians for their violence – for "shooting rockets at sleeping children or blowing up old women in a bus". But there was no mention of Israel's violence in Gaza, just of the "continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza". Nor was there a mention of Israel's bombing of civilians in Lebanon, of its repeated invasions of Lebanon (17,500 dead in the 1982 invasion alone). Obama told Muslims not to live in the past, but cut the Israelis out of this.”
For a man who is sending thousands more US troops into Afghanistan – a certain disaster-to-come in the eyes of Arabs and Westerners – there was something brazen about all this. When he talked about the debt that all Westerners owed to Islam – the "light of learning" in Andalusia, algebra, the magnetic compass, religious tolerance, it was like a cat being gently stroked before a visit to the vet. And the vet, of course, lectured the Muslims on the dangers of extremism.”
Consider the more measured NYT columnist David Brooks who had this to say.
“In the Obama narrative, each side has been equally victimized by history, each side has legitimate grievances and each side has duties to perform. To construct this new Middle East narrative, Obama strung together some hard truths, historical distortions, eloquent appeals and strained moral equivalencies.”
“The president’s critics complained on Thursday about Obama’s distortions: The plight of the Palestinians is not really comparable to the plight of former slaves in the American South. The Treaty of Tripoli in 1796 was not really a glorious example of Muslim-American cooperation, but was a failed effort to use bribery to stop piracy.
“But this is diplomacy, not scholarship. Obama was using this speech to show empathy and respect. He was asking people in different Muslim communities to give the U.S. a new look and a fresh hearing. He was showing people in a region besotted with tiresome hysterics how to talk to one another with understanding and dignity.”
For once I seem to be in agreement with the Republicans and the conservatives (as to the truth of the speech not the political necessity) on this issue.
The Republican Jewish Coalition offered faint praise for the balance the group said Obama struck between the interests of Israel and the Palestinians.
"We urge President Obama to return to the policy of holding the security of Israel as a key American priority and requiring significant, concrete, and verifiable moves toward peace from the Palestinian side," executive director Matthew Brooks said in a statement.
Rachel Abrams wrote on the website of the conservative magazine Weekly Standard: "His greatest portion of criticism was reserved for the only nation in that otherwise benighted region that actually does believe in human rights and practices democracy, namely Israel."
Robert Spencer, a rightwing critic of Islam, said Obama had failed to confront Muslims with the words and actions of violent extremists like al-Qaida among his "platitudes and naivete".
"He assumes that it is his responsibility, and America's, to dispel mistrust that Muslims feel for the West," Spencer wrote.
Radio talk show host and former Reagan aide Hugh Hewitt, wrote that the speech was "deeply dishonest in its omissions".
The conservatives are right as to substance, but as I have said, there is no other President who has a chance of trying to overturn America’s image as an evil country.
Best
Mike
Quoted from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-cairo-speech-republicans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/barack-obama-cairo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-middleeast
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/obama-islam-speech-analysis
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-words-that-could-heal-wounds-of-centuries-1697417.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-usborne-president-stings-israel-with-swipe-at-settlements-1697327.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05brooks.html?ref=opinion
I want you to pause over the sentence. “ West’s relationship with Islam”, Obama in his speech mentioned repeatedly the US relationship with Islam. This is curious terminology. Is it not suggestive, that, on one hand we have a President of a sovereign nation entering into dialogue with a single, monolithic and monotheist religion? (never mind all the factionalism and irredentist, ethno-chauvinist tribalism).
Indeed, During the cold war, no President ever talked of our relationship with Marxism or communism, or our need to reach out to the communist world. The fact that a democratically elected politician, a secularist, and a liberal would frame such a rapprochement in these terms is already begging the question of the gulf between Islam and America and of course the West. Obama’s speech is covertly giving credence to Samuel Huntingdon’s Clash of Civilizations model. That is, the Americans and Europeans identify themselves in political and national terms not religiously or in terms of race. Our values are ultimately democracy, Human rights, freedom and liberty. Muslims, do not see themselves in such terms, they define themselves religiously. For them no authority is greater than God, society is to be governed by Sharia law, and concern for fellow Muslims trumps concerns for other non Muslims. Needless to say, this, is a problem, and it will continue to be a problem for the demands the Muslim world will make on us, are not likely to be political, social or economic, but religious.
Obama’s speech was, though, politically excellent, but historically naive, factually inaccurate, and morally dubious. This is a strange feature of our discourse, especially when it comes to Islam. That is, the perfect acceptance of lying when it comes to this subject. Imagine the world reaction if Obama has of said this--
“On September 11, America was awakened to the fact that it is deeply hated and resented in the world. That this hatred and resentment is, in large measure irrational and unjustified. America woke up to the fact that there are millions of people in the world who think it is perfectly acceptable to use violence in the name of God. America was starkly awakened and reminded, that the end of history has not been reached, that secular democracy, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience, the values that our forefathers fought so hard to achieve and maintain are not shared by most of the world. But, America, was not alone in being awakened, the rest of the world was awakened, awakened to witness the failure of Islam. Its failure to adapt to modernity, its failure to undergo an enlightenment, failure to progress, to commit itself to universal education, equality for women and respect and tolerance for non-Muslims. Islam, as it is practiced today, cannot continue, it is not only in America’s best interest but the world interest that Islam undergoes a radical process of change.”
Pie in the sky? Riots in the streets? Death to America? Probably, what I wrote above, is I believe, a honest assessment of our relationship with Islam, but to utter such words would entail political suicide and most likely a violent reaction. I am sceptical that Obama’s speech will do anything of substance. However, caveats aside, he was right to do this speech. Why? Because I think no other President and no other President for the long conceivable future has a hope of repairing America’s “tarnished” image in the world. So, while the make nice policy will quickly go down the drain, if America is attacked, the Israel-Palestine conflict rolls on, or Iran gets the bomb or another riot breaks out in the lands of Islam over a cartoon, a comic or a book. In short, we await the next terror attack, the next Muslim riot, and the next example of western liberal masochism as it censors or refuses to publish some author on the subject of Islam.
Now as to the commentators.
Consider what Ahdaf Soueif an Egyptian short story writer, novelist and political and cultural commentator had to say…
“There is a difference between believing that ultimately the interests of the inhabitants of the planet are genuinely interconnected and believing that the interests of the world can be made to seem compatible with America's. Obama has said that America should have not only the power but the moral standing to lead the world. Today we waited for him to demonstrate that moral standing and assume the leadership of the world. He did not; he remained the President of the United States.”
This is rich considering that state of Egyptian democracy and Human rights records. More ironic, is that this is the birthplace of Sayid Qutub the intellectual grandfather to Al Qaeda and birthplace to AQ number two Ayman Al Zawahiri.
Here is Ali Abunimah a Palestinian working in Washington for a 1 state solution to the problem with Israel.
On Palestinian dislocation and what Obama could not say.
“Suffered in pursuit of a homeland? The pain of dislocation? They already had a homeland. They suffered from being ethnically cleansed and dispossessed of it and prevented from returning on the grounds that they are from the wrong ethno-national group. Why is that still so hard to say?”
Perhaps this, and I will be boringly unoriginal here--is simply not true.
And on the origins of Muslim terrorism.
“It was disappointing that Obama recycled his predecessor's notion that "violent extremism" exists in a vacuum, unrelated to America's (and its proxies') exponentially greater use of violence before and after September 11, 2001. He dwelled on the "enormous trauma" done to the US when almost 3,000 people were killed that day, but spoke not one word about the hundreds of thousands of orphans and widows left in Iraq – those whom Muntazer al-Zaidi's flying shoe forced Americans to remember only for a few seconds last year. He ignored the dozens of civilians who die each week in the "necessary" war in Afghanistan, or the millions of refugees fleeing the US-invoked escalation in Pakistan.”
A short counter to would be to remember what author of Terror and Liberalism Paul Berman and Islamic historian Bernard Lewis had to say on America relationship to Islam prior 9/11. That no other country has done more to help Muslims, from expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, helping, if belatedly, the Albanian Muslims and Muslims of Kosovo from the tyrant Milosevic. To all the aid we send Pakistan, the help we sent Afghanis over a clear example of imperialism--the Soviet invasion. never mind all the patience and time and money spent over the Israel-Palestine conflict, and all the navel gazing and masochism that followed the 9/11 attacks. But, Perhaps, as Sam Harris wryly notes this is just another contribution to “Muslim humiliation”.
It was not just Middle east writers who were expecting some kind of apology from Obama, Robert Fish was at it.
“There was no mention – during or after his kindly excoriation of Iran – of Israel's estimated 264 nuclear warheads. He admonished the Palestinians for their violence – for "shooting rockets at sleeping children or blowing up old women in a bus". But there was no mention of Israel's violence in Gaza, just of the "continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza". Nor was there a mention of Israel's bombing of civilians in Lebanon, of its repeated invasions of Lebanon (17,500 dead in the 1982 invasion alone). Obama told Muslims not to live in the past, but cut the Israelis out of this.”
For a man who is sending thousands more US troops into Afghanistan – a certain disaster-to-come in the eyes of Arabs and Westerners – there was something brazen about all this. When he talked about the debt that all Westerners owed to Islam – the "light of learning" in Andalusia, algebra, the magnetic compass, religious tolerance, it was like a cat being gently stroked before a visit to the vet. And the vet, of course, lectured the Muslims on the dangers of extremism.”
Consider the more measured NYT columnist David Brooks who had this to say.
“In the Obama narrative, each side has been equally victimized by history, each side has legitimate grievances and each side has duties to perform. To construct this new Middle East narrative, Obama strung together some hard truths, historical distortions, eloquent appeals and strained moral equivalencies.”
“The president’s critics complained on Thursday about Obama’s distortions: The plight of the Palestinians is not really comparable to the plight of former slaves in the American South. The Treaty of Tripoli in 1796 was not really a glorious example of Muslim-American cooperation, but was a failed effort to use bribery to stop piracy.
“But this is diplomacy, not scholarship. Obama was using this speech to show empathy and respect. He was asking people in different Muslim communities to give the U.S. a new look and a fresh hearing. He was showing people in a region besotted with tiresome hysterics how to talk to one another with understanding and dignity.”
For once I seem to be in agreement with the Republicans and the conservatives (as to the truth of the speech not the political necessity) on this issue.
The Republican Jewish Coalition offered faint praise for the balance the group said Obama struck between the interests of Israel and the Palestinians.
"We urge President Obama to return to the policy of holding the security of Israel as a key American priority and requiring significant, concrete, and verifiable moves toward peace from the Palestinian side," executive director Matthew Brooks said in a statement.
Rachel Abrams wrote on the website of the conservative magazine Weekly Standard: "His greatest portion of criticism was reserved for the only nation in that otherwise benighted region that actually does believe in human rights and practices democracy, namely Israel."
Robert Spencer, a rightwing critic of Islam, said Obama had failed to confront Muslims with the words and actions of violent extremists like al-Qaida among his "platitudes and naivete".
"He assumes that it is his responsibility, and America's, to dispel mistrust that Muslims feel for the West," Spencer wrote.
Radio talk show host and former Reagan aide Hugh Hewitt, wrote that the speech was "deeply dishonest in its omissions".
The conservatives are right as to substance, but as I have said, there is no other President who has a chance of trying to overturn America’s image as an evil country.
Best
Mike
Quoted from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-cairo-speech-republicans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/barack-obama-cairo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-middleeast
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/obama-islam-speech-analysis
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-words-that-could-heal-wounds-of-centuries-1697417.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-usborne-president-stings-israel-with-swipe-at-settlements-1697327.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05brooks.html?ref=opinion
The Cartesian Circle and The Clockwork Orange Paradox.
It was Rene Descartes who coined “Cognito ergo sum” -”I am thinking therefore I exist” or more popularly “I think therefore I am”.
What Descartes is trying to prove is that there is a Élan Vital, A soul, a metaphysical essence that exists as a separate entity from the body. This is known commonly as Dualism. Descartes’ reason for this was to establish firm knowledge. Without going into too much detail, he needed to prove God existed, as a guarantor of firm knowledge. So, his taking up of Dualism was part of a long argument to establish that we can have firm knowledge.
I will first discuss some context before considering whether or not this idea has been proved. The origins of the doctrine of Dualism, generally, traces back to ancient Greece. More specifically to the religion of Orphism. Orphism held that humans have souls, that Transmigrated after death, presumably into other human beings. Pythagoras, I believe, was a member or at least followed this religion. He further elaborated on the idea of a soul, as timeless, eternal and otherworldly. Plato was greatly influenced by Pythagoras , and in turn greatly influenced Christianity and the early church thinkers.
It would seem that most cultures have this idea of a soul, however, (ie there is a “real me” behind my eyes ). The other day I read an anecdote concerning an African tribal custom. When two tribes were in dialogue with one another, they would send a emissary to walk from village to village, when the emissary arrived he would take the rest of the day to rest, (he had, perhaps, only walked a few miles) the reason was to let his soul catch up (imagine what our lives would be like if we believed this!)
There is one major world religion or philosophical tradition that differs on this issue, and that is Buddhism. There is, however, a contradiction lurking within Buddhist thought. Buddhism posits no soul, or Atman. There is no thinker behind the thoughts, no seer who sees. Thoughts are impermanent and insubstantial. At first look this would mightily disagree with Descartes, Christianity and our common sense, indeed it does. However, there is a problem. If there is no soul, no distinct self, then what about Nirvana? (The idea of souls or essences transmigrating) It would appear that Buddhism has contradicted itself before it’s even tied its shoes. This does seem to be the case, but, Buddhism was influenced by Brahmanism (which believe in a soul) and, probably, picked up the Nirvana idea from them. It would seem that the Nirvana idea was grafted onto Buddha’s thought and hence Buddhist theology. As Laplace would say “it works fine without that assumption”.
Buddhism, however, is unique, fantastically so, in recognising that there is no “Ghost in the Machine”. I might be begging the argument here, but the vast majority of philosophers and scientists especially scientists working on the brain reject Dualism. Why? Well for Buddhists they argue that thoughts and feelings are generated by a process of cause and effect. The way our language, cognitive perception and emotions operate-- producing a by-product- an impression of a self. This self or ego is really a response to fear, hatred and desire. Thoughts come up and we latch onto them believing thoughts or impressions as expressing our true selves (little homunculi in the brain or the soul.). Buddhism, however, sees these thoughts as empty, they appear and then dissipate. Buddhists see this process in meditation and claim to be able to be free from the prison of thought by attaining enlightenment. So, rather than saying “I am angry, and I am angry at him” they frame it “this body is experiencing anger, and it is experiencing anger by my expectations of how this person should behave.” In short, a famous saying in Zen is “don’t believe your thoughts they are not real”.
There are a few notable exceptions. The Stoics had a similar belief to the Buddhists. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, seemed to have transcended dualism, Hume’s “bundle theory”. I believe in short, that Hume believed that we notice impressions, “thoughts, feelings, sensations” but it is superfluous to put forward that there is someone who is experiencing the sensation. Ie there is simply the impression without the added thought that it is happening to someone.
The problems with the theory of Cartesian Dualism.
The problems with the Cartesian theory are. 1. It is circler. If there is someone or something who resides in the brain that is watching, who watches it? 2. Casper the friendly ghost paradox. Ever wonder how Casper is able to both fly through walls and hold sticks of wood in his hand? Neither do I. Descartes holds that the soul is immaterial, but how does immaterial interact with the material while staying immaterial? This paradox leads me to. 3. Where is the captain of our ship? Where is the soul? Where is the part of the brain that houses the place where I think? Where does the élan vital reside? I am reminded of the joke Douglas Adams made. A modern day scientist explains to someone from the past how a TV works. He opens it, showing that there is no “little men” inside. He explains how the TV works, but in the end the man says “there is probably still a few little men in there”. This leads me to- 4. Redundancy. Most, if not all, brain scientists explain the workings of the brain, and hence our sense of selves in purely material and naturalistic terms. Bringing up Laplace, again,--we don’t need that hypothesis. Leibniz in response to Descartes, conceived of the brain like a barn with lots of different machinery and processes, taken together they produced an effect--the impression of a self. Nowhere though, could any person point and say “there is where I reside, this is the part of the brain which makes me a person”.
Most people, reading this, will probably conclude that this is a lot of sceptical nonsense. And in one way they are right. This calls for a good error theory. Ludwig Wittgenstein was asked how could so many people be wrong about the earth rotating the sun. His famous reply was well how would it look if the earth was rotating the sun?
In terms of our everyday interaction with people, we perceive people (and animals) as agents. Agents that want something, that have goals, aspirations and beliefs. They are agents with intention, they also show regular features. Ie personality “I don’t like coffee, and tennis is my favourite sport I play it every Saturday” and memory “I remember when we were all at school, I was a quiet lad and did not get into trouble.” Rocks don’t have intentions nor do they have memories, hence we don’t think they have selves and hence we can throw them about with abandon (hopefully not near windows alas).
I am a self. To clarify this, I mean I am a person who has unique personality and memories different from other people. This is a perfectly fine definition. The problem is when we start to go in search on where this SELF IS. We will not find it, its not there. So its not I think therefore I exists, its rather I exist therefore I think.
If we define personhood in terms of unique personal experience and memories. Then it follows that, if we alter and remove those features that make a person a person or a human body a unique individual then that person is no longer the same person.
Lets say we have X, and A and B constitute X necessarily and sufficiently. If we remove A and B then X is no longer X. lets say we want X to be Z, and factors D and E make up Z. So if we implant D and E into the entity that was X then it becomes Z.
Who cares? Well this is a potential problem. Lets call it the Clockwork Orange Paradox.
Imagine that Science can do this. Science can alter memories and personality. Imagine then, that child rapists and murders can be changed in this way. Their memories of the crime, and the personalities and life experiences that led them to commit the crimes have been altered. So, the person is no longer guilty of the crime and is free to carry on a new life.
I am sure you feel uneasy at this possibility (such possibilities are not that fanciful). And there is good reasons to oppose such an idea. However, logically and empirically it would be true that the person (the child killer) no longer exists, but this is counterintuitive to the very innate ideas we have of personhood (souls and invisible essences and so on.) So to clarify, we have reached a “repugnant conclusion”. A conclusion that, although justified rationally, is still offensive, disgusting, or “repugnant” to our emotions or perceptions.
Best
Michael.
What Descartes is trying to prove is that there is a Élan Vital, A soul, a metaphysical essence that exists as a separate entity from the body. This is known commonly as Dualism. Descartes’ reason for this was to establish firm knowledge. Without going into too much detail, he needed to prove God existed, as a guarantor of firm knowledge. So, his taking up of Dualism was part of a long argument to establish that we can have firm knowledge.
I will first discuss some context before considering whether or not this idea has been proved. The origins of the doctrine of Dualism, generally, traces back to ancient Greece. More specifically to the religion of Orphism. Orphism held that humans have souls, that Transmigrated after death, presumably into other human beings. Pythagoras, I believe, was a member or at least followed this religion. He further elaborated on the idea of a soul, as timeless, eternal and otherworldly. Plato was greatly influenced by Pythagoras , and in turn greatly influenced Christianity and the early church thinkers.
It would seem that most cultures have this idea of a soul, however, (ie there is a “real me” behind my eyes ). The other day I read an anecdote concerning an African tribal custom. When two tribes were in dialogue with one another, they would send a emissary to walk from village to village, when the emissary arrived he would take the rest of the day to rest, (he had, perhaps, only walked a few miles) the reason was to let his soul catch up (imagine what our lives would be like if we believed this!)
There is one major world religion or philosophical tradition that differs on this issue, and that is Buddhism. There is, however, a contradiction lurking within Buddhist thought. Buddhism posits no soul, or Atman. There is no thinker behind the thoughts, no seer who sees. Thoughts are impermanent and insubstantial. At first look this would mightily disagree with Descartes, Christianity and our common sense, indeed it does. However, there is a problem. If there is no soul, no distinct self, then what about Nirvana? (The idea of souls or essences transmigrating) It would appear that Buddhism has contradicted itself before it’s even tied its shoes. This does seem to be the case, but, Buddhism was influenced by Brahmanism (which believe in a soul) and, probably, picked up the Nirvana idea from them. It would seem that the Nirvana idea was grafted onto Buddha’s thought and hence Buddhist theology. As Laplace would say “it works fine without that assumption”.
Buddhism, however, is unique, fantastically so, in recognising that there is no “Ghost in the Machine”. I might be begging the argument here, but the vast majority of philosophers and scientists especially scientists working on the brain reject Dualism. Why? Well for Buddhists they argue that thoughts and feelings are generated by a process of cause and effect. The way our language, cognitive perception and emotions operate-- producing a by-product- an impression of a self. This self or ego is really a response to fear, hatred and desire. Thoughts come up and we latch onto them believing thoughts or impressions as expressing our true selves (little homunculi in the brain or the soul.). Buddhism, however, sees these thoughts as empty, they appear and then dissipate. Buddhists see this process in meditation and claim to be able to be free from the prison of thought by attaining enlightenment. So, rather than saying “I am angry, and I am angry at him” they frame it “this body is experiencing anger, and it is experiencing anger by my expectations of how this person should behave.” In short, a famous saying in Zen is “don’t believe your thoughts they are not real”.
There are a few notable exceptions. The Stoics had a similar belief to the Buddhists. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, seemed to have transcended dualism, Hume’s “bundle theory”. I believe in short, that Hume believed that we notice impressions, “thoughts, feelings, sensations” but it is superfluous to put forward that there is someone who is experiencing the sensation. Ie there is simply the impression without the added thought that it is happening to someone.
The problems with the theory of Cartesian Dualism.
The problems with the Cartesian theory are. 1. It is circler. If there is someone or something who resides in the brain that is watching, who watches it? 2. Casper the friendly ghost paradox. Ever wonder how Casper is able to both fly through walls and hold sticks of wood in his hand? Neither do I. Descartes holds that the soul is immaterial, but how does immaterial interact with the material while staying immaterial? This paradox leads me to. 3. Where is the captain of our ship? Where is the soul? Where is the part of the brain that houses the place where I think? Where does the élan vital reside? I am reminded of the joke Douglas Adams made. A modern day scientist explains to someone from the past how a TV works. He opens it, showing that there is no “little men” inside. He explains how the TV works, but in the end the man says “there is probably still a few little men in there”. This leads me to- 4. Redundancy. Most, if not all, brain scientists explain the workings of the brain, and hence our sense of selves in purely material and naturalistic terms. Bringing up Laplace, again,--we don’t need that hypothesis. Leibniz in response to Descartes, conceived of the brain like a barn with lots of different machinery and processes, taken together they produced an effect--the impression of a self. Nowhere though, could any person point and say “there is where I reside, this is the part of the brain which makes me a person”.
Most people, reading this, will probably conclude that this is a lot of sceptical nonsense. And in one way they are right. This calls for a good error theory. Ludwig Wittgenstein was asked how could so many people be wrong about the earth rotating the sun. His famous reply was well how would it look if the earth was rotating the sun?
In terms of our everyday interaction with people, we perceive people (and animals) as agents. Agents that want something, that have goals, aspirations and beliefs. They are agents with intention, they also show regular features. Ie personality “I don’t like coffee, and tennis is my favourite sport I play it every Saturday” and memory “I remember when we were all at school, I was a quiet lad and did not get into trouble.” Rocks don’t have intentions nor do they have memories, hence we don’t think they have selves and hence we can throw them about with abandon (hopefully not near windows alas).
I am a self. To clarify this, I mean I am a person who has unique personality and memories different from other people. This is a perfectly fine definition. The problem is when we start to go in search on where this SELF IS. We will not find it, its not there. So its not I think therefore I exists, its rather I exist therefore I think.
If we define personhood in terms of unique personal experience and memories. Then it follows that, if we alter and remove those features that make a person a person or a human body a unique individual then that person is no longer the same person.
Lets say we have X, and A and B constitute X necessarily and sufficiently. If we remove A and B then X is no longer X. lets say we want X to be Z, and factors D and E make up Z. So if we implant D and E into the entity that was X then it becomes Z.
Who cares? Well this is a potential problem. Lets call it the Clockwork Orange Paradox.
Imagine that Science can do this. Science can alter memories and personality. Imagine then, that child rapists and murders can be changed in this way. Their memories of the crime, and the personalities and life experiences that led them to commit the crimes have been altered. So, the person is no longer guilty of the crime and is free to carry on a new life.
I am sure you feel uneasy at this possibility (such possibilities are not that fanciful). And there is good reasons to oppose such an idea. However, logically and empirically it would be true that the person (the child killer) no longer exists, but this is counterintuitive to the very innate ideas we have of personhood (souls and invisible essences and so on.) So to clarify, we have reached a “repugnant conclusion”. A conclusion that, although justified rationally, is still offensive, disgusting, or “repugnant” to our emotions or perceptions.
Best
Michael.
Friday, 22 May 2009
Political Reform
Suggestions and ideas.
Institutional reform.
1. A written constitution, laying out several key themes. A. Greater and transparent separation of powers between the three branches of government. Judiciary, Executive and Legislature. B. Enshrinement of political and civil rights and liberties (in accordance with the UNDHR). C. The creation of a Secular state, the division of the private and public realm. D The winding down of the monarchy and creation of a Constitutional Republic.
2. Directly elected leader, President or PM. All people, (now citizens) given a vote in helping to decide who leads the country, no longer a cabal of politicians decide who runs the country.
3. An Elected house of Lords, with greater diversity and expertise.
4. The ability for a leader to form a cross party, cross ideological Executive.
5. A greater emphasis on evidence based polices, independent committees and policy tanks should have greater say in policy making, leaders should not be able, to a far lesser extent, pander or be bullied by special interest groups, or ignorant and divisive groups in society.
6. A complete end to political donations by private individuals and corporations. At the very least it should be limited and clearly transparent.
7. Greater freedom for parliamentarians to vote on policy.
8. More debate and scrutiny for the executive proposals in the house of Parliament.
9. During election periods there should be US style presidential debates.
Secular state.
1. A truly secular state, no religious test for office, political or social polices must be secular and empirical based.
2. State no longer supports the Church of England as the state religion.
3. The slow, and controlled end to faith schools. However religious education should continue in schools but with a greater focus on teaching world religions, histories, doctrines and differences.
4. The Secular Islam project. Prominent Intellectuals, Muslim scholars, community leaders, debating and exploring and recommending how to reconcile Islam to modernity, promote understanding and awareness of Islam, with an aim to trigger a reformation within the British Muslim community to serve as a possible example to the rest of the world.
Education
Education I believe should consist of three key things.
1. Economic success and wellbeing. Giving children a understanding in finance, and financial prudence. Training for the job world, how to undergo successful interviews, write a CV, how to communicate and team lead etc. In short more emphasis on practical tools and abilities that will help with the world of work.
2. Emotional wellbeing. A greater emphasis on sexual and relationship advice. Effective parenting. Coping with stress and mental health awareness. A more open ended and discursive exploration of the ends and values of human life.
3. Creative and critical thinking. We should turn our children into little Socrates. How to think clearly and for themselves. Grater emphasis should be placed on the attempt to develop creative or artistic impulses in children and young people. This is not for economic interests, though it could be, its more for private interest, to develop a sense of self and self-esteem.
Social Policy
1. The age of legal Alcohol drinking should be raised to 21, there should also be a higher tax on Alcohol.
2. (this now might sound comically paradoxical). There should be tentative and experimental steps to end drug criminalisation. This should initially apply say to Cannabis, MDMA, LSD but in theory could apply to much harder drugs such as Heroin and Cocaine. Any policy should be rigorously evidenced bases, reform should be piecemeal and the results should be studied intensely.
3. Prisons reform. Initially, for less serious first time offences, there should be emphasis on personal discipline, education and addressing mental health problems of offenders (many of them do). for serious and second time offenders, Prisons should be run like Military boot camps and then with the re-education elements. In short prisons should be for both punitive purposes, but, mostly for reform purposes(in cases where this is possible.)
4. The Civilisation Project. Civic centres that are the centre of public life. In short a secular, non-dogmatic, non-intolerant alternative to the role that religion functions in society. It should be committed to a wide number of activities and engagements. Local charity work, activities for young people, social networking areas for the elderly and retired. A commitment to providing information and spaces for public debate on politics, events and values. I believe it should also attempt to address peoples social, emotional and spiritual needs. (I cant go into the details here unfortunately)
5. Tax breaks and incentives for married couples, greater access for Grandparents to their grandchildren. Tax breaks and encouragements for women who have children later in life.
6. Incentives and rewards for people who do not use private health care and have not used the NHS in relations to diseases and illness relating to smoking, binge drinking and over eating. Purpose is to save money and to encourage health and wellbeing among people.
7. Greater Tax on corporations and individuals earning over 100,000 a year. A Euro/word-wide co-operation should be set up to prevent corporations from avoiding the paying of tax.
8. Greater improvement in Public transport, low-income earners should travel for free when work related.
9. More freedom for individuals to choose their working hours, greater flexibility for both mothers and fathers to look after young children.
Best
Mike
Institutional reform.
1. A written constitution, laying out several key themes. A. Greater and transparent separation of powers between the three branches of government. Judiciary, Executive and Legislature. B. Enshrinement of political and civil rights and liberties (in accordance with the UNDHR). C. The creation of a Secular state, the division of the private and public realm. D The winding down of the monarchy and creation of a Constitutional Republic.
2. Directly elected leader, President or PM. All people, (now citizens) given a vote in helping to decide who leads the country, no longer a cabal of politicians decide who runs the country.
3. An Elected house of Lords, with greater diversity and expertise.
4. The ability for a leader to form a cross party, cross ideological Executive.
5. A greater emphasis on evidence based polices, independent committees and policy tanks should have greater say in policy making, leaders should not be able, to a far lesser extent, pander or be bullied by special interest groups, or ignorant and divisive groups in society.
6. A complete end to political donations by private individuals and corporations. At the very least it should be limited and clearly transparent.
7. Greater freedom for parliamentarians to vote on policy.
8. More debate and scrutiny for the executive proposals in the house of Parliament.
9. During election periods there should be US style presidential debates.
Secular state.
1. A truly secular state, no religious test for office, political or social polices must be secular and empirical based.
2. State no longer supports the Church of England as the state religion.
3. The slow, and controlled end to faith schools. However religious education should continue in schools but with a greater focus on teaching world religions, histories, doctrines and differences.
4. The Secular Islam project. Prominent Intellectuals, Muslim scholars, community leaders, debating and exploring and recommending how to reconcile Islam to modernity, promote understanding and awareness of Islam, with an aim to trigger a reformation within the British Muslim community to serve as a possible example to the rest of the world.
Education
Education I believe should consist of three key things.
1. Economic success and wellbeing. Giving children a understanding in finance, and financial prudence. Training for the job world, how to undergo successful interviews, write a CV, how to communicate and team lead etc. In short more emphasis on practical tools and abilities that will help with the world of work.
2. Emotional wellbeing. A greater emphasis on sexual and relationship advice. Effective parenting. Coping with stress and mental health awareness. A more open ended and discursive exploration of the ends and values of human life.
3. Creative and critical thinking. We should turn our children into little Socrates. How to think clearly and for themselves. Grater emphasis should be placed on the attempt to develop creative or artistic impulses in children and young people. This is not for economic interests, though it could be, its more for private interest, to develop a sense of self and self-esteem.
Social Policy
1. The age of legal Alcohol drinking should be raised to 21, there should also be a higher tax on Alcohol.
2. (this now might sound comically paradoxical). There should be tentative and experimental steps to end drug criminalisation. This should initially apply say to Cannabis, MDMA, LSD but in theory could apply to much harder drugs such as Heroin and Cocaine. Any policy should be rigorously evidenced bases, reform should be piecemeal and the results should be studied intensely.
3. Prisons reform. Initially, for less serious first time offences, there should be emphasis on personal discipline, education and addressing mental health problems of offenders (many of them do). for serious and second time offenders, Prisons should be run like Military boot camps and then with the re-education elements. In short prisons should be for both punitive purposes, but, mostly for reform purposes(in cases where this is possible.)
4. The Civilisation Project. Civic centres that are the centre of public life. In short a secular, non-dogmatic, non-intolerant alternative to the role that religion functions in society. It should be committed to a wide number of activities and engagements. Local charity work, activities for young people, social networking areas for the elderly and retired. A commitment to providing information and spaces for public debate on politics, events and values. I believe it should also attempt to address peoples social, emotional and spiritual needs. (I cant go into the details here unfortunately)
5. Tax breaks and incentives for married couples, greater access for Grandparents to their grandchildren. Tax breaks and encouragements for women who have children later in life.
6. Incentives and rewards for people who do not use private health care and have not used the NHS in relations to diseases and illness relating to smoking, binge drinking and over eating. Purpose is to save money and to encourage health and wellbeing among people.
7. Greater Tax on corporations and individuals earning over 100,000 a year. A Euro/word-wide co-operation should be set up to prevent corporations from avoiding the paying of tax.
8. Greater improvement in Public transport, low-income earners should travel for free when work related.
9. More freedom for individuals to choose their working hours, greater flexibility for both mothers and fathers to look after young children.
Best
Mike
Monday, 20 April 2009
Remembering JG Ballard.
JG Ballard, an author I have admired for long time, has died, after a long battle with illness.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/apr/19/jg-ballard-obituary
I first discovered JG Ballard when I was 18, the first book I read was Millennium People (one of his best, I believe). I’m trying to remember what, exactly, it was that lead me to him, for sure I had seen and read Fight Club before discovering him (a book that would not have existed without Ballard) I was also listening to Radiohead at the time, (who have acknowledged an influence,-- the milieu and mood of OK Computer is very Ballardian). I would, almost certainly, have watched Crash before reading any of his work, it is probably this (the film) that sparked my curiosity.
Its somewhat ironic, though, to think that Crash made me seek him out, even though I have never read it, and that it is considered to be his chief work. Ironic and also a bit simplistic, for Ballard’s work was much more richer, more intriguing, more influential than reducing him (as a lot of the press is doing) to being a chronicler of his war time interment as a child in a Japanese camp in China or his provocative book of car-crashes, sex and death, techno-porn. Though Crash has elements that would form the basis of the majority of his work, I think something like Super-Cannes or Millennium People is to be considered the essential Ballard. What he chiefly gave the world in way of his output was literature both informed by Dali and Freud, first hand experience of human cruelty, the effect and affects of modernity and consumerism and social organisation. The outcome of his work invariably seen individuals and sub-cultures reacting to modernity in ways that were, anarchic, messianic hero worship, and the appeal of fascism. The results on the page were funny, absurd, hysterical, frightening and wholly original. As Martin Amis put it in his interview with Channel Four news on Ballards death “no other author could have wrote what he wrote”. I have to also quote the well know phrase a publisher said of Ballard “beyond all psychiatric help”.
I haven’t really read much of his stuff for over a year, indeed, since becoming interested in philosophy--the kind that can be called empirical philosophy, Ballard has somewhat fallen out of favour. I’m reading John Gray at the minute, a philosopher with what I would suppose are continental influences-- described Ballard’s book Super-Cannes as one of the key books of the 21st century. There is a deeply irrational strain that runs through these two authors work, almost at times I suspect, a admiring of violence and cruelty and tribal impulses. Perhaps, or perhaps not, what Ballard and Gray wish to articulate, is that naïve ideas of unfettered human reason and progress and comfort are delusions. That there is a deep, irrepressible urge in humans for the lusting of power, of cruelty and irrationality. Ballard’s work, maybe a testament, a notebook, a view from the inside of the mass murderer, of the crazed fabulist, of the charlatan, the fake messianic figures, psychopaths, bored advertising men drawn to violence and danger.
Ballard is sometimes seen as a prophet, his work, especially the early sixties sci-fi stuff, are seen as prescient of our recent environmental catastrophes and imminent disaster with global warming. His writings on the obsessions of celebrity and their deaths, pre-figure Princess Diana and Jade Goody. To my mind, he has changed the way I view modern architecture and cities. The films of Michael Mann express some of the ambivalence and the de-personalising effects of architecture on the individual.
Ballard though, was foresaw himself by another great writer and foreseer of the future. In another moment of serendipity, I was reading a totally unconnected, old article by Bertrand Russell from Sceptical Essays-Some Prospects Cheerful and Otherwise, he had this to save on future irrationality.
“Perhaps, in the end, safety will become wearisome, and men will become destructive from sheer boredom.”
Or in a more full blooded way.
“In such a world it is to be feared that destructive impulses would become irresistible. R. L. Stevenson’s Suicide Club might flourish in it; secret societies devoted to artistic murder might grow up. Life in the past has been kept serious by danger, and interesting by being serious. Without danger, if human nature remained unchanged, life would lose its savour and men would resort to all kinds of decadent vices in the hope of a little excitement.”
Bertrand Russell--Sceptical Essays.
That’s an extraordinary precise of Ballard. Indeed, Ballard main theme, I believe, is the dangers of too much order, comfort and security. That civil society will always be threatened by anti-rationalist, radical and murderous groups wanting dis-order and a return to the tribal law of the jungle. His last book, Kingdom Come, is a tale of banal consumerism breeding a neo-fascist revolution-cum-religious messianism. As you expect from the title, the conclusion is apocalyptic.
It think it telling that one of the titles of his books (collection of reviews and essays ) is called a User’s Guide to The Millennium. So, in signalling agreement with John Gray, I would conclude that for someone dropping into the planet from the years 1995 to September 2001--then, JG Ballard is surely one of the essential guides. In two hundred years from now, we will either by living in caves, clubbing animals again and engaging in slavery or else we will be colonising space, presided over by a world government with liberal democracy flourishing everywhere. Depending on what happens, Ballard will be viewed as an author of impulses best forgotten or a calm, disinterested, clinical Cassandra who foresaw the future.
Best
Mike.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/apr/19/jg-ballard-obituary
I first discovered JG Ballard when I was 18, the first book I read was Millennium People (one of his best, I believe). I’m trying to remember what, exactly, it was that lead me to him, for sure I had seen and read Fight Club before discovering him (a book that would not have existed without Ballard) I was also listening to Radiohead at the time, (who have acknowledged an influence,-- the milieu and mood of OK Computer is very Ballardian). I would, almost certainly, have watched Crash before reading any of his work, it is probably this (the film) that sparked my curiosity.
Its somewhat ironic, though, to think that Crash made me seek him out, even though I have never read it, and that it is considered to be his chief work. Ironic and also a bit simplistic, for Ballard’s work was much more richer, more intriguing, more influential than reducing him (as a lot of the press is doing) to being a chronicler of his war time interment as a child in a Japanese camp in China or his provocative book of car-crashes, sex and death, techno-porn. Though Crash has elements that would form the basis of the majority of his work, I think something like Super-Cannes or Millennium People is to be considered the essential Ballard. What he chiefly gave the world in way of his output was literature both informed by Dali and Freud, first hand experience of human cruelty, the effect and affects of modernity and consumerism and social organisation. The outcome of his work invariably seen individuals and sub-cultures reacting to modernity in ways that were, anarchic, messianic hero worship, and the appeal of fascism. The results on the page were funny, absurd, hysterical, frightening and wholly original. As Martin Amis put it in his interview with Channel Four news on Ballards death “no other author could have wrote what he wrote”. I have to also quote the well know phrase a publisher said of Ballard “beyond all psychiatric help”.
I haven’t really read much of his stuff for over a year, indeed, since becoming interested in philosophy--the kind that can be called empirical philosophy, Ballard has somewhat fallen out of favour. I’m reading John Gray at the minute, a philosopher with what I would suppose are continental influences-- described Ballard’s book Super-Cannes as one of the key books of the 21st century. There is a deeply irrational strain that runs through these two authors work, almost at times I suspect, a admiring of violence and cruelty and tribal impulses. Perhaps, or perhaps not, what Ballard and Gray wish to articulate, is that naïve ideas of unfettered human reason and progress and comfort are delusions. That there is a deep, irrepressible urge in humans for the lusting of power, of cruelty and irrationality. Ballard’s work, maybe a testament, a notebook, a view from the inside of the mass murderer, of the crazed fabulist, of the charlatan, the fake messianic figures, psychopaths, bored advertising men drawn to violence and danger.
Ballard is sometimes seen as a prophet, his work, especially the early sixties sci-fi stuff, are seen as prescient of our recent environmental catastrophes and imminent disaster with global warming. His writings on the obsessions of celebrity and their deaths, pre-figure Princess Diana and Jade Goody. To my mind, he has changed the way I view modern architecture and cities. The films of Michael Mann express some of the ambivalence and the de-personalising effects of architecture on the individual.
Ballard though, was foresaw himself by another great writer and foreseer of the future. In another moment of serendipity, I was reading a totally unconnected, old article by Bertrand Russell from Sceptical Essays-Some Prospects Cheerful and Otherwise, he had this to save on future irrationality.
“Perhaps, in the end, safety will become wearisome, and men will become destructive from sheer boredom.”
Or in a more full blooded way.
“In such a world it is to be feared that destructive impulses would become irresistible. R. L. Stevenson’s Suicide Club might flourish in it; secret societies devoted to artistic murder might grow up. Life in the past has been kept serious by danger, and interesting by being serious. Without danger, if human nature remained unchanged, life would lose its savour and men would resort to all kinds of decadent vices in the hope of a little excitement.”
Bertrand Russell--Sceptical Essays.
That’s an extraordinary precise of Ballard. Indeed, Ballard main theme, I believe, is the dangers of too much order, comfort and security. That civil society will always be threatened by anti-rationalist, radical and murderous groups wanting dis-order and a return to the tribal law of the jungle. His last book, Kingdom Come, is a tale of banal consumerism breeding a neo-fascist revolution-cum-religious messianism. As you expect from the title, the conclusion is apocalyptic.
It think it telling that one of the titles of his books (collection of reviews and essays ) is called a User’s Guide to The Millennium. So, in signalling agreement with John Gray, I would conclude that for someone dropping into the planet from the years 1995 to September 2001--then, JG Ballard is surely one of the essential guides. In two hundred years from now, we will either by living in caves, clubbing animals again and engaging in slavery or else we will be colonising space, presided over by a world government with liberal democracy flourishing everywhere. Depending on what happens, Ballard will be viewed as an author of impulses best forgotten or a calm, disinterested, clinical Cassandra who foresaw the future.
Best
Mike.
Friday, 17 April 2009
Comment on Ed Husain op-ed, What Binds Brits together?
Here is the Op-Ed at the Gurdian website.
Mr Husain, the man who wrote the Islamist,(which i reviwed here) has this to say on the values that bind people of the UK together.
key points from the OP-Ed
"Last week's arrest of alleged terror suspects reassured many in Britain. The suspects are all – bar one – from Pakistan. There was an unspoken sense of relief among many that at least they were not British. But why? Why do we expect not to be attacked by "our own"? Why is "home-grown terror" more terrifying? What in Britain glues us together to prevent us from turning on one another?"
"Let's cut to the chase: we have a problem with connected identity here in Britain. It's not just Muslims such as Khan who feel disconnected from Britain – the problems of atomised, self-centred existence are widespread. The "nothing-to-do-with-me-guv" mindset has caused us damage. It has made us unwilling to find common ground with our fellow citizens."
from Ed Husain, writing in the Guardian.
My View
Mr Husain, the man who wrote the Islamist,(which i reviwed here) has this to say on the values that bind people of the UK together.
key points from the OP-Ed
"Last week's arrest of alleged terror suspects reassured many in Britain. The suspects are all – bar one – from Pakistan. There was an unspoken sense of relief among many that at least they were not British. But why? Why do we expect not to be attacked by "our own"? Why is "home-grown terror" more terrifying? What in Britain glues us together to prevent us from turning on one another?"
"Let's cut to the chase: we have a problem with connected identity here in Britain. It's not just Muslims such as Khan who feel disconnected from Britain – the problems of atomised, self-centred existence are widespread. The "nothing-to-do-with-me-guv" mindset has caused us damage. It has made us unwilling to find common ground with our fellow citizens."
I believe though, you answered your own question. How can (Muslim) non-drinkers and drinkers get on? How can we reconcile the values of collective obligation with individualism. How can you reconcile the culture or reason, discourse and scepticism with the culture of obedience, faith and group-loyalty?
"We need to move beyond simplistic debates about identity and engage with the deeper issues that are at stake. Too often, commentators have suggested that a united society can be built on shared tastes in sport, food, and clothing. This is not enough: such arguments overlook that the 7/7 bombers played cricket, ate fish and chips and dressed in jeans. We need a deeper debate about the core values that can bind us together as a nation."from Ed Husain, writing in the Guardian.
My View
I dont believe you can. Two choices face us from this conclusion.
1. We continue on the same path of not seriously engaging with Muslim separatists, by apologising for them, stating that there is not a problem with them or their ideology, that the problem is really US foreign policy. British policy regards Muslims at the minute is to engage with the non-violent extremists. This is a very short-sighted policy. The problem is not terrorism, it is the values of freedom and inquiry that are under threat. The extremists might not use violence, but they use ever other tactic to coerce others into complying.
2. Both the Government, the establishment and the intellectual class can and should wage intellectual war on Muslim separatists. We need the same kind of response that was present during the cold war intellectual battles over communism. The ideology of Islam and the politics of Muslim separatists will erode in the face of unrelenting, challenging scepticism from the larger population. Secondly, we need to give larger voice to people like yourself MR Husain and someone like Ayan Hirsi Ali. We need to encourage and support Female Muslim rebellions, and quests for independence.
The goal of creating a tolerant and reasonable Muslim population in the UK is a worthwhile goal. Why? For the reason that ideas spread, that relatives back home might pick up on whats going on with their UK cousins. That many silenced, progressive Muslims, might draw inspiration from the modern Muslims in Britain. One of the sad observations from MR Husains book is that England is such a hotbed of extremism, that it outdoes even the Saudis in rhetorical fervour, that many young British Muslims grow up to be the most radical kinds of Muslim. This, of course, can be changed, but only if their is willingness to do so, at present, I do not see such will.
Best
Mike.
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
ON Coppola
The Films of Francis Ford Coppola
Over the last month or so I have had the pleasure of re-watching the films of Francis Ford Coppola. Out of at least five films deserving of entry into the pantheon, Coppola contributes an astonishing three (which is mightily impressive considering the output of that decade-the seventies) the other two being Star Wars and Taxi Driver. It is even more remarkable when one is aware that the budding director was nearly fired from the Godfather, which would have robbed us of the Conversation, Godfather part two and Apocalypse Now. It also needs to be stressed that, like Radiohead with its dazzlingly eccentric output , every movie Coppola directed (and produced and co-written) was in some ways a reaction or answer to the previous one. With the exception of the difficult but rewarding Conversation every movie is a filmic feast, filled with the best of American talent, narratives that are gripping and absorbing, that mirror the politics of its time and paradoxically are personal and intimate, that aesthetically in many ways capture both the mood of European art house and film noir of the 1950’s. (which in turn had its roots in European art.)
It would of course be a crime and a sin to omit the names that helped make the films what they are. Set designer Dean Tavoularis, composer Nino Rota and Francis’s own father Carmine, Cinematographers Gordon Willis and Vittorio Storaro, editor and sound designer Walter Murch. Writing contributions from Mario Puzo (the author of the Godfather) John Milius and Michael Herr. Acting talent that of course includes many of the best actors of the last fifty years but consider how less rich the films would be without the likes of Richard S Castellano (Clemenza) Sterling Hayden (capt McCluskey) John Cazale (Fredo and Stan,) G.D Spradlin (Senator Geary and General Corman) Lawrence Fishburn (Mr Clean) Lee Strasberg (Hyman Roth) The uniqueness and richness of the characters both in writing, acting and personality is echoed in another great American achievement--David Simon’s The Wire.
It is worth remembering some of the things that went on in the making of the Godfather. I strongly recommend by the way the Godfather boxset with its wonderful documentary materials and interviews. According to these behind the scenes and reminisces, Coppola wasn’t much wanted as director, he recalls how he was sitting in a toilet stall only to hear fellow crewmembers bad mouth him. Perhaps its apochrya but Coppola was meant to be fired the weekend over which they shot the great Sollozzo assassination scene in which Al Pacino has his first moment of glory and Michaels first moment of malignancy. What a scene to be saved by, Coppola stayed and the rest as they say in the business is history.
Michael (Al Pacino) dominates the Godfather films, or rather haunts them. Even when not present, his brooding, calculating malevolence is ever felt. Critic David Thomson suggests Michael visibly seems to retreat into the darkness. In the flashback scenes in number two, we along with Michael find it painful yet unable to prevent the existential contemplation of the past, searching for the answers to what went wrong in the present. Michael is a lonely figure, left at the end of Godfather two with a pyrrhic victory that is more like ironic tragedy without a trace of self knowing cynicism or humour to leaven the increasingly cramped and claustrophobic air of his fort (prison?) at Lake Tahoe.
Michael’s tragedy is also presented as America tragedy and the trial and sorrow of every man who has to live up to some kind of ideal whether that be a tradition or some great ancestor or indeed father. John McCain’s autobiography is called Faith of my Fathers, he will have to spend the rest of his years contemplating himself as third time nearly been, a man who surrendered himself to the Rovian mudslinging politics that he deplored (when directed against himself) in his first run for President in 2000. He may also go down in history as the man who brought the Christian fascist and fantasist? Sarah Palin into the spotlight and potential 2012 presidential victory. The tragedy is (as Aristotle pointed out long ago) that the things you hold dear, the beliefs and values and emotions that you cherish are the very things that lead you to despair, failure and solitude. Michael loved his father and his father was a loved man but he was also a criminal, a gangster and a murderer. The flashbacks scenes in Godfather 2 have the quality of a romanticized and sanitized past that every leader and conservative re-witnesses history whether political or personal. When Michael stands before the priest in Part 1 and renounces Satan while standing at the foot of an orgy of chilling violence which Coppola masterfully cross cuts and scores to Catholic liturgy- Michael is presented as the poker faced representative of a soulless hypocrisy- Catholic and Capitalist. Thirty years earlier his father would have been standing in the same position with the same attitude and contempt for the Church and the pezzanovante, only Vito carries his criminality and contempt off with a certain rustic charm, his Machiavell/capitalist machinations shrouded by words like honour and respect and dignity.
The themes of power, certainty of leaders and the consequences that follow from their actions are the bedrock of Coppola’s themes throughout his films of this period.
In the Conversation, Harry Caul, has knowledge of a potential murder, he is certain (wrongly) of the people who are the malevolent forces and the consequences of his actions here see the murder of the innocent and the destruction of his own flimsy walls of sanity. Like Michael and Kurtz, Caul is in an existentialist dilemma. Does he hold true to his core beliefs or loosen them? He has the power of life and death but he is unsure of how to act. How does one know that ones actions are right? Kurtz is “clear” in his mind but his soul is “mad”. Michael follows the logic of extirpation ruthlessly but is hollow and emotionally vacuous as a result. Caul has neither the intelligence nor the clear thinking logic of these two yet in many ways he ends up the worse, reduced to madness and insanity, the knowledge? That one is being watched and that ones very secrets or guilty action is known and there is nothing one can do about it.
There is an irony here and Coppola’s fellow film-maker and Catholic friend Scorsese would know it only two well. Caul specialises in ear dropping, listening in on peoples secrets, spying that has and will have terrible consequences. Mentioning the title Godfather with the image of puppeteering gives the game away. (never mind Kurtz’s deification--spot James Frazer’s Golden Bough as one of his set texts for a modern re-creation of a far east Yahweh with M16 Assault rifles and machetes. Caul at the end of the film undergoes a breakdown, a potent symbol. I observed to myself has this not been Caul’s condition for the entirety of his life? As a serious and guilt-prone Catholic--what else would there be to expect? All very well having an all seeing and knowing God if your filled with loving and kind thoughts-not if you’re a solipsistic misanthrope like Caul. I had a conversation once with a Zen Priest--an ex Catholic who recounted how relieving it was to have this concept of a permanent CCTV camera removed from his mind.
The Conversation was made in between GD1 and GD2. It is a much smaller film, far less grandiose and fully demonstrates a side of Coppola that many people miss--that is the introverted and pensive Francis, the man who would drive himself to near destruction on Apocalypse Now. Before that though, Coppola laid to rest any doubt as to his talent with Godfather 2. It’s a very rare thing indeed that a sequel of something actually exceeds the first. Watching the Godfather 2 again confirmed it. The unrelenting, underlying misery and folly of the 1950’s story juxtaposed with the simple, rustic and dreamily romantic flashbacks of Vito’s rise to power is deftly engineered. Pacino comes into his own in the film, even manages to outdo arguably his greatest scene of the Sollozzo execution when he smashes his rebelling and protestant and non-Italian wife’s face in over her abortion. It is the only sign of mental or emotional weakness in Michael, the only time he drops his cool, logical macho intellect. (the other snap which is related was when Tom Hagan informs him of the “miscarriage” “was it a boy?” “Mikey after 3 months…” “Cant You Give A Straight Answer Anymore! Was it a Boy?!”
GD2 does answer a charge though that was labelled at the first film. That it glamorised the gangsters. I believe there is some truth to this. But it is this truth that adds power to the Godfather 2. Unlike the last one were we could and did enjoy the vanquishing of the families enemies and cheer on the many murders--we are not allowed this in number two. Even when Vito kills we sit in stony faced silence.
Themes of the certainty of power, the consequences of violence, moral hypocrisy are fully treated in Apocalypse Now Redux but still without any conclusion. I was stunned watching this film again, I already considered it the most impressive film I have seen but seeing it again on a widescreen with surround sound (I await the day of seeing it in the cinema) was an experience, a thrill that few other films have ever delivered.
The opening! What with the Doors, the images of helicopters swooning in slow motion across bombed out trees lines, lit up with Napalm. On cue to the lyrics, Willard’s stoned out and burned out face appears. Coppola has always been a great visual storyteller but the number of things both profound and subtle and small in this sequence can only be described in the words cinematic genius. But there is so much! After that intro, consider the next crescendo--of Willard going mad and wrecking his room. Two masterpiece scenes in under ten minutes. The briefing/dinner scene, shot mostly from Willard’s Point of View is another ace. Coppola is a rare thing, especially today, a moviemaker who has an impressive ability for large beautiful bombastic films that are also rich in detail, nuance, thematic obsession and concern for actors. Though he made a few more masterpieces since--his decline is one of the saddest things in American movies.
Is Apocalypse Now an anti war film? Its worth asking, for it can be assumed that it is without justification. I would say no, or rather I would say its an anti-establishment film or again to put it more pointedly--one mans personal journey, polemic and self-destruction (Kurtz and Coppola’s) against hierarchy and bureaucracy. Sam Peckinpah would have appreciated the film immensely. Coppola in retrospect has been cast as a member of a group of young turks who would shake up and eventually re-establish the film business and studios in the 1970’s. Their names are well known but it would seem that Coppola really did despise much of the studio system that was still potent despite the relaxing of the Hays code that constricted the industry since the thirties. Coppola wanted to go it alone, “he got off the boat he split from the whole fucking program”. He created Zoetrope studios to do personal films outside the mainstream. For a while it was working. The dream ended a little later in the 1980’s with the failure of the Cotton Club. In some ways I picture Kurtz as Coppola and Willard as the ambivalent and ambiguous George Lucas who’s career Coppola gave lift to, which in an almost oedipal move killed his dream off. Star Wars along with Jaws killed the possibility of a mature and thoughtful and entertaining American cinema. Perhaps that is too harsh, that the banality of much of what we see today would have won out anyway. Perhaps though like in Vietnam, a small victory could have been achieved, or, rather the forestalment of defeat and despair could have been kept at bay for a few more years.
When Willard kills Kurtz and emerges as the new God, when he drifts back to civilisation, the flat and Zen and stoned out face is our face. The “witness” to so much, so many explosions and settings suns, so much fuck of eloquence of soldiers shooting at the shit. Words cannot capture the almost mystical and religious aura of much of Apocalypse Now, there is much in human experience that words cannot express that are much better “understood” in music or images. Drugs help, was Coppola dropping Acid like Lance? Carmine Coppola’s score which would sound cheesy and ridiculous in any other setting accurately gets the mood of this film-fucked up-out of sync, stoned and wasted, wistful and dreamy. The movie stays with you, days later walking down the street or driving in the city at night, snatches of music come back to you, lines of dialogue, images of helicopters flying across your vision. “the Horror the Horror”.
Best
Michael Faulkner.
Over the last month or so I have had the pleasure of re-watching the films of Francis Ford Coppola. Out of at least five films deserving of entry into the pantheon, Coppola contributes an astonishing three (which is mightily impressive considering the output of that decade-the seventies) the other two being Star Wars and Taxi Driver. It is even more remarkable when one is aware that the budding director was nearly fired from the Godfather, which would have robbed us of the Conversation, Godfather part two and Apocalypse Now. It also needs to be stressed that, like Radiohead with its dazzlingly eccentric output , every movie Coppola directed (and produced and co-written) was in some ways a reaction or answer to the previous one. With the exception of the difficult but rewarding Conversation every movie is a filmic feast, filled with the best of American talent, narratives that are gripping and absorbing, that mirror the politics of its time and paradoxically are personal and intimate, that aesthetically in many ways capture both the mood of European art house and film noir of the 1950’s. (which in turn had its roots in European art.)
It would of course be a crime and a sin to omit the names that helped make the films what they are. Set designer Dean Tavoularis, composer Nino Rota and Francis’s own father Carmine, Cinematographers Gordon Willis and Vittorio Storaro, editor and sound designer Walter Murch. Writing contributions from Mario Puzo (the author of the Godfather) John Milius and Michael Herr. Acting talent that of course includes many of the best actors of the last fifty years but consider how less rich the films would be without the likes of Richard S Castellano (Clemenza) Sterling Hayden (capt McCluskey) John Cazale (Fredo and Stan,) G.D Spradlin (Senator Geary and General Corman) Lawrence Fishburn (Mr Clean) Lee Strasberg (Hyman Roth) The uniqueness and richness of the characters both in writing, acting and personality is echoed in another great American achievement--David Simon’s The Wire.
It is worth remembering some of the things that went on in the making of the Godfather. I strongly recommend by the way the Godfather boxset with its wonderful documentary materials and interviews. According to these behind the scenes and reminisces, Coppola wasn’t much wanted as director, he recalls how he was sitting in a toilet stall only to hear fellow crewmembers bad mouth him. Perhaps its apochrya but Coppola was meant to be fired the weekend over which they shot the great Sollozzo assassination scene in which Al Pacino has his first moment of glory and Michaels first moment of malignancy. What a scene to be saved by, Coppola stayed and the rest as they say in the business is history.
Michael (Al Pacino) dominates the Godfather films, or rather haunts them. Even when not present, his brooding, calculating malevolence is ever felt. Critic David Thomson suggests Michael visibly seems to retreat into the darkness. In the flashback scenes in number two, we along with Michael find it painful yet unable to prevent the existential contemplation of the past, searching for the answers to what went wrong in the present. Michael is a lonely figure, left at the end of Godfather two with a pyrrhic victory that is more like ironic tragedy without a trace of self knowing cynicism or humour to leaven the increasingly cramped and claustrophobic air of his fort (prison?) at Lake Tahoe.
Michael’s tragedy is also presented as America tragedy and the trial and sorrow of every man who has to live up to some kind of ideal whether that be a tradition or some great ancestor or indeed father. John McCain’s autobiography is called Faith of my Fathers, he will have to spend the rest of his years contemplating himself as third time nearly been, a man who surrendered himself to the Rovian mudslinging politics that he deplored (when directed against himself) in his first run for President in 2000. He may also go down in history as the man who brought the Christian fascist and fantasist? Sarah Palin into the spotlight and potential 2012 presidential victory. The tragedy is (as Aristotle pointed out long ago) that the things you hold dear, the beliefs and values and emotions that you cherish are the very things that lead you to despair, failure and solitude. Michael loved his father and his father was a loved man but he was also a criminal, a gangster and a murderer. The flashbacks scenes in Godfather 2 have the quality of a romanticized and sanitized past that every leader and conservative re-witnesses history whether political or personal. When Michael stands before the priest in Part 1 and renounces Satan while standing at the foot of an orgy of chilling violence which Coppola masterfully cross cuts and scores to Catholic liturgy- Michael is presented as the poker faced representative of a soulless hypocrisy- Catholic and Capitalist. Thirty years earlier his father would have been standing in the same position with the same attitude and contempt for the Church and the pezzanovante, only Vito carries his criminality and contempt off with a certain rustic charm, his Machiavell/capitalist machinations shrouded by words like honour and respect and dignity.
The themes of power, certainty of leaders and the consequences that follow from their actions are the bedrock of Coppola’s themes throughout his films of this period.
In the Conversation, Harry Caul, has knowledge of a potential murder, he is certain (wrongly) of the people who are the malevolent forces and the consequences of his actions here see the murder of the innocent and the destruction of his own flimsy walls of sanity. Like Michael and Kurtz, Caul is in an existentialist dilemma. Does he hold true to his core beliefs or loosen them? He has the power of life and death but he is unsure of how to act. How does one know that ones actions are right? Kurtz is “clear” in his mind but his soul is “mad”. Michael follows the logic of extirpation ruthlessly but is hollow and emotionally vacuous as a result. Caul has neither the intelligence nor the clear thinking logic of these two yet in many ways he ends up the worse, reduced to madness and insanity, the knowledge? That one is being watched and that ones very secrets or guilty action is known and there is nothing one can do about it.
There is an irony here and Coppola’s fellow film-maker and Catholic friend Scorsese would know it only two well. Caul specialises in ear dropping, listening in on peoples secrets, spying that has and will have terrible consequences. Mentioning the title Godfather with the image of puppeteering gives the game away. (never mind Kurtz’s deification--spot James Frazer’s Golden Bough as one of his set texts for a modern re-creation of a far east Yahweh with M16 Assault rifles and machetes. Caul at the end of the film undergoes a breakdown, a potent symbol. I observed to myself has this not been Caul’s condition for the entirety of his life? As a serious and guilt-prone Catholic--what else would there be to expect? All very well having an all seeing and knowing God if your filled with loving and kind thoughts-not if you’re a solipsistic misanthrope like Caul. I had a conversation once with a Zen Priest--an ex Catholic who recounted how relieving it was to have this concept of a permanent CCTV camera removed from his mind.
The Conversation was made in between GD1 and GD2. It is a much smaller film, far less grandiose and fully demonstrates a side of Coppola that many people miss--that is the introverted and pensive Francis, the man who would drive himself to near destruction on Apocalypse Now. Before that though, Coppola laid to rest any doubt as to his talent with Godfather 2. It’s a very rare thing indeed that a sequel of something actually exceeds the first. Watching the Godfather 2 again confirmed it. The unrelenting, underlying misery and folly of the 1950’s story juxtaposed with the simple, rustic and dreamily romantic flashbacks of Vito’s rise to power is deftly engineered. Pacino comes into his own in the film, even manages to outdo arguably his greatest scene of the Sollozzo execution when he smashes his rebelling and protestant and non-Italian wife’s face in over her abortion. It is the only sign of mental or emotional weakness in Michael, the only time he drops his cool, logical macho intellect. (the other snap which is related was when Tom Hagan informs him of the “miscarriage” “was it a boy?” “Mikey after 3 months…” “Cant You Give A Straight Answer Anymore! Was it a Boy?!”
GD2 does answer a charge though that was labelled at the first film. That it glamorised the gangsters. I believe there is some truth to this. But it is this truth that adds power to the Godfather 2. Unlike the last one were we could and did enjoy the vanquishing of the families enemies and cheer on the many murders--we are not allowed this in number two. Even when Vito kills we sit in stony faced silence.
Themes of the certainty of power, the consequences of violence, moral hypocrisy are fully treated in Apocalypse Now Redux but still without any conclusion. I was stunned watching this film again, I already considered it the most impressive film I have seen but seeing it again on a widescreen with surround sound (I await the day of seeing it in the cinema) was an experience, a thrill that few other films have ever delivered.
The opening! What with the Doors, the images of helicopters swooning in slow motion across bombed out trees lines, lit up with Napalm. On cue to the lyrics, Willard’s stoned out and burned out face appears. Coppola has always been a great visual storyteller but the number of things both profound and subtle and small in this sequence can only be described in the words cinematic genius. But there is so much! After that intro, consider the next crescendo--of Willard going mad and wrecking his room. Two masterpiece scenes in under ten minutes. The briefing/dinner scene, shot mostly from Willard’s Point of View is another ace. Coppola is a rare thing, especially today, a moviemaker who has an impressive ability for large beautiful bombastic films that are also rich in detail, nuance, thematic obsession and concern for actors. Though he made a few more masterpieces since--his decline is one of the saddest things in American movies.
Is Apocalypse Now an anti war film? Its worth asking, for it can be assumed that it is without justification. I would say no, or rather I would say its an anti-establishment film or again to put it more pointedly--one mans personal journey, polemic and self-destruction (Kurtz and Coppola’s) against hierarchy and bureaucracy. Sam Peckinpah would have appreciated the film immensely. Coppola in retrospect has been cast as a member of a group of young turks who would shake up and eventually re-establish the film business and studios in the 1970’s. Their names are well known but it would seem that Coppola really did despise much of the studio system that was still potent despite the relaxing of the Hays code that constricted the industry since the thirties. Coppola wanted to go it alone, “he got off the boat he split from the whole fucking program”. He created Zoetrope studios to do personal films outside the mainstream. For a while it was working. The dream ended a little later in the 1980’s with the failure of the Cotton Club. In some ways I picture Kurtz as Coppola and Willard as the ambivalent and ambiguous George Lucas who’s career Coppola gave lift to, which in an almost oedipal move killed his dream off. Star Wars along with Jaws killed the possibility of a mature and thoughtful and entertaining American cinema. Perhaps that is too harsh, that the banality of much of what we see today would have won out anyway. Perhaps though like in Vietnam, a small victory could have been achieved, or, rather the forestalment of defeat and despair could have been kept at bay for a few more years.
When Willard kills Kurtz and emerges as the new God, when he drifts back to civilisation, the flat and Zen and stoned out face is our face. The “witness” to so much, so many explosions and settings suns, so much fuck of eloquence of soldiers shooting at the shit. Words cannot capture the almost mystical and religious aura of much of Apocalypse Now, there is much in human experience that words cannot express that are much better “understood” in music or images. Drugs help, was Coppola dropping Acid like Lance? Carmine Coppola’s score which would sound cheesy and ridiculous in any other setting accurately gets the mood of this film-fucked up-out of sync, stoned and wasted, wistful and dreamy. The movie stays with you, days later walking down the street or driving in the city at night, snatches of music come back to you, lines of dialogue, images of helicopters flying across your vision. “the Horror the Horror”.
Best
Michael Faulkner.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)