chance, strategy, risk

Yes, yes, yes, there we go. And what's the Cruise/Nicholson movie"”"You can't handle the truth!" He's got the warrior's code"”and apparently feels no conflict with Judeo-Christianity. That's up to the Cruise character.

Or at least, protecting America, the "greater good", trumps any inner conflict for Jack. He sees himself as a member of the warrior class, a necessary evil if America shall continue to exist.

I'll have to explore John Milius's stuff a bit.

Still, wondering about a non-western director...
 
nerd4hire
nerd4hire
A Few Good Men - Nicholson/Cruise movie
You know, I've read that part of the reason for the intense viciousness between The Japanese and the Americans during WW2 was because of a conflict of moral codes.

The Japanese warriors saw compassion, mercy in the American enemy as supremely insulting. An attempt to rob them of their honor. What could be more important to a man than his honor? They would show no mercy, expected none. They had utter contempt for the American prisoners for that reason.

At the same time, the Americans viewed the Japanese as utter savages, barbarians. They reacted to the Japanese complete lack of mercy for the enemy, the warrior, civilian suicides as being un-Christian, fundamentally anti-human: evil.




"'Sin City' is being sold as a distillate that is taking hardboiled film noir characters and themes up to speed for the new century. But classic film noir has always been about ambiguities: temptation, guilt and innocence in a corrupt world where people face complicated moral choices. In "Sin City," nobody ever changes their minds about anything. People fall into their two-dimensional roles"”corrupt cop, deceitful hussy, killer, dame, wife-beater, twisted psychopath"”and the drama develops accordingly. "

http://worldfilm.about.com/od/r/fr/sincity.htm


"”This is what I'm thinking, no ambiguity=boring! Will still see it though. It's gonna look great.
 
I'm trying to think of examples of "the warrior's code" in the Buffyverse. I think it's fairly easy to find in "Angel" actually.

Gunn's anti-vamp gang are warriors. They have a code of honor. Fierce loyalty to eachother. A very clear demarcation between themselves and the enemy. In that respect, it's almost tribal. Gunn gets into a conflict with his gang when they start killing all demons, seemingly at random. Gunn has a conflict, he's trapped between the Judeo-Christian mindset (TeamAngel) and a traditional warrior mindset (his gang).

Angel, after Darla is revamped, slips back into a traditional, tribal mindset. Fires his team. Draws a line in the sand. Declares essentially that all demons, vamps, WR&H employees must be destroyed. An unambiguous warrior's stance.
 
I think you could also say that the Watcher's Council operates by a tribal code of sorts as well. They're not literally warriors, but the warrior's commanders.

They're like the Dept. of Defense in a way. And there's an inherent, strange conflict there. They're a part of humanity, yet outside it. Seek to protect it, almost by remaining apart from it. They seem excessively pragmatic, almost amoral in their tactics and strategy at times. The pragmatism may be necessary, merely for survival. And generally, they're loyal to their own, they protect their own, maybe at the expense of civilians at times. Amoral in their means, with the desire for moral ends.

Buffy tried to snap them out of their purely tribal, warrior mindset at times. She was ultimately more successful than they could ever hope for. Was this perhaps because she mixed a Judeo-Christian ethic into the tribal warrior ethic? Not sure. Was she outside both ethical systems? Did she succeed merely through luck and smarts, or did something else come into play as well?

I'd say she constantly exercised her free will, personal judgement. One potential downside of a tribal mentality is absolute submission to authority, even to the point of physical coercion. Limits strategic thinking, options. Free will is a vital component of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Submission, yes, but ultimately a voluntary act.




"”OK, Ebert gave "Sin City" four stars. I had a feeling that would happen. I think he tends to take an "art for art's sake" approach in his reviews. He may be appalled by the actions of characters in a film, but if it's entertaining, then....I also think he tends to get completely bowled over by a film's visual style, which is legitimate. It's a huge component of a film's art.

But for me, personally, that's not enough. He also gave another post-mod film, "Sky Captain", four stars. I found that film gorgeous and inspired visually. I also found it crushingly dull. Forgettable story, characters.

A flim exists in time as well as space. I can look at a beautiful painting for awhile, then walk away at my leisure. Film requires that you keep your ass in a seat, sometimes for hours. I need some emotional, moral component to maintain my interest.

I really gotta see this thing now.

I guess this leads to the question: Is it possible to comepletely separate morality from narrative art? I don't think you can really analyze art without making aesthetic judgements, but what about moral ones? Most of the complaints about "Sin City" seem to be based on moral considerations, not aesthetic. Is it proper to condemn something as bad art because you dislike the moral stance taken within the art?

Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" is considered by many to be brilliant cinematic art. Also, Nazi propaganda.

Should Ebert be considering any moral implications, messages of "Sin City" in reaching his final, four star judgement? Maybe he did? Don't know.



Now, there's another film noir "parody", with sado-masochistic themes that he despises:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19860919/REVIEWS/609190301/1023

Is Ebert a hypocrite? He hate's Lynch's piece, apparently because of the wierd mix of the sincere and the ironic"”sees it as perverse I guess.

Does he love Tarantino and Rodriguez because there's actually no irony in their work at all? No mix of tones and messages? Only a mix of visual styles? Loves their stuff on a purely visual, aesthetic level?

Did Ebert condemn the Blue Velvet not because it was "bad", but almost because he felt Lynch committed an immoral act in the mix of tones he presented?
 
I guess the radically different reactions to "Sin City" and "Blue Velvet" makes sense if Ebert's only critiquing a film's aesthetics and internal logic. He sees Blue Velvet as fatally flawed because the irony and humor undercuts the deep seriousness of the rest of the film's tone. A technical error.

"Sin City" apparently played out its internal logic to his satisfaction and visually pleased him. Morality was irrelevant.
 
Speaking of morality and warrior codes though, it strikes me that different structures of morality can be built into different codes, and these codes can meet in the same piece of fiction.

In the final battle of the Iliad for example you have 2 different warrior codes and structures of morality meeting each other.

With Hector you have the reluctant hero battling out of duty. With Achilles you have the mercenary warrior inspired by vanity, vengence, and desire to prove who's the best.

My point being you can have different codes existing successfully in the same piece, and really it's nothing new to do it.
 
Another gaping hole in my knowlege...the Greek classics. The Iliad, one more book for my coffee table.

You're certainly right that folks with different motivations fight on the same side in fiction. Chipped Spike helped out Buffy and the Scoobs 'cause he wanted to be around Buffy and he loved killing demons. And he helped Buffy stop Drusilla and Angelus's evil plan cause he didn't want an apocalypse.

Now, the Christian Bible, in a gross simplification: Old Testament=tribal code, tribal justice. Early on, we have an eye-for-an-eye. The Hebrews are often found slaying the infidels, other tribes, at God's command"”because others are immoral. New Testament=the Golden Rule, love God, love your enemies, love your neighbor as yourself.

Is the Bible like a colossal philosophical conflict of codes, summarized in a book? Maybe that simplification is too gross. Seems like Christians feel that the New supercedes the Old in most cases, but conflicts do arise.

Is that how Christendom has managed to justify wars throughout history? Internalizes the conflicting messages in the Bible. Different verses for different occasions?

Also, In LOTR, Return of the King. Aragorn frees those cursed, ghost warriors, on the condition that they'll fight with him. They just want to fulfill their obligation so they can move on to the afterlife. Are they amoral? They still seem to have an internal warrior code of sorts. After being cursed as cowards, their honor is finally restored in battle.
 
Do you guys not think that you can over-analyse movies? Isn't there room for the turn-off-your-brain action-adventurer without a hidden agenda. We took our then six year old grandson to see "Sky Captain..." and we all thoroughly enjoyed it...it had giant robots in it for wossname's sake (appreciated by both me and the boy btw) and retro-rockets (ooh, the punny potential 😉)...what's not to like? 🙂

OK, I admit that there are films that stand up to a deep analysis but that's not what I go to the cinema for - thems are for buying on DVD 🙂 Although, I did see The Incredibles at the cinema and subsequently bought the DVD...sigh, Elastigirl...😉
 
I'll let Joss Whedon answer that question Mr. P.

"I think it's always important for academics to study popular culture, even if the thing they are studying is idiotic. If it's successful or made a dent in culture, then it is worthy of study to find out why. "˜Buffy,' on the other hand is, I hope, not idiotic. We think very carefully about what we're trying to say emotionally, politically, and even philosophically while we're writing it. The process of breaking a story involves the writers and myself , so a lot of different influences, prejudices, and ideas get rolled up into it. So it really is, apart from being a big pop culture phenom, something that is deeply layered textually episode by episode. I do believe that there is plenty to study and there are plenty of things going on in it, as there are in me that I am completely unaware of. People used to laugh that academics would study Disney movies. There's nothing more important for academics to study, because they shape the minds of our children possibly more than any single thing. So, like that, I think "˜Buffy' should be analyzed, broken down, and possibly banned." ("10
Questions for Joss Whedon")
 
Bugger! Exposed the flippancy of me post right proper yer did guv'nor 😉...but I still stand by the importance of turn-off-your-brain films...we all have our guilty pleasure movies...don't mention Mary Poppins presshuss...we shan't...nasty Canadianssses 😀
 
When I was in college, I roomed with 3 film students. I was the lone art guy. They'd see everything. And analyze everything"”to death. I would tell them I felt sorry for them cause they seemed to be turned off on films for weird, seemingly very abstract reasons. And here I am doing it myself"”and it's fun!

I can't help myself! Joss's 'verse has brought this out in me. My reaction to "Sky Captain" was purely emotional. I found it boring, yet beautiful. As a kid, I'd have gone ape over it I'm sure.

Let me cite yet another comparison. Spider-Man 2, like Sky Captain"”both comic book eye candy. Yet I loved every second of Spidey2. The characters were just a little more fleshed out, conflicted. Yet still all kinds of popcorn movie fun!

Actually, I think Tarantino can be the perfect example of the turn-off-your-brain-and-enjoy movie, roller coaster style. Pure, visceral fun. If you can stand all the violence. And ironically, his stuff is analyzed to death as well.
 
Hey Nerd4hire
I dropped part of our exchange here onto another site I obsess on:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1761&start=0

Hope you don't mind, apologies if pissed. There are some great thoughts on Xer movies, attitudes. Just got me thinking: why do some people hate "Buffy", think it's lame? Is it because Joss is "such a girl", as Harmony would say? The action's OK, a little sloppy to me. Some people say they've just seen 2 or 3 eps, hate it. I don't know. Is "Buffy" too feminine, feminist in it's themes for some? I admit, I ultimately responded to "Angel", just a little more than "Buffy". Maybe the feminism just turns some "Type A" guys off. Maybe some think it's not actually post-mod, cynical enough to please them.
 
I have no problem with being quoted Goldenboy. To be honest I like it. 🙂

I enjoyed that thread. I read both pages. Liked that site also. I had no idea discussing the generations was so popular.

As far as "guys" having a knee-jerk Buffy aversion, yeah I've noticed it. I get a kick out of the ones that watch a couple episodes, and find themselves enjoying it, then feel guilty about it. They tell us they only watch the show, because the babes are hot.

Angel is different. It's interesting that in Angel's last season it was actually reclaiming the male 18 to 34 demographic. This was a thing that baffled people who were trying to make sense of the cancellation, because that particular demographic has been slowly vanishing from television viewing in general.
 
Ooh, here's another fun thread about aggressive vs "fun" feminists"”in the form of pop/rock stars:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1610

I'd say Buffy seemed to be mostly a "fun" feminist, with aggressive tendencies when dusting those vamps. She dressed almost trashily at first with those miniskirts, almost like a modern flapper. Got more conservative, serious later....

Angel season 6 would've, could've been huge! (to the fanboys at least)
 
Here's an apparently very culturally conservative writer....gave Sin City a scathing review. He's definitely in the minority....

http://nationalreview.com/hibbs/hibbs200504080801.asp



His book sounds interesting:

"While the movies of Frank Capra once celebrated the triumph of good over evil, George Bailey has given way to Hannibal Lecter, who through raw power and bold creativity lives "beyond good and evil." Professor Hibbs follows the trajectory of evil in American film and television, linking it to the spread of nihilism-a state of spiritual impoverishment and shrunken aspirations to which, both Tocqueville and Nietzsche warned, democracies are especially susceptible. The most recent product of Hollywood's fascination with evil is the comic nihilism of Seinfeld, in which the distinctively American pursuit of happiness is endlessly frustrated by dark forces beyond our understanding or control.

Professor Hibbs probes the themes and artistry of the landmark works of the cinematic quest for evil. A series of grisly films from The Exorcist to Cape Fear and Silence of the Lambs reveals a preoccupation with the power of evil. When evil ceases to terrify, it becomes banal, producing a comic view of the meaninglessness of life (Forrest Gump, Natural Born Killers, Titanic, The Simpsons). Seinfeld and Trainspotting represent nihilism's last stage, but not the last word, and Professor Hibbs considers how classical ideals-partially recovered in recent comedy (Pulp Fiction) and film noir (L.A. Confidential, Seven)-might point the way out of nihilism."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/189062635X/102-1715903-3000111


"”I guess maybe I'm culturally conservative too in some ways. Nihilism in modern entertainment does disturb me. Even as I lap up Tarantino's stuff. Interestingly... apparently this guy thinks that Pulp Fiction "partially recovered classical ideals" (?) Huh. As I've said, I think Joss is post-mod, but not very nihilistic....




"When evil ceases to terrify, it becomes banal, producing a comic view of the meaninglessness of life"

"”I think Joss walked a tightrope here. His "evil" characters were often comic as well, banal.
 
Here's another essay from this Hibbs guy. Seems to think that Buffy actually got less post mod, deeper, more traditional, as the series progressed. He apparently sees the battle against "evil" in the 'verse as being similar to the cultural battle against apathy, nihilism....




Buffy's War
Good and Evil 101.

By Thomas S. Hibbs

At one point, in this season's final episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the good girl gone bad, Willow, mocks one of the friends who's striving to save her from herself: "Willow doesn't live here anymore." It was one of the best and most chilling moments of the two-hour finale, a moment that underscored the central and consistent teaching about evil in this surprisingly successful series about a teenage, valley-girl cheerleader turned vampire slayer. In the culminating episodes of this season "” a season that repeated last season's uneven plotting "” Buffy returned to the dramatic depiction of the metaphysics of good and evil, a metaphysics that reflects classical accounts of evil as vacuous, as a deprivation of goodness.
  

The show is in many ways different from what it was in its early years. For one thing, it used to be much more funny. In the initial, high-school years, verbal repartee between the characters captured the caustic side of adolescent humor in ways that a teen show like Dawson's Creek "” with teen characters speaking in complete paragraphs and sounding as if their young bodies had been invaded by thirty-somethings just emerging from years of therapy "” never could. In an early episode, Buffy is taken aback by her attraction to Angel, a vampire, cursed by the return of his soul, and now a would-be assistant of Buffy. She informs him that it's not good form for a vampire slayer to be seen with a vampire. Then she adds bluntly, "Or do you find that offensive? Do you prefer 'undead American'?"

But, graduation from high school and Angel's departure (to star in his own spin-off series, of course) signaled a shift away from humor and toward greater analysis of human relationships, even if the characters have never become as self-involved as the Creek kids. Last season's finale featured Buffy sacrificing her own life to save her sister, Dawn, and the cosmos from the reign of evil. This season opened with Willow "” Buffy's brainy high-school buddy, now accomplished witch "” finding a magical, slayer exception to the unyielding law of death and bringing Buffy back. With her friends a little miffed at her lack of joy at being returned to the living, Buffy manages to thank them for saving her from what she describes as hell. Unable to tell her friends the truth, she confides to her longstanding nemesis Spike that death was in fact heavenly bliss, compared to which this world is hell. (The darkest story line of this season has been the sadomasochistic sexual relationship (in the family-viewing hour of 8 PM!) between a demoralized Buffy and Spike, from which Buffy seemingly emerged in the last episodes.)

Indeed, in the past two seasons, male characters, particularly noble male characters, have been pushed to the margins, while female characters "” especially the lesbian relationship between Willow and her Wiccan lover, Tara "” have taken certain stage. Buffy seems unable to find any man who can replace Angel; even the older Giles, her virtuous watcher (the one assigned to train and advise the slayer), left the country to return to his homeland of England. That left two male characters: Xander, whose life peaked in high school as Buffy's wisecracking sidekick, and Spike.

Previous seasons have often been unified around the presence of a powerful demon whom Buffy must defeat. This year seemed to lack that persona, until Willow's dark side began to take over. For a number of years now, Willow has been a devotee of the arts of magic, at first using them only for good but increasingly as a way of expressing her own power or even for revising recent history and covering up her own vices. Her inability to exercise self-control led to the breakup of her relationship with Tara.

When the head of a trio of nerdy boys who covet the allure and power of magic tries to kill Buffy and accidentally kills Tara, Willow is disconsolate and consumed by a desire for vengeance. After an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the dark forces to bring Tara back from the dead, she corners her assailant and then kills him by skinning his entire body. She then heads off in search of the other two plotters, whom Buffy and company are now committed to protecting, not, Buffy is quick to add, so much for their own sake as for Willow's. If she continues to kill, she will "cross a line" from which it will be nearly impossible to return.

Buffy proves no match for the scorned Willow. The only hope appears to be the return of Giles who is fortified with mystical powers of his own. When he is unable to restrain Willow, she drains him of his powers and leaves him for dead. But Giles's powers come from a different source "” the true essence of magic, Giles calls them "” and they afflict Willow by making her feel pain and emotion. To rid herself of pain, Willow sets out to destroy the world. When the suddenly brave Xander confronts her, admitting that he cannot stop her but wants only to be with his childhood friend as she puts an end to human history, she scoffs and begins to torture him. Eventually, Xander's professions of friendship and love for Willow break her down and she relents. A suddenly recovered Giles explains that the infusion of good magic into Willow enabled Xander to tap into the "spark of humanity she had left."

The ending "” with Xander's defeat of bad Willow and Buffy's subsequent protestations that she now wants to live on earth, to see her friends happy "” seemed a bit contrived. Indeed, the dialogue at times seemed to reduce the difference between good and evil to a sappy distinction between those who feel and those who don't. But, in a show that has always stressed the inevitable and dire consequences of decisions and actions, we can be sure that earth will remain closer to hell than to heaven and that Willow will suffer the consequences of her immersion in dark arts.

And Buffy's renewed sense of purpose, rooted in her newfound love for her sister and friends, is a counterpoint to the metaphysics of evil. By contrast to goodness and in parasitic dependence on it, evil involves isolation from the rest of humanity, a closing off of the possibility of love, friendship, and communication; it is a will to raw, unconstrained power, a nihilistic drive to destroy all that is, including oneself."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hibbs052402.asp



"Thomas S. Hibbs contributed the essay "Buffy the Vampire Slayer as Feminist Noir" to the recently published book Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy: Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale, edited by James South. Hibbs previously wrote about Buffy for NRO in May, 2002."

"”Has anyone read this book, essay?






 
 
J
Jacklyn
Very interesting! Thanks for posting this!
Sorry if this is getting a bit off topic. Ah well, this thread is a complete mess anyway....Just found this neat critique of Thomas Hibbs book about nihilism and pop culture"”saying maybe he's just a little too certain, too conservative in his conclusions about how we view nihilistic art.....


"In any case, must all art be morally uplifting? Perhaps nihilistic art performs a useful function. Take Seinfeld. We can agree with Hibbs' reading of that show and still ask, so what? Yes, the characters in the series seem to live in a world governed by chance. Yes, they are driven by irrational passions, and the rules they seek to conform to are baffling and contradictory. But does the series teach us that our lives are that way, or does it show us how life is for the shallow and immature? Does Seinfeld mock the meaninglessness of life, or does it mock those who lead meaningless lives?

Hibbs and other critics of popular culture assume that a person's taste in art reflects his deeply held values, and that this is true for a society as well. If many Americans devour nihilistic entertainment, then, it is because they are seeking a reflection of the views they already hold.

There may be some truth to that assumption. If someone listens only to harsh, misogynistic music, watches only dark, nihilistic films, and plays only violent video games, it could be (though not necessarily) cause for alarm. And if a culture is dominated by decadent, nihilistic popular culture, that too may be reason to worry. But what are we to make of a person who was moved by Schindler's List and who also enjoyed The Silence of the Lambs? Or of someone who laughs at The Simpsons or Seinfeld and cries during Touched by an Angel?

More important, what are we to make of a culture that allows all of these shows and movies to be hits? Maybe such persons, and cultures, suffer from basic spiritual conflicts and have a mixed view of how life is or should be. Or perhaps the occasional nihilistic film helps a spiritually healthy person, or society, confront the occasional fear that life is meaningless and, by facing that fear, overcome it."

http://reason.com/0007/bk.co.more.shtml
 
"Revelations", on NBC....

"...a six-hour mini-series full of helium and woo-woo, there is no such thing as coincidence, randomness, chance, or jokes either. As we might have expected from writer-creator David Seltzer, who gave us The Omen, and executive producer Gavin Polone, who gave us Panic Room, there is instead a sort of diabolic hyperventilation. All of Harvard's hard science will be Twilight Zoned. Miracles and monsters, the shadow of the cross on a mountainside in Mexico, and a baby floating in the Adriatic Sea; crop circles, organ harvests, suicide bombers, false prophets, famine, plague, and jet-stream turbulence"”everything conspires at Armageddon's advent, the End of Days, the Ultimate Smackdown."

"...why, so long after we seemed to have recovered from our seventies-era fling with omens, exorcists, Rosemary's babies, and similar species of Catholic porn, apocalyptic satanism is making a small-screen comeback. Revelations may feature a nun, but it depends even more, like such series as Point Pleasant and Medium, on Fundamentalist apprehensions of end-time and Protestant hopes for Rapture. Readers of The Da Vinci Code tend to stay home, behind closed doors, while readers of the "Left Behind" books, The Turner Diaries, and the science fiction of Newt Gingrich are loose in the streets: faith-based fruitbats policing the words in our mouths and the behaviors in our beds, while chasing evolution out of our schools. "

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/arts/tv/reviews/11696/


"”OK, I get the sense this guy is maybe just a little hostile towards a certain strain of religion in America. I wonder, is this series going to be the Anti-X-Files? Not post-mod, ironic. Not "nihilistic", random, meaningless? Evil will be evil, not comic.

Or, will it in fact be nihilistic? "Catholic porn" as this guy says. Are the EndTimes Christians actually nihilists of a sort? Wishing for the world's destruction...
 
Well, it's on tonight, so I'll check it out.

I kind of hope it sucks, because it's a six part mini-series, and it's on opposite my guilty pleasure Gilmore Girls.

The girls are on re-runs tonight, but return to new eps next week, so if it turns out revelations is killer, I don't know what I'll do.

I was thinking of Gilmore Girls, and wondering if they could be categorized as nihilistic, but no not really - more humanistic, I think.

It put a thought in my head though. There does seem to be a gray line in a lot of new stuff between the humanistic and the nihilistic, where it's not so much an absence of moral code that suggests nothing really matters, as a new age, rationilized, humanistic kind of morality applied overtop, and sometimes conflicting with more traditional, forms of morality. Like examining a catholic concept from a humanistic POV.
 
I think Buffy was humanistic in a sense.

Characters had an inner tension, conflict about the world, their role in it. Sometimes, a nihilistic, cynical response shows that your brain is working. You question what you might perceive as hypocrisy. And you're mocking yourself, your own inability to understand the world....its purpose. But it doesn't mean you've given up.

Still haven't seen Sin City. I wonder if it could be described as "pure nihilism". All questions, judgements are moot, irrelevant. At the other end of the spectrum, religion attempts to eliminate questions, uncertainty as well.

I feel like I'm in a "humanistic", mushy middle.

The USA Today review said Revelations might fail because it's not secular enough for secularists nor religious enough for religious. May alienate both camps. But, who knows? America is filled with fence sitters too.
 
Back
Top Bottom