A Splash of Colour: Actor Casting Priorities

 Greetings,

There has been a tendency in an effort to follow certain rules of "inclusivity" of late, to deliberately cast persons various lifestyles and ethnicities in particular roles in movies. In some cases it is simply adding a single representative member from each of these groups in the cast, even as characters to ensure that the movie or series is considered inclusive enough. I have referred to this in the title as "a splash of colour" because it is paying lip-service to inclusivity nothing more.

Word Use

A small note on wording, I am going to use the word ethnicity not race when referring to people of different colour or different cultural background, because it is the correct term to use. There is one race, the human race, we have multiple ethnicities within that race, and multiple cultures within those ethnicities. The more people realise that that they have more in common with one another, the easier it is that they will find ways to work together, so we need to find words to unite us, to take back words to unite us. Racism rolls off the tongue nicely, Ethnicism or ethnicitism does not. Lets kill the word, kill the idea. Make racism against humanity (as it is), not just against one group of humans.

From a Position of Privilege?

First there is going to be the complaint that I am a white male complaining about things in regard to race and sexuality so I am speaking from a position of "privilege" so I have no right to do so. Actually, I do because I watch movies and series, and because I am a human being. More to the point because I will be speaking from the perspective of a minority which often gets forgotten in these casting choices, and often played badly in movies and series, those with mental illness, and those with disabilities, but my discussion of the lack of representation of my minority, and its misrepresentation in movies will come later.

The Token Minority

How many movies and series have we seen of late where there has been the token person of colour, gay male, gay female, and so forth? In this case the casting directors have not chosen these individuals in the cases of those of a particular ethnicity because it was required for the role, but because they needed one to be representative. Or where characters were changed to be inclusive so alternate life-styles were present, and they grated against the original story, especially when they came from an original book or other source. These actions within the movie-making process are an attempt to appease some and make the movie more appealing to others.

Shouldn't the role go to the actor who is the best for the part, regardless what colour their skin happens to be? An example: in the original comic Nick Fury is white. In the Marvel movies he is was cast as Samuel L. Jackson, and he did an excellent job in the role; he suited the part. Jackson held the role, not because of the colour of his skin, but by the skill of his acting. Let the actor who is best suited to the role have the role, regardless of their ethnicity. In picking token roles for people of particular ethnic groups, they stand out more than if they were allowed to be cast and fill the roles like any other.

Misrepresented Minorities

The two minorities which are either misrepresented in movies, or are completely absent are those with disabilities, especially invisible disabilities, and those with mental illness. Yet, there are no great complaints about this misrepresentation, or lack of representation in movies or series. They seem to be swept underneath the carpet, pushed to one side, ignored at best, abused at worst.

Mental Illness

When mental illness is represented in movies there is one of three representations that is primarily present: criminally insane, military PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), and socially inept. For the first group you have characters like The Riddler, Harley Quinn, The Joker, serial killers of different breeds and so forth. Mostly these people are presented as "insane" which has pushed them to be anti-social and criminal. The result of the way mental illness was played on the screen meant that people at large thought that schizophrenia and Multiple Personality Disorder were the same thing, which they are not. Next you have the military PTSD, which is a real problem in our society mind you. The soldier who has come home from war, or who is still in a war-zone, who experiences extreme "fight or flight" responses, or withdraws from society in general. There are aspects of PTSD that are seen in civilian life as well, usually as the result of abuse of some kind, but not always. The final group is the socially inept, Rain Man and Mercury Rising, both show two different perspectives of mental illness, but at an extreme end of the scale, so the individuals always have extreme difficulty dealing with society. These are extreme examples of these conditions, there are also other examples of both of these conditions, milder and with different symptoms. Yet, none of these, even the explanations, are completely representative of mental illness, only a single aspect of it within a single diagnosis. 

Disabilities

The first thing that someone will respond with is what about Professor. X? He's in a wheel-chair. Yes, played by a person who is perfectly able to walk, who does not have any idea about what it is like to really be stuck in that wheelchair every day of his life. There are a few notable actors with invisible disabilities, Morgan Freeman is one who has fibromyalgia, these are not represented on the screen. You don't see many movies with a person with a disability in movies. Ivar the Boneless is a classic character from "Vikings", born with a bone defect; are there any others even in the background with physical disabilities? Even as a result of battle? Yet, there is no great complaint about the lack of representation of disabilities being present on the screen, either big or small, even as extras. Well, let mine be the first voice of complaint. 

Tell the Story...

The focus of directors should be to put the best cast together so they can tell the best story that they can. They should allow their casting directors to find the actors who are most suitable to the roles which are present in the script, regardless of ethnicity or any other factor. If they need a particular ethnicity of an actor for a particular reason i.e. the movie is set in Africa, they need lots of darker skinned actors, then this should guide their choice. The important thing is to ensure that they have the actors to tell the story.

If a person is going to complain about "inclusivity" and have to ensure that all types of people are included and are represented, they should be at least represented properly, not some token splash of colour. My continued argument to these individuals would be to ensure that they would fight to include people with disabilities as well in their "inclusiveness" because people with disabilities, physical and mental are sure a minority as well. Most of us are happy to be a minority, because it would mean more sick people.

Remember, change the words and things will lose their power. I will reiterate again. There is one human race, there are many ethnicities and many cultures. The more we begin to change the narrative, and change the word, come together, show how we are the same not different, the harder it is to break us apart. A single stick may be easily broken, a bunch of sticks together is much more difficult to break.

Cheers,

Henry.

Aristotle: The Right-Wing Misogynist

 Greetings,

Through some research and reading in to philosophy it has come to my attention that Aristotle had misogynistic and right-wing tendencies in his political and social thought. He rejected Plato's thought of his Republic, which mind you contains questionable thoughts on the lines of eugenics (no really, it does), describing the flaws in Plato's idea of the perfect society and governmental form. These tendencies need to be discussed in some detail, exposed to the light of discovery so people may understand the flaws of this so-called "great man" of philosophy.

Of Government

"Aristotle was honestly conservative because of the turmoil and disaster that had come out of Athenian democracy." (Durant, 1957: 63) This points toward Aristotle being directed toward the more conservative side of politics as a result of the failures he has seen in the "birth-place of democracy". His reaction to this situation was to reject the Republic of Plato, "Aristotle fights the realism of Plato about universals, and idealism of Plato about government." (Durant, 1957: 64). His view is that maybe Plato's ideal of his communistic society may have worked in the distant past with smaller communities, the problem is that it doesn't work with larger societies with wider divisions of labour.

"where the division of labor into unequally important functions elicits and enlarges the naatural inequality of men, communism breaks down because it provides no adequate incentive for the exertion of superior abilities. The stimulus of gain is necessary to arduous work; and the stimulus of ownership is necessary to proper industry, husbandry and care." (Durant, 1957:64)

All that has been demonstrated so far is that Aristotle is not in favour of Plato's model and that he is not in favour of democracy, or communism for that matter. His political feelings on the matter are further explained in the same text, based upon the problem of the "average" human being, and more important that there are those who are "below average".

How far right?

"Because the people are so easily misled, and so fickle in their views, the ballot should be limited to the intelligent. What we need is a combination of aristocracy and democracy." (Durant, 1957:70). His method would limit the ballot to a selection of the population. His aristocracy is one based on education, the ones who vote are the educated. Only those who have been prepared for the task will be allowed to vote, "the human average, is nearer to the beast than to the god. The great majority of men are natural dunces and sluggards;" (Durant, 1957:65). His politics are hard-hitting and pointed toward an elite making the decisions, at least they will be an educated elite; and it is likely that these will primarily be men.

Of Relationships

"Woman is to man as the slave to the master, the manual to the mental worker, the barbarian to the Greek. Woman is an unfinished man, left standing on a lower step in the scale of development. The male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; the one rules and the other is ruled; and this principle extends, of necessity, to all mankind." (Durant, 1957:66)

The woman, according to Aristotle is definitively subservient to the man. The one serving the other as is described above. Once again, he attacks Plato's ideas of making woman more like the man so they can do the same sort of things, "rather dissimilarity should be increased; nothing is so attractive as the different." (Durant, 1957:66). Aristotle would not have his women changed to men but kept the same as they are because they are more attractive that way; this is for the purposes of marriage, of course. This reflects his more conservative views.

Of Marriage

"As if to give the male an indispensable advantage, he advises him to defer marriage till the vicinity of thirty-seven, and then to marry a lass of some twenty years." (Durant, 1957:66). The marriage of teens which occurred in the Middle Ages is certainly not a practice advised by Aristotle. Indeed he discusses the importance of waiting until they are of a suitable age before marrying. "The union off male and female when too young is bad for the creation of children; ... Health is more important than love." (Durant, 1957:67). His focus is on the production of off-spring and population control, not the relationship between man and woman, and the former he regards as a matter for the state, along with education.

How will you react?

Had most of these ideas been intimated by some contemporary person of influence, or celebrity today, then all of their books would be burned, CDs ceremoniously smashed and burned, and  products boycotted. However this is Aristotle, from which we get the "Aristotelian logic" among other important thoughts and axioms. His definitive leanings toward the right of politics, they could be explained as being "a part of his culture" or "a part of his time", as could his feelings about the opposite sex. The same were actually used by later generations, as is evident in some medieval cultures; many of his thoughts are still influencing the way we think and the way do things now.

When a book is read it is the expression of an individual's thoughts. The reader then has the option of accepting those thoughts, whole, in part, or not at all. The same could be said of a person's music. You don't have to like an entire album; you don't even have to like the person who produces the music to like it. The important thing here is that there needs to be a separation of the individual from the product.

If you dig deep enough, you will find skeletons in anyone's closet. 

How you react to that skeleton when it is exposed is up to you. Remember that many of the writers of the past were living in vastly different times to our own, this needs to be taken into account when you read their material. Remember, everyone is human and makes mistakes, and has quirks to their character. Is it necessary to burn books and destroy items when a person is "found out"? If this is so, then we are going to run out of books fast, because there are a lot of historical writers that should be first on the chopping block, and a lot that will have to be "excused" because they are "useful"...

One final thought, when does this lead toward censorship?

Cheers,

Henry.

Bibliography

Durant, W. (1957) The Story of Philosophy (2nd edition), Simon and Schuster, New York, p63 

Australia Day: What's In a Date?

 Greetings,

Every year when the 26th of January rolls around there are celebrations and protests about "Australia Day", or what some people now call "Invasion Day" in empathy for the indigenous peoples who were present on the continent when the Europeans arrived and settled. This is a contentious subject of dates and questions of what will make people happy, and in the end there will always be a group of people who will be unhappy about the date or the celebrations.

26th January is commonly known as "Australia Day" and the beginning of the country, is not accurate, even from an historical perspective. It may have been the date of arrival for settlers to the Colony of New South Wales in 1788. I say "may" because unless someone pulls the logs from Captain Arthur Philip's ship or his personal diary, or some equivalent, we will never know the date of disembarkation.

Either way there is a problem, I say the Colony of New South Wales because "Australia" did not exist until 1901, when it was federated, so historically there is kind of a problem to start with. "Australia" cannot technically count its birth-date back to 1788, but only 1901. Federation, the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia occurred on 1st January. This is kind of an inconvenient day for a celebration of national pride considering the celebrations that already occur on that day.

Almost 100 years before Federation, the 26th of January was more significantly as it marked the beginning of the Rum Rebellion, Australia's only coup d'état, where Governor Bligh (Yes, that Bligh, the one infamous for the mutiny on the "Bounty") was forcefully removed from office by the next governor Governor Macarthur. Australians tend to only get up in arms when they really have had enough, have a look at the Eureka Stockade. Maybe the date should be set to the date of either of these, well it is for the first, 3 December is the other end of the year, for Eureka. Again, not Australia, all before Federation. They do, however point toward the Australian psyche as the larrakin.

Consider that one of the most famous, and beloved folk-heroes in Australian history is one Edward "Ned" Kelly, a bushranger (who attempted to start a rebellion of his own, according to his letters and some of his most ardent historians), and you have much of Australian mentality down; rebels, but lazy ones. Fight for the underdog, but not quite enough energy to stand next to them all that often.

Any date that is chosen is going to annoy some one. There are some who are campaigning to change it to May 8, "Mate Day", Australians are colloquially known as saying "G'day mate." and calling each other "mate" so it is trying to harness this idea. It will coincide with World Red Cross Day and also VE (Victory in Europe) Day, among other days. If it is left the same it will annoy, if it is changed it will annoy. As with any matter of contention, it is a matter of choosing who you are going to annoy, and what's the point of doing it in the first place?

Personally, I think it is more the purpose of the day which is important, not its date, not the remembrance of some small fleet of boats which arrived in some bay some 200+ years ago. It is the gathering of all the people of a nation together, regardless of where they originally came from, where their ancestors were from, and recognise that we are all from here, this is our nation, this is a place which we hold dear to our hearts. Find the things that we have in common with one another, not the differences; find the ways in which we can work together, not against one another; find the ways that we can truly be friends and communities together for the benefit of our nation.

Cheers,

Henry.

Bought Out: Mental Health for the Lower Income Earner

 Greetings,

When a person has mental health issues they are often told to go and seek assistance. In some cases, this can be solved through a simple phone call, in other instances it requires long-term mental health support from a psychologist or psychiatrist. The number of these individuals being recognised has only grown over the past couple of years, which means it should be a "boom time" for psychologists and psychiatrists, and it would seem, like any other occupation or any other business, they are going to forget the reason that they are there and take advantage of the situation, leaving a percentage of the population behind.

Now, you will be told by many that there is a "safety net" for those who cannot afford to pay the full price of these professionals. That Medicare will has a rebate for the money that you initially pay for a consultation. The problem is that a person has to have the money for the consultation in the first place before they can get the rebate. Low income earners and those on social welfare payments most often do not have this kind of money to begin with.

So there are a set of Medicare programs and fee structures so that people on these social welfare payments can access different services without the out-of-pocket expenses that they can't afford. These are what are called "bulk-billing" programs in many instances. The problem is that there are fewer and fewer mental health professionals who accept bulk-billing as an option, even for people on social welfare payments, regardless of their situation. It is almost impossible to find a psychiatrist who bulk-bills, indeed they will not even perform an evaluation of a potential individual bulk-billed, even though the Medicare code is present for such a thing.

Now it would seem that psychologists are following the same pattern as their learned colleagues. A person on social welfare could previously organise to have 6 sessions with a psychologist, with the possibility of extending it to 10 should it be required, each year on a mental health care plan. Effectively these sessions would be organised for the patient bulk-billed with the psychologist in consultation with the general practitioner so the best was being done for the patient. Now, it would seem that these are even being rejected by some psychologists as well for fee-paying arrangements. Fee-paying arrangements that those of a lower socio-economic status cannot afford.

It would seem that rather than "doing no harm" as the Hippocratic Oath requires the doctor, and the psychiatrist is certainly a doctor, they are also certainly doing no good at the same time. It would seem that the almighty dollar rules the day again and being healthy in the case of mental health is only something that the wealthy are allowed to have access to and the lower income will be left, until something drastic happens. Why is some catastrophic event required before something is done?

Low income individuals are, once again, being bought out of health.

Cheers,

Henry.

Define: History

 Greetings,

I have already had my discussion "About History", but I did not give any sort of definition of the term. It would be expected that this process would be reasonably straight-forward; go to the dictionary, pull out a definition, have a nice discussion about the term, all done, right? Not to be so, because like the content, people like to bend it to suit themselves, adding in and leaving out bits to bend it to their particular preferences. The result is that below will be presented some definitions of "history" and some discussion about them.

Dictionary Definition

Noun, “the study of past events” or “a chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes” or “a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events” Merriam-Webster (2022) “history” in Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/history, [accessed 7/1/22]

The Merriam-Webster provides three definitions of the same noun, the first two describe history as a thing in and of itself, while the third points toward history a branch of knowledge a means to an end. These definitions point toward a simple collection of events as the main part of the definition, with a slight aspect of discussion of explanation of their causes. The purpose of this collection would seem to be self-fulfilling, recording history to record history.

Noun, “the study of or a record of past events considered together, especially events of a particular period, country, or subject” Cambridge University Press (2022) “history” in Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/history, [accessed 7/1/22]

The Cambridge University Press definition is similarly simple, focusing on the collection of a record of past events, the only addition in this case is that it might focus on a particular focal subject area, being time, place or subject. This definition indicates that history might narrow the focus to a particular area of interest, but the focus is still on the collection of past events.

Noun, “the branch of knowledge dealing with past events” or “a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle” or “acts, ideas, or events that will or can shape the course of the future; immediate but significant happenings” Dictionary.com (2022) “history” in Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/history, [accessed 7/1/22]

The definition from Dictionary.com has multiple definitions, like the Merriam-Webster. In this case it starts with branch of knowledge, history as a subject, then examines history as a collection of past events, but focuses it on a particular subject area. The last part of the definition indicates some significance to the events, that they shape the future, that the events are significant in some measure. This definition implies that the history will have an impact on the present and future. It is this impact which tends to be the focus in our current age, rather than a simple cataloguing of events.

Post-Modernist Definition

“History is a shifting, problematic discourse, ostensibly about an aspect of the world, the past, that is produced by a group of present-minded  workers (overwhelmingly in our culture salaried historians) who go about their work in mutually recognisable ways that are epistemologically, methodologically, ideologically and practically positioned  and whose products, once in circulation, are subject to a series of uses and abuses  that are logically infinite but which in actuality generally correspond to a range of power bases  that exist at any given moment and which structure and distribute the meanings of histories along a dominant-marginal spectrum.” Jenkins, K. (1991) Rethinking History, Routledge, London

There are a lot of words in Jenkins (1991) definition and there is a lot to work through to understand what it means and the effect that it had and is having on the study of history. The meaning of the definition, in individual parts: "present-minded" meaning that their evaluations of past cultural norms are often based on contemporary norms, not those historically-contemporary norms; "mutually recognisable" meaning that most of their work is recognisable to other historians on the basis of knowledge, ideas and method, not so much to the public; "practically positioned" meaning their location in time and space; "uses and abuses" meaning that their work is usually taken by others and used as evidence to support or deny some other theory or position, which may or may not relate to what has been researched, often carried out by other historians or social groups; "power bases" relating to the "dominant-marginal spectrum" usually based on ethnicity or gender/sexuality, depending on the subject-matter which has been produced by the research performed; and "meanings of histories" which is interpreted by individuals depending on what suits them at the time, regardless of the actual intent of the researcher and author of the history.

The post-modernist definition highlights the method in which history and research into history is taken from the simple recording of events and discussion of the causes as recorded in the dictionary definitions above and twisted about until it can be used for some socio-political purpose. There is no more simple recording of history, there has always got to be a purpose behind it, some sort of cause that can be served, and even if there was no intent for such, then some other person will imply it once it has been published, or use it for such a purpose. The Wikipedia also discusses the subject of history and it will be broken into several parts to show its relationship to both the dictionary definitions and also the definitive argumentative Post-Modernist definition presented above.

Wikipedia

"History (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning "inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation") is the study and the documentation of the past." Wikipedia (2022) “History” in Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation Inc., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History, [accessed 7/1/22]

First is a simple definition which goes back to its Greek roots, and is more like the dictionary definition, indicating the study and documentation of the past. A very simple definition of history as a collection and documentation of the past. There is more, as the entry also discusses how history is collected.

""History" is an umbrella term comprising past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of these events." Wikipedia (2022)

The definition is expanded to include not only those events which have documentation, but also those events which live on in memory, these are also collected and form part of history, there is all the aspects of history present, collection and analysis before presentation of the events in some complete form. Each individual who studies a series of events will interpret them in a different way, resulting in different histories, the academic version of this collection prides itself on the analytical process.

"History is also an academic discipline which uses narrative to describe, examine, question, and analyze past events, and investigate their patterns of cause and effect." Wikipedia (2022)

 History is an academic discipline, regardless of whether it is practiced inside the halls and classrooms of some academic institution or not. The same level of rigour which is applied to the analysis of evidence which is present in any other area of the humanities applies, or even indeed the sciences. What must be recognised, and often is not is that the creating of a history is selection of events which are recorded and not, depending on their impact on the history. It is a question of qualitative evaluation,  does this event make a significant enough impact to be worth being present in this history? This is affected by the individual's cultural background and the material presented.

"Part of the historian's role is to skillfully and objectively utilize the vast amount of sources from the past, most often found in the archives. The process of creating a narrative inevitably generates a silence as historians remember or emphasize different events of the past." Wikipedia (2022)

Different histories will emphasise different things, it depends on the prime subject matter which is present. There is an unbelievably enormous amount of historical data available on many different subjects, an historian has to choose what they will use and what they will not use. This results in some histories being left behind. 

Does this men that the historian buried or silenced those histories? No, it does not, it just means their emphasis was elsewhere in that history. It certainly does not stop another historian from following the same path, or even politely asking for the material so they can find the path. Acts of recrimination just result in historians being defensive about their sources, and denying access to such sources, this helps no one. 

Why does it matter?

The way we define history is important as it defines our approach to it. If we define it as a search for significant events in history with the purpose of recording those events for posterity, then there is likely to be a much more open approach. If we approach history as a weapon to be used in some socio-political battle where the histories already written are to be abused, and shredded for evidence, historians abused for denying the presence of some aspect because they did not happen to write it, then there is always going to be a problematic discourse with the discipline. Your thoughts on a subject heavily effect your relation with that subject.

I like the Wikipedia's definition of history as it encompasses many of the aspects of history and tells home-truths about the way history works. I appreciate the dictionary definitions as they are simple approaches to the subject and tell simply what the subject is about. I grow concerned about the Post-Modernist definition and approach to history as it deliberately creates a battleground where researchers are more likely to hoard than to share their knowledge and this cannot be good for the discipline overall.

New discoveries are important. Re-writing histories which are incorrect is important, but there is a way to do this which does not put others off-side in the process, a way which encourages a co-operative approach that encourages all to participate in the discourse, rather than having people fight over the resources to prove that they were more right than the other. I will leave you a quote to think about in regard to historical "truth".

“Historical truth, … is elusive, disorderly – and often downright uncomfortable.”
J. Christoph Amberger The Secret History of the Sword

Together we can make them just a little bit more comfortable if we can agree to work toward the same goals, the collection and interpretation of those "truths" to find out which ones are really worth keeping and which ones do more harm than good.

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

 

Buried and Forgotten

 Greetings,

One way that we try to forget about things is that we collect things together and then bury them so they can be forgotten. This approach is sometimes accompanied with the burning of the objects and then burying of the associated ashes of the objects. In any case, the concept is to remove the thing from thought, to remove it from sight and from thought. This happens with history, and all sides do it.

Burying History

There have been complaints throughout history in society about the ruling elite burying other people's history, especially when this history is inconvenient for them. Most often this is directed by people of colour against those historically in power, in regard to the slave trade, or appropriation of their native lands, or similar issues. There has been a lack of the recording of the history of those who are not in power, a lack of the recording of their histories in the past. There are historians who are trying to correct this, but the pendulum should be centred, not completely swung in the opposite direction.

The almost reverse is occurring now in some situations where people are tearing down monuments to those of the former ruling elite, because they were involved in historically-incorrect activities such as slave trade. What they do not realise that they are doing is that they are also burying the history that goes along with it, and buried history, is forgotten history. Things that cannot be seen are forgotten, the reason that the monuments are being torn down is because they remind people of what happened. Is this not a good enough reason to leave them where they are?

An Example

Tearing down of Saddam's Statue Firdos Square 2003
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firdos_Square_statue_destruction

Here is an example of a statue that was torn down, some almost twenty years ago now. Without clicking on the link, do you remember who did it? Was it the US troops or was it the Iraqi citizens? What was the result of this act? Now, read the article attached to the link, read what was thought by someone who was there during this pivotal scene in world history, then think about what has come after-ward. Have a look at the news in Iraq, news that is not currently reported, and see how settled things still aren't.

A Reminder

When something is destroyed, torn down and nothing is left, or put in its place to remind people what was there before, people forget. Go down town, find a block where a new building has just been built, try and remember what the building which stood in its place previously looked like, it's the same thing. We build monuments to remind us of things. We build war monuments not to remind us about the wars, but the sacrifices made by the people who fought in those wars. We have ANZAC and Remembrance Day in Australia, not to glorify war, but to remind us of those who served, and those who still serve.

For your history to be known it needs to be brought into the light. In the tearing down of a monument, all people remember is the tearing down of the monument, and that memory will fade, and quickly. People remember that a group were offended and they destroyed something. Build something that people can walk by, and remember and people will remember it. Then people will remember that someone built something, and they did it for a reason.

Build Don't Destroy

If you go to most cities you will see statues, in some older cities you will see statues that have stood for centuries. They have stood the test of time because they were built, not because something was destroyed. The memories of people in history last because they are brought into the light, not because some other person who opposed them was buried. We remember Leonidas not because he was buried, but because he stood, we remember Xerxes because he stood against Leonidas. We remember him not for what he fought against, but for what he fought for.

Tell your truth, but remind yourself that it is one truth among many truths. History is replete with truths; each person has their own story and own truths to tell. Individuals perform actions and individuals tell the stories, it is something that is often forgotten. Each truth needs to be told, as there is always multiple sides to each story that is told. Build don't bury, this is the way to be remembered and have the stories which are important remembered.

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

What Can We Learn from Movie "Bad Guys"?

 Greetings,

In general, we watch movies to be entertained. This is the primary reason that I watch them, to switch off for a little while and be taken on a journey, to be told a story. Within these stories, lessons can be taught, in much the same way that old fables were told, leaving a moral behind. Movies can have subtext within them about social issues, or other things. They can simply tell us something about our lives, or help us deal with some element of our lives, even give us ideas. It is most surprising that while most people focus on the hero or protagonist of the journey, on the "good guys," there are lessons that can be learned from the "bad guys" as well, if we close enough attention. The "bad guys" that have been selected are some of my favourites, you should consider your own list.

Yes, there are a few plot spoilers, hard to explain this whole thing without them.

1. Hannibal Lecter 

The first movie the character Hannibal Lecter appears in is "Silence of the Lambs" (1991), played by Sir Anthony Hopkins. The same character has appeared again in several movies following his exploits and also a Netflix series. The American Film Institute, or AFI, awarded the character No.1 on their Villains list for the "AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains".

What do we know of Hannibal Lecter? For those who have never seen the films, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, also known as "Hannibal the Cannibal" is a character created by Thomas Harris. A former forensic psychiatrist turned serial killer, and who eats his victims. Throughout the movies we see his predilection for violence of the most outrageous kind. 

What can we learn from such a character? What can we learn from an individual who has turned his back on many of the social mores? That is actually rather easy. His violence has timing. He begins in a cell, he waits until the opportune moment to strike, when his targets are at their most vulnerable. So he has timing and patience. His violence also has precision, it is not directed at everyone, only select targets. He projects civility, he talks with others in a civil manner. When he escapes he gets a job and acts in a civil manner toward people. This relates back to his timing and his precision.

Within the mind of the character there are these lessons that can be learned, that it is useful to be polite to everyone that a person meets, because a person never knows who the other might be. The movies teach other lessons, but I think this is the most telling. Politeness doesn't cost us anything.

2. Jason Voorhees

Jason Voorhees appears first in "Friday the 13th Part 2" (1981) as the killer, not the first movie and then appears in series of movies all the way up to "Jason X" (2001) which takes place in the future, for the strict series. Not to mention the re-boot in 2009. Added to this there is a cross-over movie with Freddy Kruger in "Freddy vs Jason" (2003), making twelve movies. 

Jason does not utter a singe line of dialogue throughout the entire set of movies. He just goes about his business killing off, mostly. horny late-teens who come to Camp Crystal Lake through various methods, his favourite method being with a machete. He is known for wearing a hockey goal-keeper's mask,  carrying a machete, and being relentless in his task. The one thing that is for sure, Jason keeps coming back and that nothing will stop him from completing his goal.

From Jason we can learn tenacity. When something knocks us down, we simply get back up again and keep coming back. With the assistance of his writers he keeps getting resurrected, we can't do that but similar things can be applied to other problems in life, not giving up on them. The single-minded focus of Jason can also be an asset, something that can drive us toward our goal.

The Jason movies mostly teach the watchers that people should not go places where they should not go, and where locals tell them they should not go. If the locals keep away from an area, there is a reason that they keep away from that area, in our normal lives it may not be some "psycho-killer" but it may be an equally good reason. The final lesson, actions have consequences.

3. The Kurgan

The Kurgan is the "bad guy" in "Highlander" (1986) and is played by Clancy Brown. It is said that should he win "the prize" then men would suffer an age of darkness. He only appears in the first of the "Highlander" movies, even though it is said that he is the strongest of the immortals.

There are rules that the immortals follow as they try to claim "the prize". They battle against one another in single combats, usually when one another are drawn together. Eventually when few are left there is a "Gathering" where the remaining few will fight for "the prize". It is mostly this "Gathering" that the movie focuses on and the conflict between the protagonist and the Kurgan. They don't fight on holy ground, that is one of their traditions. 

When the two main characters meet, at the end of the meeting the Kurgan remarks, "I have something to say! It's better to burn out than to fade away!" This is an inspiration to life, more it is an inspiration to live a full life rather than just let it go quietly away. Through the entire movie we see individuals who have lived for hundreds of years, whose lives are decided in duels, their ends are swift. They are not affected by illness or other forms of death, only death by the sword. The entire story of the "Highlander" is to live your life well, before it passes by your eyes and is gone.

4. Emperor Palpatine

Emperor Palpatine is the ultimate "bad guy" from the Star Wars franchise, chronologically, he is first seen in "Episode V: Emperor Strikes Back" (1980) where he is seen as the master to Darth Vader, who is previously seen as the ultimate "bad guy" and main antagonist to Luke Skywalker. However his first appearance as the story goes is as Senator Palpatine in "Episode I: The Phantom Menace" (1999). It could be claimed that the first three episodes or movies are actually the story of his rise to power.

Over the span of three movies he rises from a Senator of a relatively out of the way planet in the Republic, first to become Grand Chancellor of the Republic, and then Emperor. He manipulates the Senate so they would vote him into the position, and give him the power to put him in a position where he can rule the galaxy. He does this by clever dealings and political manipulation, and some personal manipulation along the way. 

The question is he really a "bad guy"? There is much talk about the Light and the Dark side of the Force throughout the movies. Maybe it is a matter of perspective, maybe it is just power and it is the manner in which one uses that decides whether a person is evil or not. It is evident that he has done some terrible things, such as wiping out the Jedi, or at least getting others to do it for him. On the other hand, he brought order to the galaxy as he also destroyed the leaders of seditious systems who were going to divide the galaxy. He did bring order to the galaxy for a period.

We learn from the Emperor about playing the long-game. There are things which do not go according to his plan, but he has patience and waits for things to fall into place before acting. He looks at his long-term objective and sacrifices immediate goals to put himself in a position to achieve his long-term goals. He wouldn't have had Anakin Skywalker, later Darth Vader, as an apprentice if he had approached him early, he had to wait until the time was right.

5. Tyler Durden

Continuing on with characters who are questionable "bad guys" we have Tyler Durden, who is played by Brad Pitt in "Fight Club" (1999) he stands as the alter-ego of the Narrator, played by Edward Norton. The pair of them get along very well for the most part of the movie, but there is a split toward the end of the movie where Jack realises Tyler's intent and goes against it. Jack being the protagonist means that Tyler is the antagonist, thus the "bad guy" of the movie.

The question needs to be asked, just as with Emperor Palpatine, above, is he really a "bad guy"? Yes, he causes the protagonist consternation. Yes, he causes property damage on a large scale, or at least three buildings' worth. Yes, he causes untold financial chaos in the end of the movie, to which we never see the results. He also takes the Narrator out of his boring life and allows him to live a better one, free of his previous constraints. Indeed he frees, it would seem, hundreds if not thousands of others from theirs as well. Through his property destruction he erases the debt, bringing everyone back to zero, would this not be better for everyone?

The greatest thing that Tyler Durden teaches, comes from a line just over half-an-hour into the film, "The things you own end up owning you." Think about this carefully and you will see the truth of it. If you buy a car, you need to fill it with fuel, pay registration, insurance, and licensing fees. If you own a house you need to pay rates, and if you don't own it mortgage; if you don't rent or leasing fees, and bond. Even if you have other stuff, you still have to have a place to keep it, to look after it.

Tyler Durden teaches us what freedom is, what it means to be truly free in our modern society, what means to go against the mainstream. The fight clubs he sets up are against the norm because people in our modern day don't want to fight for the most part, they will avoid it as much as they can. Our modern society has tried to drive our fighting instincts from us. He goes against most things in society; he does not dress conventionally; they live in a rundown place on the edge of town; they do what they have to interacting with society to survive and nothing more. Most people could not deal with this level of freedom for many reasons, but his character reminds us that it does exist.

Watch and Learn

Movies tell us stories to entertain us, but within these stories there are lessons. Sometimes these lessons are stark and obvious, sometimes they are hidden within the context and sub-text of the movie. Sometimes you have to look at characters you might not have expected to learn those lessons. 

Most of the time we look at the protagonist and what they do for the answers, for how to deal with a situation. Sometimes it is helpful to also look elsewhere, at the companions of the protagonist, or maybe even at the antagonists, those who oppose the protagonist. The actions of those who stand against one another can be as useful a lesson, each side being as important as the other.

Look further afield. Broaden your mind, and you will find some interesting things to be learned all about you.

Cheers,

Henry.