Gladiator 2: some quick thoughts. SPOILER ALERT.
On Violence Am I just as sensuously bloodthirsty as the Romans if I enjoy the scenes of gladiator combat (the naval battle was cool I admit)? I caught myself thinking how brutal those Romans were as I gawked at sharks plucking off fallen soldiers. In general, I'm not a fan of violence. Gladiator 2 had a few doozies but was fortunately not soaked in blood. On Rage and Paths Taken Denzel and Lucius start off the same, cynical and hellbent on Rome's destruction—each rage embodied. We even eventually learn that they both share the empire's brandings—the scars of power. In the end, Denzel becomes the lone destructive force and chaos agent while Lucius becomes a reformer who wishes to restore the Republic. This offers us as viewers the opportunity to consider which path we might be on. Gladiator 2 = Philosophy 101 The basic (very timely) question the film explores is whether justice is anything more than the rule of the stronger? Denzel seeks the law of power alone. Denzel is Thrasymachus is Trump. Anyone? On Fatherhood and Fascism Gladiator 2 got me thinking about loyalty and fatherhood. Men, even grown men, need fathers? Recently, some sports figures and others have begun doing the "Trump Dance". It has been well documented that Trump went out of his way to court young men and men in general, cladding himself in the undeserved aura of masculineness, most evident in Hulk Hogan's multiple appearances at GOP and Trump events, Trump's attendance at UFC events and close relationship with its CEO (combat sport as a means of controlling the masses, channeling their Dionysian energies through spectacle, is a key theme in both Gladiators [I highly recommend the new mini-series Mr. McMahon on Netflix, which I think, advertently or inadvertently makes an interesting connection between Trumpian fascism and the WWE (Vince McMahon's wife, Linda, has been tagged to head the education department)]). In UFC and WWE (particularly the latter), politics is reduced to the narrow terms of sheer force, violence, and dominance and submission. In Gladiator 2, Lucius wins the loyalty of the people and the army. He chooses to use that to restore the Republic. The question I leave you with is, is fascism ultimately adherence to a surrogate State father? See also. On Monkeys and Men And finally, monkeys and baboons make a few key appearances. Once as the consort of a syphilitic, tyrant emperor and in an early scene as a mad troop of baboons warring with gladiators in a frontier arena. Lucius bites the baboon and takes the posture and manners of one. He is later mocked by his fellow gladiators with monkey hoots. The connection is clear: the law of power, force, and violence is the law of the jungle—the way of the chimp. Trump's law. Our lead baboon. (I highly recommend Carl Safina's book Becoming Wild where he describes the cultural dynamics of chimps and bonobos). See also. Gladiator 2 self-consciously sought to speak to our moment. I wonder however how it lands for the diverse American and global audiences that see it. In short, it’s a fine film that is well worth seeing, though not as good as the first (they never are). And sorry to talk about Trump.
0 Comments
Last night, I had the opportunity to see this new film starring photographer James Balog, who was previously featured in Chasing Ice. I highly recommend seeing The Human Element if you have the chance. What I really enjoyed about it is how well it evokes and thus makes palpable and sensual the complexities of the human relationship with nature. James and the filmmakers are able to successfully present complex scientific connections and ideas that are often confined to the language and presentation of scientific abstraction--a step too far removed from our animal senses to move us emotionally and thus to move us to action. The Human Element is thus an important contribution in shaping our future.
This need to ground climate change discussion in the terms of immediate sensation has previously been addressed by David Abram. There is a wonderful segment of the film where James sends a camera attached to a weather balloon into the upper atmosphere to sensorially demonstrate just how thin the earth's atmosphere really is. I found it moving and very akin to the kind of evocation that David Abram seems to suggest is needed. A little ironic perhaps since the mediums of film and photography necessarily mediate our senses. Another instance of philosophical interface is in James's consideration of the element of fire. He notes that the internal combustion engine hid fire from our view and thus disclosed our relationship with it. We too easily forget this dynamic process and thus blindly consume the ancient fossil fuels pulled out of the earth to our great collective detriment. This is a fantastic example of what philosopher Albert Borgmann calls the device paradigm. Philosophy aside, The Human Element is an entertaining and scientifically engaged presentation of how humans have become an increasingly significant force of nature. It manages all this without being politically divisive or preachy. Interestingly, it is completely focused on the U.S., often on conservative regions of the country that may deny the scientific evidence for climate change. Hopefully, the film will create room for positive engagement with these populations. The U.S. focus is also important as Americans are the highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases on earth, and thus need to make the most changes. One downside in leaving out international examples is that some of the regions where the greatest climate change impacts are occurring, like small island states and low-lying countries, such as Bangladesh, are excluded. In sum, this is a beautiful film. Please see and share it with others. |
Chris Dunn, PhD
Researcher, writer, explorer*, photographer, thinker. Wrestling with nature, culture, technology. Archives
November 2024
Categories
All
*When I use the term "exploration", I mean it in a personal sense (discovery for myself, or at a unique moment in time [everywhere after all--even crowded cities--endlessly await rediscovery--by new eyes and in new moments]), not in an absolute sense. With few exceptions (notably Antarctica), almost everywhere on earth has had other people around for a long time (though to varying degrees - high mountain tops or places like the interior of the Greenland Ice Sheet for instance were far less visited and populated, and undoubtedly at least some pockets of the earth were never visited or populated). It is an enlightening experience though when on an isolated ridge in what feels like the middle of nowhere to wonder if anyone has set foot there but never knowing for sure. What is significant is that the landscape itself is left in such a condition that it isn't evident. Some places ought to be kept that way.
|