United 93

During the showing of United 93, I had a strong desire to go and kill Muslims. I was frightened by this. What had fired up my blood? It was the sight of innocent people being set up to be murdered.

No reason was given for this slaughter. There was no soul-searching by the murderers. They were just going to kill Americans.

The only indication of a motive is the picture of a Mosque the new pilot clips to the plane's rudder controls.

The armed rebellion is interesting in that the ordinary people sit passively under the violence that is inflicted on them. This is how people are conditioned in the West. We are trained to await our leaders to guide us and help us.

In a way, this movie reveals how an American revolution would unflod. The people would continue to absorb more and more alien information until they realise that the situation is completely hopeless unless they act.

The response of the hijackers, in this movie, is also instructive: they respond with increasing threats of violence to ever increasing acts of defiance. This response eventually fails.

In the real world, the ruling class relies on violence, propaganda, and bribery to maintain control. Thus the task of revolutionaries is much more difficult. Why should people risk their comfort for the unknown?

It is a bit difficult to change pilots once the plane crashes into the building

Read more!

Fearless

Jet Li's movie, Fearless, is an interesting insight into how some Chinese want to develop Capitalism in their country. They fear the foreign domination that existed in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

The movie is about pre-revolutionary China and the humiliations that the Chinese suffered under foreign domination. The message is that the Chinese have the strength and knowledge to take on the rest of the world. However, the relationship between China and Japan is portrayed as ambivalent.

This movie is a nationalistic propaganda film about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huo_Yuanjia">Huo Yuan Jia who defeated four (4) opponents in an epic martial arts contest in Shanghai on 14 September 1910.

According to this article at WikiPedia, this movie distorts the life of Huo Yuan Jia.

Interpretation

I am not interested in the factual nature of this movie but rather in its political interpretation. There are two (2) main classes of actors in this movie: Capitalists and fighters. These are presented as the driving force behind the events of the movie. These classes of actors are further divided by ethnicity. This classification scheme is in itself interesting because these actors are the only ones portrayed as shaping events. Everyone else is at their mercy or lack thereof.

Yet in spite of their passivity, these others create the major turning point of the movie. It is when the competitive nature of Huo Yuan Jia confronts the stoic nature of the Chinese peasants, that Yuan Jia grows spiritually and is then able to begin the journey to redeem China's honour. Action through being not doing.

Classification

In the movie, there are three (3) types of Capitalists presented:

1. The Chinese are represented by the restauranter;
2. The Europeans and Americans are represented by the three (3) members of the Shanghai Trade Federation;
3. The Japanese business-man.

And there are four (4) types of fighters:

1. The Chinese;
2. The American O'Brien who called the Chinese the weak men of the East;
3. The Europeans with their swords, lances, and fists; and
4. The Japanese Tanaka.

Note that the Americans are perceived as independent fighters but undifferientated Capitalists with the Europeans.

The Chinese

The Capitalist

The Restaurant owner despairs over the constant fighting between Chinese which has allowed the foreigners to dominate the political and economic life of China. When Yuan Jia returns and announces that he wants to fight O'Brien, it is the restaurant owner who finances the challenge. When Yuan Jia wants to form the sports federation to unite all Chinese martial arts bodies, the restaurant owner sells his business to finance the project.

The Chinese capitalist puts country and honour before profit. Only he has the knowledge and wisdom to do the right thing: to be patriotic.

The Fighter

The Chinese fighter is Huo Yuan Jia, the hero of the movie. He starts out as a highly competitive individual who reaches the peak at a terrible cost to his family, his honour, his friends, and his self-respect. It is not until he healed by the Chinese peasants that he reorientates his life away from competition and to service.

In his final fight, he fights to reclaim Chinese honour at the cost of his own life.

Summary

Since this is a Chinese film, the Chinese are the heroes for their patriotism and self-sacrifice: the capitalist surrenders his wealth; and the fighter his life.

The Japanese

The Capitalist

It is the Japanese capitalist who conspires with the white capitalists to humiliate the Chinese by arranging for the fight to be fixed through the rules and through treachery. It is to be four (4) against one (1): English; Spanish; German; and finally, Japanese. If all else fails, Yuan Jia will be poisoned.

The Fighter

Tanaka is presented as a sympathetic character. He has the wisdom to see that Huo is being set up.

When Tanaka concedes the fight to Huo, Tanaka is confronted by the Japanese capitalist. Tanaka is asked why he ceded the match to Huo. Tanaka replies that he knows, in his heart, that he lost. Tanaka accuses the capitalist of not being a true Japanese because he prefers profit over honour.

Summary

This is an interesting juxtaposition between the Japanese capitalist and fighters. The latter is portrayed as more honourable than the former in spite of the brutal occupation of Manchuria and other parts of China from 1932 until 1945. The Rape of Nanking was not done by the capitalists but by the military. The Japanese were afflicted by the same racial prejudice against the Chinese as were the Westeners.

The Americans

The Capitalist

The cast lists an American capitalist but his presence has no influence on the movie. Could this be a calculated insult?

The Fighter

O'Brien is an American boxer who has proclaimed that the Chinese are the weak men of the East. This insult propels Huo on his journey of redemption to restore his country's honour. The fight ends in O'Brien proclaiming Huo to be the winner. This is similar to what Tanaka does at the end of the film.

Summary

Jet Li portrays the Americans as brawn but no brains. However, the Americans will gracefully accept defeat at the hands of the superior Chinese. I don't think so.

The Europeans

The Capitalists

These are portrayed as a cabal who act at the instigation of the Japanese capitalist. Even they balk at some of the methods of the Japanese captalist.

The Fighters

The European fighters are presented as one-trick warriors. Tanaka and Huo would several rounds with the weapons used by each European: fists, sword, and lance.

Could Jet Li be saying that Westeners can only do one thing whereas the Orientals (Chinese and Japanese) can master all of these?

Summary

The Europeans are presented as bit-players in the titanic struggle between two Oriental cultures.

Conclusion

The fading of American influence with the collapse of its Capitalist economy will only leave its military might. Even this can be overcome by the Chinese.

The conclusion could be that China can take on the world and win by using competition to find out its own weaknesses. This is the arrogance one finds among nascent Capitalist powers.

There is still the complexity of the relationship between China and Japan. The brutality of the thirteen (13) year war by Japan against China is a gaping wound between philosphical allies. The message of this movie could be that the love of money caused the Japanese to behave dishonourably.

But this is an unresolved conflict within Capitalism: how to behave honourably while making money? Jet Li is naive if he thinks that Chinese Capitalists can put the national interests above their own. A Capitalist does what is best for him not for the rest of us.

Read more!

Misogyny's rise no surprise when self-respect rejected

Miranda Devine says that Misogyny's rise no surprise when self-respect rejected. Her conclusion is that the violence against women is their own fault.

She concludes:

Why would a man respect a woman who doesn't respect herself, when most of society's traditional protections for women have been torn down, often by women themselves, in the name of freedom?

But freedom to flash your genitalia to the world is not liberating. It's just sad and ugly, reducing womanly allure to the level of a baboon and giving men no reason to behave well.

An adult is responsible for their own behaviour. Children are not. What Ms Devine describes is the behaviour of children: these are males of adult years but not maturity who assault and abuse women.

I think Ms Devine is touching several issues here:

• Women have responsiblity for their choices but men have no responsibility for their reactions;
• Traditional protection was good;
• Respect for ourselves automatically translates into respect by others

Responsibility

In the movie, Spartacus, there is this exchange after a woman slave is put into his cell:

Spartacus I am not an animal! I am not an animal!

Varinia Neither am I.

What separates us from the animals is that we can take responsibility for our actions. We are aware of the consequences and we make a conscious choice.

The way I read Ms Devine's article is that she absolves males of adult age of any responsibility for their actions. A woman gets punched so it is her fault for dressing that way:

There is a terrible misogyny abroad at the moment - that has men walk up to attractive female strangers in nightclubs and hit them - not hit on them but punch them in the head with their fists.

During schoolies week on the Gold Coast last month, for example, a 19-year-old man walking down Cavill Avenue king-hit pretty 18-year-old Natalie Montoya in the face, out of the blue, as she was standing on the corner with a group of girlfriends.

"F--- off, slut," he said, knocking her to the ground and leaving her with a swollen nose and bleeding face.

These are not men. These are not even animals. They are just ???? I am unable to describe them.

These are a problem for the male culture to resolve, not for women.

Traditional Protection

Ms Devines seems to opine for the good old days when women were protected because of the strong cultural ties.

She is unable to recall that women were raped, bashed, killed, multilated, insulted, demeaned, sold off into marriage. Indeed, the clothing of the Victorian Era did not stop Jack the Ripper.

Ms Devine forgets that with freedom comes risk.

Self-Respect

The canard that when we have self-respect, then others will respect us, afflicts all persecuted minorities: blacks, women, Catholics, black women, black Catholic women, etc.

Whether I respect someone else is up to me. This is not an automatic reaction on my part.

It is up to me to overcome my prejudice against you. You could have the most convincing arguments and be able to exhibit the greatest self-repect ever. But if I want to be an arsehole, then I will still be an arsehole until I stop being an arsehole.

What then is Feminism?

Feminism is simply a recognition of this dialogue:

Man I am not an animal!

Woman Neither am I.

Read more!