| |
|
In terms of a cinematic justification for this kind of behaviour does the state take it's signifiers from hollywood or vice versa?
I think there's a reciprocal flow of ideas between the two. I'm just pulling this one out for a good look because, of the options on offer, this seems to be the one getting an airing.
Snake Plisken was mentioned earlier in the thread. Is this character in some way more admirable or honest than Rambo because he doesn't have the society corrupting hypocrisy of the "wrong bastard" archetype, he is just a villain working for amoral authorities? If so is this a triumph of nihilism over idealism?
Plisken, to me, is a little closer to the original Gangster Warshow talks about. He lives in a world which is patently unfair, and the odds are stacked against him. I think the difference is that where the Gangster chooses to reject the rules of a world which basically retains its moral compass but cannot reward good behaviour, and therefore must be punished, Plisken exists in a Gangster state where there is no moral compass, and he must be an outlaw to survive. It's worth noticing, however, that he never comes out ahead - perhaps because he's a curmudgeonly, basically criminal or amoral man; Plisken is not a revolutionary. He doesn't have the moral certitude required to stand up and rebel against those who make his world lousy, he just does bad things to get bad people off his back.
Movies are often weirdly moralistic things.
Does connecting the wrong bastard to the shaman not suggest that the wrong bastard has always been with us?
The Shaman has always been with us, perhaps. And the Wrong Bastard fills that role in some ways. Does that sit well with you? There are other ways of being a shaman in this world, but this one is being popularised. Frankly, I'd rather not think of Rambo as the keeper of the spiritual heart of the tribe, the knower of the secret nature of the world. I'd prefer that to be someone capable of thinking outside the box.
Potentially couldn't the inaction of the hypothetical "innocent" society be seen as evil? We won't kill Nazis because it's wrong to kill?
I never said anything about inaction. I didn't even say that killing was wrong. I said the Wrong Bastard isn't a good model for political or social expression of the most powerful nation on Earth.
Men trying to make sense of the world they've found themselves in and what is the appropriate action to the bad situations they find themselves in.
There are many models for making sense of these situations. Some of them are fictional, some theoretical, some very specific and some general, some religious, some secular, some economic, some structural, some individual. The Wrong Bastard model, where you kick seven kinds of shit out of the bad guy, get a flesh wound, suffer no trauma that a good woman can't heal, and vanish to some farm in Arkansas, is not the most sophisticated, convincing, or positive. This one is being peddled, and I want to know how and why.
And it's Joe Lansdale. |
|
|
