I went to watch this beautiful clip again...what is considered the best speech in movie history
But I was reminded of Zizek's commentary on the picture which brings out the subtle, genius of Chaplin which can only exist behind the "Go Humanity" speech we just saw...
It's issues like these... and the subtlety of ideology/religion where it doesn't work in the explicit message, but behind the curtain.
While Zizek isn't explicit about this Chaplin scene, my interpretation (and what I think Zizek was alluding to) of the use of Wagner in the Great Dictator is that the where we first encounter the Wagner song is the Hitler character kicking around the globe imagining how to take over the world....
Of course the Hitler character fails. And we get the Chaplin Jew speaking in the place of Hitler where we encounter the Great Dictator Speech from above. And in this scene we get the return of the Wagnerian music.
The typical interpretation of the scene seems to be to remember Chaplin as humble man delivering the message that gives hope to the world through a message of democracy and belief in the Human Spirit...
And in the humble Chaplin, we find a man who seems to accidentally stumble into the spotlight grabbing the heart of the masses by giving his seemingly obvious, humanist opinions (though with a bit of passion)...
And we're all like AMERICA! I LOVE YOU! GO DEMOCRACY....
However, Chaplin was no respectful pro-American actor.... He was regularly in trouble with the government and had to take up residence across the ocean for much of his career...
The man was a communist...
And below the surface of the speech... we see a lot of subtle things that Zizek picks up on:
-The Return of the Wagner Song.
-The arm movements of the Jewish Chaplin are eerily reminiscent of Hitler's arm movements.
-And the audience is displayed as kind of a group "en masse" just like the German masses were united under one flag with one cause under one leader...
And perhaps, if you look closely enough, you can see Chaplin shining through his character.... A few split moments, that we want to forget about as a viewer.... But we can't forget them within the context of the speech and maybe we just count it as the humility of thew Jewish Chaplin coming out amidst the fanfare of his speech....
Let me repeat... Chaplin was a communist. His views would naturally have been against the opinion of the speech he expressed. However, his movie has to be made into a success for the American, Democratic loving audience... So Chaplin makes the surface movie that is so widely revered amongst us... But behind the movie, we catch the brilliance of Chaplin as he subverts the movie's own intended message...
I would argue that the horror we see in Chaplin's face is the discovery that the way to take over the world and unite the masses is not through the totalitarian rhetoric of Hitler and the German Nationalists, but the takeover can be much more subtle and much more powerful.... if the rhetoric is clothed with humanist, pro-democracy rhetoric...
So now we continue where we left off from the last post....
Except applying our idea of "The Gaze" within a postmodern-apostolic context.
It's so like a math problem. I like math.
But I like story problems involving math better.
So we go to Halloween, the movie. The one with Michael Myers. (And don't worry, there is no violence in the making of this blog.... I could show this to little kids and they wouldn't even be scared)...
You know? The dude behind the window in this picture....
First things first.... for our purposes and what I think the director of the film was doing:
Michael Myers = The Gaze
So The Gaze is best experienced when we sit in a movie theater (except we as Apostolics don't do that right?) or a play or at church...
In other words, when we sit as a spectator (or viewer) we become the Gaze who watches a performance (whereas last week we talked about the Gaze as the feeling we get when we are the ones being watched).....
So Michael Myers looking at Jamie Lee Curtis in the picture above.... He is no different than you watching a movie or watching a sermon where the person performing doesn't know you exist (or at least in that moment, the performer's world is so much bigger than your own individual self watching)...
So, Video, which is the very opening scene of the Halloween Movie:
In this scene, the camera is acting as "The Gaze." The camera is unsteady. It gives the viewer the sense that he is walking. We don't know if we are supposed to be seeing a scene (as per a usual movie) or if we are supposed to be seeing a scene through someone elses eyes....
As the camera nears it's target (the house), we vaguely see two kids getting, ummm, friskey?
The kids leave the view of the camera into another room...
The camera follows and finds another view of the kids, getting a little ummm, friskier?
The scene continues with the kids running upstairs, once again out of the view of the camera, and the viewer (and the Gaze). (slightly edited)...
Notice when the music comes on? Just as the upstairs lights are turned out to add "privacy."
The camera (or viewer or the Gaze) is not happy. Next thing we know, the camera is inside the house, but we find out this camera has an arm and it's grabbing a knife....
We now see that the Gaze we, the viewer are embodying is that of someone (and not just a camera)..
So I skipped the next couple moments in light of there being a murder (I think you can understand)...
But The Gaze walks upstairs and kills the female subject who was just seen making out....
And the viewer is all like "What in the world is going on here?"
And I"m like, "I know, right?"
So we pick up the scene just after the killing...and the killer has a mask on and is descending downstairs ...
And we are all like NOOOOOO!?!?!?!
Because the killer was a boy (who happens to be Michael Myers) and his parents are all like WHHHAATTTT?....And the most intriguing thing to me about this scene is that the teenage couple was making out while the parents were gone and that the boy (michael Myers before he grows up) is The Gaze who is acting out in violence in the absence of the parents.....
The director of Halloween is brilliant. I maintain this...
Also, intermission...
Now, you're wonding what's the point? And i'm like...yeah what's the point?
But that's why we need to think, and reflect, and meditate upon the images that were laid before our eyes ....
But basically, the Gist is this about the Gaze: In a postmodern world that kills the importance of Law, rules, and Objective, Absolute truth, we basically lose the role of the parent (or the authority figure) in our lives.... At most parents or pastors can make suggestions of how we are to live but we don't have to obey it.
Any rules we follow are our choice.... This is the nihilistic (meaningless) side of postmodernism...
I'm not defending Authority or the Law or Apostolic Truth by any means...
I'm simply using Halloween and the use of "The Gaze" within Halloween to show what we postmoderns get in return for our freedom (like the girl gets killed for exhibiting her ummmm friskiness while the parents were away)....
When we live free, we don't get this magical candyland where everything is oh so pretty and lovely (I'm think Rob Bell here)....
And nor does this mean to go running to an authority figure or religion and make yourself unquestioning servants to their rule simply because they showed you a scripture or their logic "makes sense." (I have in mind the Mark Driscoll/Reform Camp)
No, in this world we get loneliness, anxiety, and neuroticism.... Instead of parents, we get The Gaze.... The Gaze is Never ever present, but it's always just around the corner haunting us.....
You know those days that you feel just absolutely miserable and you don't have any words to describe the feeling and you don't have any reason to feel like you do? That dread? That I think is one of the symptoms of our postmodern age..
Not only are we freee to do anything.... we are also feeling guilty for everything.... And we don't know what do about these feelings......
On a closing note (bow heads)....
We go back to Halloween...
Halloween was made in 1978.
Several years after the whole freedom movement and the hippie movement had died out... In other words postmodernism was very optimistic when it was initiated in living practice in the 1960's.
But in the 1970's we could begin to sense it's inability to live up to expectations (as the hippies went and got corporate jobs)....
But the one crowning feature of Halloween and what made me go research for this post was that the most haunting thing to me about Michael Myers (and the Gaze for that matter) is that he never, ever runs at his target or the vicitim.....But yet He (and the Gaze) will always catch up to his victim no matter how hard they run.....
In this clip, you can vaguely see Michael Myers in the background (between cuts of Jamie Lee Curtis knocking doors)...Michael is walking towards a horrified Jamie Lee Curtis.... Just walking and pacing... in no good hurry...IN fact, unreasonably slow...
In this postmodern age where our neighbor is "virtual" and we don't know the name of our neighbor next door, there is not sense of community to bring us together... We have no where to hide like jamie lee curtis doesn't in the above clip (notice that the neighbor's comedically just "turn on the light" hoping that is enough of an aid). In our hunger for privacy we lose our chance of reaching out for help and worse yet, our lose our ability to be in view for others to ask us for help....
We are free after all. So if we get into trouble it's our own fault and we know we can't ask anyone for help....Likewise if other people are free and we are free and we are able to "make it" if anyone is in trouble it must be "their own fault."
When I hear terrible men preach at big conferences (not all our terrible), I see them get all red faced and promise us that if we leave church we will be miserable and empty.......
Yes, I completely agree.
But what they don't question is why did we leave in the first place? Because we were still experiencing the Gaze the emptiness in church as well....
But when these preachers talk about the vengeance of God.... Their veins pop out and stuff.....And they seem to get some kind of sadomasochist pleasure about telling young people that things will be awful if they leave the religion and the truth......
And I don't think their wrong... but I don't think it's something that should be wished on anyone....
Because what these preachers are talking about is "The Gaze" (or a Michael Myers) that will haunt us when our own free choices have left us to a life of anxiety and dread....
But the secret is "The Gaze" doesn't work for the preachers.... and it's not a validation for the Truth of the UPC.....It's something far deeper than that that is not bound by one denomination....
The Gaze is what we are left with when we don't have to answer to anyone.....
There's another name for that, It's called the Fall.
And only when one realizes the Fall through the insecurity and fragility felt in the face of the Gaze, can we seek redemption. The Gaze is entirely a Godly matter. Not a religious one.
This is why I don't fear postmodernism. What I do fear are men who are still trying to defend the hierarchy of authority which is a remnant of a long dead age of modernity....
I tried crushing this post for the past three days into one blog....But the beast was too much, and had to compromise my staunch stance. Alas, you get two posts... the first one is about us and us being confused. The second one will be the incorporation of the movie "Halloween."
Part 1...
It was a strange night....One of those "I can't sleep but I have no reason to not be asleep" nights. And all one can do is find random things to think about. It is in these moments I do some of my most enjoyable philosophizing. On my mind this particular evening was this spectacular essay I had read called the "Anti-Anti-Oedipus: Representing Post-Fordist Subjectivity" by Mathias Nilges which is definitely lengthy and wordy at times but was one of the more interesting theoretical essays i have read in some time. The analysis of Fight Club alone was worth the read.
While the author was dealing with a kind of economic Post-modernism (postfordism), his critique worked just as well in regards to the postmodern culture.
And at stake of this critique is the cost/rewards of ridding ourselves of an authority figure(s) who we as postmodernist no longer have to follow or model our lives after...
Basically.... 50 years ago and beyond, our whole culture ran very traditionally in terms of a fordist model of economic development whose conversation would go something like this....
Fordist (Traditional Model)-
Dad: Hey son, I know it seems difficult work, but the right thing to do is follow in your old man's footsteps by keeping a good work ethic and you'll become a man soon enough and be able to start your own family by working in the factory (or farm, etc....)....
Son: Awww shucks dad. Thanks a lot. I look forward to toiling the land and enjoying the fruits of my labor
(Father and Son exchange grinning smiles as if they understand an inside joke).....
However in the 1960's, things went wrong. So wrong..... Satan showed up. Rock and Roll showed up. And there was dancing. And the Beatles. And marijuana. Tons of marijuana. Long hair for the girls and long hair for the guys. And Woodstock. People smiled. Acid was there too. Definitely acid...... Young people, all of them naked. It was the time of love (or rebellion depending on which side of WWII you were born on).
And for your video illustration, a clip from Woodstock (music by: Canned Heat)-
What I am especially concerned about here is how the acid dancers at the 2:05 mark seem to dance the same way some people do at my old church.....and those people at my old church are definitely at the ripe age to have been apart of the hippy crowd back then (yikes).
But anyways, long story short... in the 1960's, the kids basically said, "I hate you dad. I don't have to follow your rules. You're a fake, etc.."
And there were a lot of mean things said and thought about anyone in an authority role (The Vietnam War didn't help things here either)....
Basically growing up to be like your dad only worked for so long... but by the time the Baby Boomers became of age, the model was falling apart....
So in the 1960's we get a kind of cultural postmodernism where love is preached and people are suspicious of Truth because Truth is preached by those in charge...So basically, what was touted by the kids was freedom, whose message was essentially...
"There is no Master to follow. There is no Truth. Everything is relative. Therefore you are your own destiny. You make the rules."
This is a vulgar form of postmodernism but it caught on. And everyone seemed to think it was a good thing...
But now, 43 years later...
The Truth of the Postmodern Man
We are lonely.
So lonely.
Alienated would be another word.
We don't have to do anything daddy tells us. This is good.
But at the same time we don't have a Daddy to help us. This is bad.
We also obsess over brand names (Starbucks, and Apple and Ikea) ....
We are the shining star of image obsession. We don't care about Starbucks coffee. We care about Starbucks. We don't care about the quality of the Ikea furniture but just the way it looks. We don't care about Apple's lack of capability. We care about it's simplicity and look.
When we purchase the things we want, we find no satisfaction....
If we were to speak we think no one would listen. No one is listening. If someone speaks, we aren't listening either unless you wrote a book.
And certainly, since postmoderns make their own rules, they can't ask for help because that would be a sign of weakness and no weakness is understood in a world where one is free to be themselves and live the way they want....
And nor do we like people bothering us. Sure there are some people we will always have over and listen to, but past that few trustworthy friends, there is no one we want to hear from....
And no one we want to talk to....
We are more anxious, more neurotic, isolated, and technological saavy than any other generation....
We are the wooden Pinocchio. Except we cut our strings from the Master Geppetto. So we are wooden without someone to guide us. We are free. But definitely still wooden. So all we are left with is us trying to convince ourselves we are a real live boy. We are wooden. Our grandparents were wooden, but at least they didn't cut the strings....
(And no this is not a post preaching the need to go back to the way things were)...
But the question is why?
Why are we so lonely?
Why do we struggle with being consistent with our walk with God so much?
The Gaze (or I'm watching you)
In film theory and psychoanalysis there is this concept called "The Gaze." Basically, the gaze can be understood in a few ways:
1) That feeling when you are home alone and you feel like someone is watching you through the window from outside.
2) That noise you hear from somewhere near, but also somewhere where there should be no noises. The noises that make you ask a friend "Did you hear that?" And if they did the fear heightens. If they didn't hear the noise, you are crazy. It's a lose-lose.
3) That feeling that "God is watching you" (as if he was a stalker hiding in the corner of the room).
4) That feeling when you catch an animal staring at you from the corner of your eye (usually a house pet), and when you turn to look at the animal, you can't help but think the animal is human and is observing you from the position of a judge. And seriously, when I find an animal staring at me like it knows what I'm thinking, I want to laugh it off but that stupid pet is there staring at me still and it won't look away and it knows that I want it to look away and that's why it's staring that much longer (seriously creeps me out).
Basically the Gaze is that feeling, where you come to feel that you are the object being stared at and watched but yet this sensation had no logical explanation, and usually it's source can't be pinpointed.....
See Exhibit A:
The Gaze is here embodied by Michael Myers at the beginning of the clip. Jamie Lee Curtis sees a vague image of a man. And when her friend goes to find this mysterious stalker, he of course is nowhere to be found.
The Gaze is there. And then it's not....
And when you are alone, and you feel the Gaze watching you.... you usually can't help but feel like you are the actor in a movie and some unseen eye is preying on you as it's source of entertainment....
This matters.
The Gaze and Postmodern Apostolics...
Because when you are doing "good" with God, and you feel you have his approval, you aren't going to feel the Gaze, Because God, your Father is For you and with you.
But the Gaze is very closely associated with loneliness, alienation, or guilt. Usually when you sense "The gaze," it corresponds to one of those feelings.
Because if you sin in private or with one or two other people, technically no one saw you from outside "the sin"...
But yet, you can't help but feel someone is watching you during or after the sin....
Or when you are alone....and you can't enjoy anything.... Why do you feel alone? Why can't you enjoy yourself? And then the worst moment is while you are all alone, you begin to think these stupid thoughts. You speculate that maybe this whole living thing isn't about your freedom, but rather about someone watching you just like you watch your favorite sitcom character on TV.
Or for Apostolics, as children the Gaze is personified when we find ourselves alone for too long... we assume the Rapture happened and we missed it. Dad and Mom got called to heaven and now they won't be there to watch you, nor protect you. Your loneliness as a child looks for an explanation (e.g. "the rapture happened") which just results in more loneliness.
Of course the Gaze isn't real. It's completely a psychological condition. I would experience the Gaze a whole lot more as a child than I do these days (but randomly my dog adds the "gaze" here and there)....But seriously, the Gaze never actually dies....
What's the point?
The point is simple....
In the Good old days.... when there was a hierarchy of power and a set model to adapt (like growing up to be a farmer like your dad), there was someone to answer to. A real authority figure in one's life (be it a pastor or a father figure) offers much comfort that postmoderns don't get today....Back then, There was someone to argue with. There was someone to hate if you found your days miserable. You could thank your dad, church, pastor, God for the blessings, and then get secretly frustrated if things went wrong. Of course freedom as we understand it, was out of the question. But there was an order to this thing.... We like order....
Basically if life is good in the Traditional Model, you can attribute it to God and dad raising your right.
If life was bad in the Traditional Model, you can attribute it to sin and dad being too bossy and controlling....
There was always someone to thank and always someone to blame....
But now, dear God....
Who to blame when we raised ourselves (or at least we are raised to think we are in charge of our own choices)? Who to struggle against when there is nothing left to struggle for?
Why do we feel guilty when we know God forgives sins and Truth is relative? Who do we thank when things are good?
And even when I know that I am free why do I still find myself having to answer to that stupid Gaze in the midst of my lonliness? if I am free, why don't I feel like it?
My speculation obviously revolves around the Gaze......But I think it's much more complicated than that... And thus an analysis of the Halloween movie will help us out.....which will happen in part 2 of this post...
I will say that when thinking about the role of authority and fathers in our lives.... it's not a coincidence that the liberal "postmodern" or "emergent" leaning youth pastors and pastors are the sons of strong, dominating male figures. At the same time, the big time conservative UPC evangelists are the sons of father figures who were absent, not as "dominating" or at least, not as much in "the spotlight."
And I think our understanding of the Gaze is a big help to explaining this pattern...
I understand the situations we are dealing with here man. We are spoiled young people. There are people in need. We just need to wake the young people up and get them to stop obsessing over tweets and technology and writing stupid sermons that we think are so brilliantly witty. Then we will be in peace in our total devotion and love to giving to those in need. But how? How can we wake our selfish, materialist slumbering selves up? Well according to this Youtube clip, if homeless people want more help, they just need to do some clever marketing:
Now I know the movie directors meant well...
And my one friend thought it was good enough that he wanted to do a remake for it for a youth service...
I am on board with this.
Because I like feeling God. And If I can't feel God, watching a film clip that has slow, elegant classical music with an inspiring but subtle ending makes me feel like I feel God and that's good enough...
I really do think the clip is well done...
But the ideology of the clip is a symptom of what terrible creatures us postmodernists have become
Because the underlying message here is: Homeless people don't matter. Marketing Slogans (logos, gimmicks, etc....) do matter.
The actual problem of homelessness or being in need is not the problem. The problem is lack of creativity by the homeless man.
Think about it: The man could barely get money. And then, his savior, all dressed in upper elitist fashion comes along and has the grace within her busy life to stop and restructure the man's entire advertising campaign. And with a few strokes of a marker, WA-LAH! (That was supposed to be a magic wand sound but i don't know how to spell it). The man's sales begin pouring in.
Which basically is another way to say, "we don't care about the homeless, but we do care about the surface marketing spiel you give us in the process."
In our rejection of depth in society (e.g. Godard, Bergman, Dylan, literature, classical music), , we have instead advocated a world driven by the Surface appearance where the explosions in film, the brand names, the logos, the photoshop art, is more important than the thing the surface represents.
Give us the one sentence tweet summary instead of having to read an entire book!
Give us the creative slogan instead of the homeless man!
Hurrah!
Give me bowties. Give me fashion. Give me Apostolics who obsess about hair. Give me standards that allow me to look Apostolics! Instead of actually realizing that the paradox of Christianity speaks nothing to that junk.
Hurrah!
Give me the Holy Ghost Emotion without the Holy Ghost Mandate to do it's Work.
Hurrah!
Oh and I am no different. I do this too. We have to do this. No one will listen if we don't do this........
I just don't have to like it in the process. And I certainly don't have to be okay with you actually believing in it.
(This is an edited, touched up version that I did a while back)
First, Blog....
Keep in mind, i'm arguing that the writers of the movie are either consciously or subconsciously are including an ideology, or belief system that is reminiscent of a certain, "New Age, Self Help" philosophy that underwrites much of today's secular culture....
On the surface, it seems like an innocent prototypical children's cartoon where the underdog hero (Po, the fat lazy Panda pictured above) overcomes obstacles and his own limitations to beat stereotypical Strong Bad Guy.
However, a closer look reveals the movie to be a war of ideology. That is, East vs. West. More specifically, war of religions: Buddhism (reality is false, just "believe" in yourself and you can overcome the illusion of reality) vs. Judeo-Christianity (Man is Fallen/broken in need of God). In short, the message behind the film is ultimately a pseudo gnostic "New Age" one.
One of my man crushes, philosopher Slavoj Zizek summarizes the message of the film as "“There is no special ingredient (to life). It’s only you. To make something special you just have to believe it’s special.”
While the lines that lend credence to this are numerous in the film, the basic idea of what I argue can be seen in one example....
In the following scene, which is the climax of the film we will see the tiger, Tai Lung (the enemy) opening up the Magic Scroll.
As a preface, the Magic Scroll was believed to contain the secrets of the universe and hidden wisdoms. Earlier, Po, who had inherited the scroll, opened it up to find that there was no words on the words but rather just his own reflection on the shiny scroll itself. Essentially, the "wordless" scroll was saying the secret ingredient to life is within you (As in the secret of reality was already within Po as he saw himself in the scroll). Po, accepts this wisdom and goes on to become the Dragon Warrior....
The scene speaks volumes to me....And if one considers the Scroll equivalent to the Bible or any sacred text..the Secret Scroll in the scene is essentially declaring that there is no such thing as a sacred text. The only thing that is sacred is the individual themselves....if only they believe in themselves. Or to go one step further, it is saying that the only reason the Bible or other writings are sacred is because they arebelieved to be sacred.We then see the Tiger get upset as the lack of message within the scroll (because he was believing the Word within the scroll would help him). Notice too that when the tiger opens up the scroll and sees his reflection, he says "it's nothing!" Is this not a jab at the Judeo-Christian faith/ideology which says man is nothing without God and he needs the Word to sustain him? Thus when the tiger says "it's nothing," the movie is saying that when an individual relies on something outside himself for belief, his value is nothing. At such a rage in realization, the fight continues right after Po says "there is no secret ingredient."Subjective Speculation:
At the 4:19 mark in the video do we have an allegorical jab at Christianity wherein Panda's shooting the Tiger up into the heaven's to the point of disappearing in the sky (complete with angelic song to accompany the Tiger's ascension) and the Tiger's fall allude to the "false" resurrection of Christ wherein such an ascension never happened and Jesus was just a man (he comes falling back to earth)The one last piece of note in the scene is when the Tiger calls Po "just a BIG....FAT...PANDA" and Po replies, "I'm not a big, fat, panda. I am the big, fat Panda." The emphasis on Po's line is that he substitutes an "a" with "the" and thus in a way elevates his own being to the point of divinity. Thus, Jesus is not a Messiah, but rather he is the Messiah. Or similarly, if I were to say "I am THE Joel Riley," the allusion would be that I am an egotistical maniac making himself something of myself beyond that of a normal human being.
I am not suggesting that we can't watch such films, nor do I think the director's were intending an anti-Christian polemic outright, but I argue that there are always underlying ideological assumptions in films...and many times in those which we think are entirely innocent (such as children's film). I also don't think the writers of the film "bad guys" but rather I think that if we pay attention to some subtleties within any film we can see there is much going on below the surface of the film, to the point that the film writers may not even be including these subtleties intentionally as part of some "anti-Christian conspiracy."
As much as we watch this film thinking it's a traditional underdog hero vs. bad guy film, there is something distinctively anti-Christian about it that is representative of today's secular culture: The Truth is not "Out there," but rather it's "in you." Thus. in today's culture and in the film, we ultimately see a protest against the Fall of Man, and rather we get a kind of gnostic secular humanism.
Next week: Rousing praise for the philosophical geniuses who wrote Halloween (the 1978 version) as ultimately using horror to critique post-modern culture...
Note: Most of the inspiration for this particular analysis goes to Zizek... I just went about finding some specifics of this ideology at work in the film that he doesn't reference.
