David Mamet writes -
[The vacarious identification with the 'good' characters in violent films] represses human feelings of rage, and our shame at them.
Mamet's article is interesting. I thought about it while I was watching 'Three Kings'.
The film's accommodation of the Other consisted of our boys assisting the good (disident) elements of Sadam's Iraq. Its whistle-blowing consisted of telling us that the first Iraq war was an oil war and that that the Kuwaitis were rich*. Its ending reaffirmed that the essential goodness of America lives on in the hearts of men like Clooney and Wahlberg. The price for our boys' survival was the touching death of a deficient piece of apparently celibate White Trash (Ice Cube, unlike the priapic Clooney and fertile Walhberg showed no sexual proclivites but he had a relationship with Jesus. A good second best. He provided the predictable monkish presence that often lurks in violent films).
My first thought was that I could live with the film if the ending was dynamited and all the US guys died. But that bought me up against the thought that the middle - which a 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' - ought to be done away with too. The film's prophylatics - its indie credentials, the dialogues with the enemy where the enemy lands some palpable hits and the creepy but botched attempts at establishing an equivalence between American humanity and Arab humanity - all failed.
Somewhere in every war film is the daddy war film 'Zulu', where the undifferentiated or, at best, barely sketched mass of darker faces are set against the sharp delineations of Whitey visog. Rubbish.
So far, so worthy. Fair-trade-bean coffee for everyone wearing Hemp trousers.
I was struck by Mamet's formula 'shame at our rage'. I can't think of any home for rage. 'Rage against the dying of the light'. Not much risk associates with rage if you are checking out. You won't have to face up to it tomorrow because you are dead. The only rage I can think of, is that exhibitted by children before they have been 'sat on the naughty step' (less useful version of smacking, I discover) to cool off.
I read an interesting but pedestrian paper about how in the Philosophical Anthropology of Max Scheler, rage relates to envy in the jobbing man of ressentiment. (There is a good bit on the affectivity of ressentiment -
anger, rage, begrudging, rancor, spite, Schadenfreude, hatred, malice, the tendency to detract, jealousy, envy, resentment, desire for revenge.
A day at the office then.) What seems apparent is that in that man of ressentiment (that's me and you buddy), rage is notable by its not being manifest but at the same time the psychological motive force that spins covetous Man on the Wheel of Ixion.
So what is the solution? Out to the woods for a Primal Scream?
Two things that are providing more than minor irritation at the moment -
1) Almost being killed on my bike and being completely to blame. Can my reader suggest any way to deflect blame from yours truly onto the driver? The drivers incidentally have already got their pound of flesh too. On the two recent occasions that it happened, I've had one 'Twat' and one 'Prick''.
2) References to 'Chemistry', as in 'there was no Chemistry between us'. Before I go any further, I should say that I haven't yet (well recently, everyone has had the chemistry card being played) been on the receiving end of that catch-all cry-off. But I am reading a lot about it. The custom is for the woman to deliver it. The man doesn't deliver this line because if something is not-up-to-scratch, it tends to be clearly and immediately evident and is not shrouded in the mystery of a chemical reaction. Allied to its cloakedness, 'Chemistry; has a strong whiff of arbitrariness. Perhaps the perceived lack of chemistry was down to the setting. Perhaps the lighting was wrong. These are entirely contingent matters which the other party can do little about. Male-me has the good grace not to say, 'well, I didn't think much of her rack' because the breast is not the determinant of whether the encounter has legs on it. Legs are a separate issue.
If you want to give the other person the dust off then have the good grace to say what you object too. 'I find his hauteur off-putting', 'he has buck-teeth', 'He is too tactile'.
I've written so much today, that I almost can't be arsed to read through it to see if it makes any sense. If you get meat vomitus, don't puke it up on your shoes.
97.8
*As an aside, how does knowing that either or both of the Iraq wars were oil wars help? Does that impugn their goals? My understanding is that in the 1970s Opec countries, in agreement with the US set the oil currency, as dollars. The trade of oil in dollars subsequently allowed the US to print sufficient money so that they could run what would have normally been bankrupting balance-0f-trade deficits. Just before America designated the countries making up the Axis of Evil, Iran followed by Iraq or Iraq followed by Iran (I forget which) proposed that the trade in oil should be in Euros. There was some economic validity to their proposal in that more trade takes place in Euros globally than in Dollars. The proposal could have found favour globally. Coupled with the enmity towards Saddam and the fear of Taliban-style government either in Iraq or Saudi Arabia, the US started to their campaign to force the Iraqis to recolonise themselves in America's image.
In this light you can see why the French and Germans opposed the war and why we headed off to save the Yankee dollar (and the little brother, the English pound). But if we had fallen in behind France and Germany and had been quiescent to Iran and Iraq's economic mischief would Opec switch to trading in Euros? What would become of the backwash of prosperity that laps onto the shores of the 52nd state? Would it look better for Gunther and Jean-Claude than little Tommy? Knowing fuck all about these matter, I would hazard that if the Sow from which we suckle had dried up, our meal ticket which has been underwritten by consumer spending and housing speculation would devalue such that we could no longer redeem it against a pain-aux-raisin. It would be back to white toast with the crust cut off for us. No more 'xbox for Christmas'. If the one of the role of the politician is to preserve the wealth of the country, then the Iraq war at the time could be argued to be necessary to our secured prosperity.
So it was an oil war. So what?