ACROSS THE UNIVERSE
Like many, I brought in the 2008 New Year with family, enjoying some time to talk, dine on good food, catch some college football Bowl games, and the like. (How typically American!) I also caught a very good movie that had been on my list - "Across the Universe." As is typical of my Blog, this essay serves as my own philosophical reaction to the film.
The film uses the music of the Beatles to recount much of the socio-political milieu of the 1960s, during which the Beatles caught a great deal of the Zeitgeist with their timeless music. Speaking of timeless, I was happy to see many young people in the theater - I think great music lives forever, and part of the proof of that is when younger people "discover" the music from decades and eras past. This is obvious with the Beatles experience, as the music has an ongoing appeal to listeners of all ages the world over. Very encouraging to me...
As I watched this fine work unfold, I kept thinking of the musical film "Godspell," a film from another era (the '70s), which portrayed the Jesus story in a contemporary, big city (New York) setting; very avant garde in its conception and performance. It took me a while to hook into what Godspell was doing (I was squirming at first when I saw it), but the film grew on me and I ended up liking it. Ditto for "Across the Universe." It was very much akin to a "Beatles/1960s" sort of Godspell, with contemporary young actors portraying characters from a fictionalized (yet very accurate in portrayal) 1960s urban setting (bohemian Greenwich Village in NYC), singing many of the great Beatles tunes as the film plotline devoloped, but singing them in new arrangements; often very clever and unique remakes. None of the original Beatles performances was used; the film employed all brand new remakes sung from the point of view of the various actors.
There is a take-off on the Janis Joplin/Jimi Hendrix experience; a de facto "arts colony" apartment in the Village, the portrayal of the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and the anti-war experience of the era, and allusions to many concepts contemporary with the age. Moreover, there was a modern interpolation; namely, a "Forrest Gump" scenario between the leader of the SDS, a young English artist (enjoying his "freedom" in NYC), and a young, idealistic American woman he befriends. This was a brilliant scene...
Appearances from artists such as Joe Cocker, Bono (as a psychedelic "Dr. Robert" singing "I Am the Walrus"), and other cameos made for interesting twists to the film, all very well done.
The film gave me impetus to think and write about a few political and philosophical concepts - of course my stock in trade here at TTC. I've always been struck by the ambiguities and ironies of life. Namely, have you ever noticed that some of your more "liberal" friends harbor "conservative" opinions on some issues? Conversely, have you noticed how some of your "conservative" friends secretly hold to some more "liberal" ideas?! (I would put myself in the latter camp.) I don't think life should be monolithic one way or the other; in fact, one of the more important lessons of history is just that: a society of narrow, one-dimensional thought and expression is not desirable and has never worked. Would you really want to surround yourself with people who are exactly like you? Who think exactly like you, and hold all the same opinions? It seems to me that these monolithic type societies have already been tried - from "Utopian societies" to repressive, one party governmental structures (communism, Nazism, Fascism, Monarchies, for example). Everyone was supposed to be on the same bandwagon, the same philosophical "wave length," so to speak.
Over the years, I'm learning to rest with what I perceive to be an undeniable fact: counter intuitive as it may seem to us in our private moments (when we are just "sick of everybody"; etc.!) - we need diversity of opinion, philosophy, and political persuasions. They serve as "checks and balances" to further a society along in a healthy fashion. If the pendulum swings too far one way or the other, an undesirable result is achieved - those who initially value concepts like "liberalism," "tolerance," and the like become some of the most fascistic and intolerant people you could be sorry to meet, and the opposite is true as well, which would tend to religious extremism and philosophical intolerance; not to mention a drab, uninteresting, and dead culture artistically, etc. (Once again the Aristotelian Golden Mean triumphs!) The center is where a society "holds"; the vices at both extremes are highly undesirable (no matter how seductive their appeal might be to some) and tend to destroy the life of a culture.
I kept thinking about this all through the excellent film "Across the Universe." The 1960s gave us some great, great music and bands, and some of the "sentiments" live on. Actually, many of them were contemporary expressions of old philosophical issues and problems. For instance, though I love the song and sentiment of the Beatles' "All You Need is Love," I actually think it is a dangerous illusion to actually believe it! It takes a lot more to manage a successful society, household, community, church, love relationship - you fill in more blanks. Love is nourishing, no question. But as every utopian experiment proved vividly (1960s love and peace hippie communes, "get togethers," Jesus hippies, and other various "experiments" as well), even if they got off to a decent start, it wasn't long before good, old-fashioned selfishness, "sin," and even evil (e.g., the drug culture of the '60s) crept into the mix and ruined it. These things, as I believe - these tendencies - are part of the inevitable warp and woof of our reality and human experience. Whence evil..? (Hint: keep reading my Blog...)
If you love the music of the Beatles and still enjoy reading about or seeing portrayals of the "swingin' and "revolutionary" '60s, check out this film; it's excellent. Were we on to something back then? Or was it just a re-hashing of old, worn out stuff; utopian communities and philosophies, "free love" and expression, "liberal" politics, peace and love and all that good stuff?
I am skeptical about any large scale "movement" to change society through "programs," student "revolutions," secular "love and peace" philosophies, etc. I believe long term, real change can only come about through uniquely personal changes of heart; a radical, divine intercession; a re-making of the heart by God in a willing, truly seeking person. But that's a story for another blog...
All of these ideas have relevance as the US looks to another national election season. We must take the time to critically examine the philosophical underpinnings of the various candidates and attempt to make the best choice. (Remember one of Ayn Rand's favorite sayings: "good premises" - as in, check your premises!) I think Americans long for better choices in this regard; it seems we still suffer from a woeful dearth of good leadership candidates. I would ask: what is the real difference these days between the Democrats and Republicans? One is a "tax and spend," wealth re-distributionist party, the other is a "borrow and spend," "What Me Worry?" party. (The latter allusion is to Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Neumann character, for those of you who are not sufficiently enlighted.) I am one of the millions of Americans wishing we had better, more intelligent and more astute choices; notwithstanding a viable third party that made sense. Fortunately, the Libertarian voice is one that is getting louder, and while I am not personally sure that I would want a totally Libertarian President (I am an eclectic, remember), I do wish their collective voice would continue to grow and serve as a "check" on the monolithic power wielded by either Party today.
Once again, it seems the choice will boil down to "which candidate/party will do the least harm to our Republic." And that is a sad state of affairs...
Oh well, for an afternoon it was fun to be immersed in the great music of the Beatles through this film, presented in an enjoyable and Godspell-esque way. "Across the Universe" has always been among my favorite songs; a John Lennon masterpiece, one in which his Muse allowed him to go to the most sublime heights as a musician and composer. Is "love" all we need? I'll close with one of the most poignant lyrics from master Lennon and his great song:
Limitless, undying love that shines around me, like a million suns, it calls me on along - Across the Universe...
TTC
(Nothin's gonna change my world...)
The film uses the music of the Beatles to recount much of the socio-political milieu of the 1960s, during which the Beatles caught a great deal of the Zeitgeist with their timeless music. Speaking of timeless, I was happy to see many young people in the theater - I think great music lives forever, and part of the proof of that is when younger people "discover" the music from decades and eras past. This is obvious with the Beatles experience, as the music has an ongoing appeal to listeners of all ages the world over. Very encouraging to me...
As I watched this fine work unfold, I kept thinking of the musical film "Godspell," a film from another era (the '70s), which portrayed the Jesus story in a contemporary, big city (New York) setting; very avant garde in its conception and performance. It took me a while to hook into what Godspell was doing (I was squirming at first when I saw it), but the film grew on me and I ended up liking it. Ditto for "Across the Universe." It was very much akin to a "Beatles/1960s" sort of Godspell, with contemporary young actors portraying characters from a fictionalized (yet very accurate in portrayal) 1960s urban setting (bohemian Greenwich Village in NYC), singing many of the great Beatles tunes as the film plotline devoloped, but singing them in new arrangements; often very clever and unique remakes. None of the original Beatles performances was used; the film employed all brand new remakes sung from the point of view of the various actors.
There is a take-off on the Janis Joplin/Jimi Hendrix experience; a de facto "arts colony" apartment in the Village, the portrayal of the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and the anti-war experience of the era, and allusions to many concepts contemporary with the age. Moreover, there was a modern interpolation; namely, a "Forrest Gump" scenario between the leader of the SDS, a young English artist (enjoying his "freedom" in NYC), and a young, idealistic American woman he befriends. This was a brilliant scene...
Appearances from artists such as Joe Cocker, Bono (as a psychedelic "Dr. Robert" singing "I Am the Walrus"), and other cameos made for interesting twists to the film, all very well done.
The film gave me impetus to think and write about a few political and philosophical concepts - of course my stock in trade here at TTC. I've always been struck by the ambiguities and ironies of life. Namely, have you ever noticed that some of your more "liberal" friends harbor "conservative" opinions on some issues? Conversely, have you noticed how some of your "conservative" friends secretly hold to some more "liberal" ideas?! (I would put myself in the latter camp.) I don't think life should be monolithic one way or the other; in fact, one of the more important lessons of history is just that: a society of narrow, one-dimensional thought and expression is not desirable and has never worked. Would you really want to surround yourself with people who are exactly like you? Who think exactly like you, and hold all the same opinions? It seems to me that these monolithic type societies have already been tried - from "Utopian societies" to repressive, one party governmental structures (communism, Nazism, Fascism, Monarchies, for example). Everyone was supposed to be on the same bandwagon, the same philosophical "wave length," so to speak.
Over the years, I'm learning to rest with what I perceive to be an undeniable fact: counter intuitive as it may seem to us in our private moments (when we are just "sick of everybody"; etc.!) - we need diversity of opinion, philosophy, and political persuasions. They serve as "checks and balances" to further a society along in a healthy fashion. If the pendulum swings too far one way or the other, an undesirable result is achieved - those who initially value concepts like "liberalism," "tolerance," and the like become some of the most fascistic and intolerant people you could be sorry to meet, and the opposite is true as well, which would tend to religious extremism and philosophical intolerance; not to mention a drab, uninteresting, and dead culture artistically, etc. (Once again the Aristotelian Golden Mean triumphs!) The center is where a society "holds"; the vices at both extremes are highly undesirable (no matter how seductive their appeal might be to some) and tend to destroy the life of a culture.
I kept thinking about this all through the excellent film "Across the Universe." The 1960s gave us some great, great music and bands, and some of the "sentiments" live on. Actually, many of them were contemporary expressions of old philosophical issues and problems. For instance, though I love the song and sentiment of the Beatles' "All You Need is Love," I actually think it is a dangerous illusion to actually believe it! It takes a lot more to manage a successful society, household, community, church, love relationship - you fill in more blanks. Love is nourishing, no question. But as every utopian experiment proved vividly (1960s love and peace hippie communes, "get togethers," Jesus hippies, and other various "experiments" as well), even if they got off to a decent start, it wasn't long before good, old-fashioned selfishness, "sin," and even evil (e.g., the drug culture of the '60s) crept into the mix and ruined it. These things, as I believe - these tendencies - are part of the inevitable warp and woof of our reality and human experience. Whence evil..? (Hint: keep reading my Blog...)
If you love the music of the Beatles and still enjoy reading about or seeing portrayals of the "swingin' and "revolutionary" '60s, check out this film; it's excellent. Were we on to something back then? Or was it just a re-hashing of old, worn out stuff; utopian communities and philosophies, "free love" and expression, "liberal" politics, peace and love and all that good stuff?
I am skeptical about any large scale "movement" to change society through "programs," student "revolutions," secular "love and peace" philosophies, etc. I believe long term, real change can only come about through uniquely personal changes of heart; a radical, divine intercession; a re-making of the heart by God in a willing, truly seeking person. But that's a story for another blog...
All of these ideas have relevance as the US looks to another national election season. We must take the time to critically examine the philosophical underpinnings of the various candidates and attempt to make the best choice. (Remember one of Ayn Rand's favorite sayings: "good premises" - as in, check your premises!) I think Americans long for better choices in this regard; it seems we still suffer from a woeful dearth of good leadership candidates. I would ask: what is the real difference these days between the Democrats and Republicans? One is a "tax and spend," wealth re-distributionist party, the other is a "borrow and spend," "What Me Worry?" party. (The latter allusion is to Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Neumann character, for those of you who are not sufficiently enlighted.) I am one of the millions of Americans wishing we had better, more intelligent and more astute choices; notwithstanding a viable third party that made sense. Fortunately, the Libertarian voice is one that is getting louder, and while I am not personally sure that I would want a totally Libertarian President (I am an eclectic, remember), I do wish their collective voice would continue to grow and serve as a "check" on the monolithic power wielded by either Party today.
Once again, it seems the choice will boil down to "which candidate/party will do the least harm to our Republic." And that is a sad state of affairs...
Oh well, for an afternoon it was fun to be immersed in the great music of the Beatles through this film, presented in an enjoyable and Godspell-esque way. "Across the Universe" has always been among my favorite songs; a John Lennon masterpiece, one in which his Muse allowed him to go to the most sublime heights as a musician and composer. Is "love" all we need? I'll close with one of the most poignant lyrics from master Lennon and his great song:
Limitless, undying love that shines around me, like a million suns, it calls me on along - Across the Universe...
TTC
(Nothin's gonna change my world...)
posted by thoughtful conservative at 7:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home