I was watching Tony Scott on the Charlie Rose program, and he said, in connection with "The Reader," that he was getting tired of so many movies about the Holocaust. I didn't agree or disagree. What I thought was, "The Reader" isn't about the Holocaust. It's about not speaking when you know you should.
That's something I'm guilty of. I hold my tongue all the time, especially in social situations where my opinions might cause unhappiness. Those often involve politics and religion, two subjects that a lot of mothers tell their kids never to discuss at a dinner party--unless, of course, everybody at the table agrees, and then what's the point?
David Kross and Kate Winslet in "The Reader"
The difficulty arises when other people in the group are so full of their convictions that they assume (a) all sane people must agree, or (b) they possess the Truth, and you must learn it for your own good. Since my lifelong occupation has been learning the Truth for myself, I find this insulting. But if someone has entered the circle I am in, I often find it easier to simply avoid engaging them. Sometimes I'll have a kindred spirit, like Chaz, and I will subtly raise my eyebrows or roll my eyes. I restrain myself from pointing an index finger at my head and rotating it in the universal sign for totally cuckoo.
Dinner party: The man at right has just proposed a toast to Charles Darwin (apologies to "Mad Men." clickable)
In politics, I am liberal, as everyone I know must know. Sometimes, however, people will use the coy tactic of pretending they don't know: The old, "I'm sorry. Did I offend you?" ploy. These people, usually friends of mine, are gentle, sweet and very nice, except when they drift into a certain tone I interpret as "listening to Rush Limbaugh too much." Then their voices take on undercurrents of anger, resentment and frustration. It is the dittohead voice, and they've learned it off the radio. If you listen to Rush, you quickly realize that it isn't what he says but how he says it. He has an unending capacity for counterfeit astonishment. It has been very effective in long-distance behavioral modification.
That wise man Mark Twain told us: "In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from others."
This is true. It is even sometimes true of me. Perhaps of you. However, there are certain areas in which I consider myself an authority, like the movies. I have devoted years to learning about the Theory of Evolution. I think Creationism is superstitious poppycock. I believe the problem with the literal interpretation of the Bible is that anyone can easily discover its support for the opinions they already hold. I believe Conservatism has proven itself disastrous every time it has been implemented in this country. I believe George W. Bush was not only the worst president we have ever had, but the first, as far as I know, guilty of being an accessory to murder and subverting the Constitution.
You see that I could be a problem at certain dinner parties. When I could speak, I was often invited to speaking engagements. Not so much now. The deal usually involved dinner with the Committee. Its members invariably included local luminaries who provided financial support but held grave reservations about the Sorts of People They've Been Inviting to Speak. These members make it a point to attack the points of view they fear you are about to express. For example, "They just don't make good movies anymore," or, "Ronald Reagan was the greatest president we've ever had." As a donor, that is their privilege. They get to scare me and get my autograph for their daughter who is my biggest fan.
Rush Limbaugh: Talks like he listens to Rush Limbaugh too much
When I was young and had a hot head, I would respond. I once actually walked off a stage in Colorado Springs. When I grew older and wiser, I learned to throw everyone at the Committee table off the track with my 20-minute rat-a-tat routine of stolen Rodney Dangerfield material:
My father joined a motorcycle club. He's Sonny Barger's old lady.What Gene Siskel would do is play instigator. He had two techniques that never failed: (1) "Let's have a contest to see who can tell the most embarrassing story about themselves. We probably ought to start with the chairman" or (2) "Let's make the other tables jealous because we're having a better time. At my signal every 30 seconds, I want everyone here to laugh to laugh uproariously. We'll work around the table so that everyone gets their turn to seem really funny."
Those tactics worked to throw dittoheads off the scent. Religion is a lot trickier. You're not talking about opinions. You're dealing with something people know. People I know and like can get heated up about how "they" are trying to teach atheism in schools, and making it illegal to repeat the Word of God. And besides, anyone can see how Darwin was wrong, "because my grandfather wasn't a monkey." I find you don't get very far by replying, "He was an orangutan, actually..."
Their President George W. Bush
In politics, there is at least a common battlefield. In the struggle against Evolution, the Creationists have created a straw man and are attacking it. Their Theory of Evolution bears little similarity to the actual one, but they have learned it from authorities they have a vested interest in. The pastor can't be wrong. The Bible can't be wrong. Unfair and bizarre representations of Darwin are justified because they are attacking evil.
You may believe, as I do, that you know more actual facts that anybody else at the table. But what if "facts" are just one of the devil's tools to defeat faith? What if they're a smokescreen used by atheists, Satanists, liberals, intellectuals and the Elite to lead our young people, astray? Would it help to point out that one can believe in Evolution and God at the same time? No, because such people, like Catholics, Jews, mainstream Protestants, Hindus and Buddhists, have no religion at all if they have not been Born Again.
My President George W. Bush
True believers are not the least bit shy about affirming their beliefs--nor should they be. But I've been sensing that the accumulation of their affirmations have had the effect of making other opinions seem impolite, disruptive, annoying, going out of the way to make a point. Recently, for example, I had the following exchange (via the voice on my computer) during a TV interview.
Reporter: "Do you feel any spiritual events or, you know, supernatural happenings, anything like that, helped your recovery?"
Myself: "No, I can't really say that I do."
I believe this: If we really mean it when we say Thy will be done, then isn't it cheating to pray for a reversal? Que, sera, sera.
The TV reporter told me off-camera: "I'm so glad you said that. It's the same way I think. But they always use the answer to something like that as the close of a piece."
"What are the chances they'll use my answer?"
"Zero."
It's also true that there seems to be an unofficial newspaper policy of mentioning the deceased was a "lifelong member" of a church, synagogue or temple, but never, ever, that the departed was an atheist, agnostic, or simply a non-believer.
I really enjoy our dinner parties. She goes, I stay home.
There is also that ritual evoking of God at prayers before sporting events, political rallies, conventions, banquets, reunions and auto races. How little we think of God if we believe he cares about the outcome of the Super Bowl! What does it mean that the losing team's prayers were not answered?
Harry Golden, the great Southern writer of the 1950s, wrote a famous essay titled The Vertical Negro. He pointed out that segregationists had no problem at all with black people while they were standing: Working on an assembly line, picking cotton, pumping gas, serving tables, carrying luggage, or even singing in a gospel choir. The problems only started when they sat down, at lunch counters, the front seats of buses, school rooms, or election boards.
We have two kinds of prayer in this country, vertical and horizontal. I approve vertical prayer, which originates with the praying person and is directed straight up to heaven. It is private, as all privileged conversations should be. Horizontal prayer, on the other hand, radiates out from the praying person to all those within earshot. It translates as: I'm going through the motions of praying to God, but actually I'm praying for your benefit. I am expressing solidarity with those who believe as I do, and issuing an implied rebuke to those who don't. I am an example of how everyone should believe and behave. I believe that Freedom of Speech covers religious expression. But it also covers dissent. Public prayer tends to discourage any differing opinions.
Which brings me around to "The Reader," where we started, as you may recall. Spoilers will follow. I've read a lot of the reviews of this movie, and I didn't interpret it the way most people did. Maybe that is a fault of the movie, or maybe the enormity of the Holocaust overshadows any possible "off topic" message. Here was my opening paragraph:
"The crucial decision in "The Reader" is made by a 24-year-old youth, who has information that might help a woman about to be sentenced to life in prison, but withholds it. He is ashamed to reveal his affair with this woman. By making this decision, he shifts the film's focus from the subject of German guilt about the Holocaust and turns it on the human race in general. The film intends his decision as the key to its meaning, but most viewers may conclude that "The Reader" is only about the crimes of the Nazis and the response to them by postwar German generations."Never invite to the same dinner party.(Drawing by Derek Chatwood, whose art is here.)
The film's secret is that the woman is illiterate, and this is a cause of immobilizing shame to her. That's why she refused a job promotion that would have spared her duty as a concentration camp guard. That's why she made the inmates read to her, and why she makes the boy Michael read to her. Some years later, when he sees her in court, she refuses to sign a statement that might win her to a lesser sentence. Michael suddenly understands why: She cannot read or write.
Should he make his knowledge known to the court? It would be the right thing to do. He remains silent. She was kind to him. She transformed him. He thought he loved her. She fled to preserve her secret. Now he has behaved counter to his conscience. As he grew older, he became reclusive, depressed, a man who objectified women. He was warped by guilt. Her silence changed her life, and now his own silence has changed his.
A prayer before the game (photo by Allen Grant for Life magazine; © 1948, Time. Inc.)
Who committed the greater crime? Michael, obviously, although few audience members might see it that way. He was more mentally capable than she was. She is deeply, paralyzingly ashamed of her illiteracy. It has led her a lifelong neurosis. She worked for the Nazis, as many other Germans did with much less reason, or none at all. What did she go through to keep her secret? What lies did she tell, what intimacies did she betray? Has she never been able to have a relationship with a man without using sex and her greater age to prevent the man from learning of her shame? What kind of a monster was she, that she helped innocent victims to go to their deaths because of a secret that seems trivial to us?
She was responsible for inexcusable evil. Many are. We learn of young mothers who put their babies in dumpsters because they are ashamed of their pregnancy. Young fathers who murder their girlfriends, simply because of the universal human reality of pregnancy. We hear of prison guards who follow orders to torture, orders they know are illegal and immoral. And leaders who issue the orders. We learn of terrorists who die and kill others rather than face the shame of being frightened to. We hear of gang members who kill people unknown to them, not because they want to, but because they have been shamed into "proving" themselves as men. We hear of Wall Street executives who lead their firms into what they know are dangerous and unsound practices, because they would be shamed to be outdone by rival executives. They steal the savings from millions of victims, so they can win a pissing contest.
And what have I done that I am ashamed of? Yes, and certainly more than once. I have been a coward, a liar, a hypocrite, because I have been unwilling to act as I believe. Have you?
Let me tell you about something. When I was at the University of Cape Town in 1965, I lived in a graduate student residence named University House. One of my friends there was a blind man named Herb. We played a lot of chess. We followed the Touch-Move Rule: You touch a piece, you have to move it.
Herb usually beat me, even though he had to visualize the board. One day I thought I was within two moves of checkmating him. I picked up a piece, saw a fatal oversight, and quietly replaced it.
"You touched a piece," Herb said.
"No I didn't," I said.
"I know you did."
"Well then you're wrong."
More than 40 years have passed since that game, but I have not forgotten it. I can never even think of the University of Cape Town without it coming to mind. My cheating itself was shameful. When I denied it, that was despicable. Herb, I hope someone reads this and tells you about it. You were right. Of course, you always knew you were right, and we both knew that I had lied.
A prayer before the big game (Photo by Allen Grant for Life magazine; © 1948, Time. Inc.)
I've done some bad things in my life, but I honestly believe that was the worst. It may seem trivial to you, even laughable. But I know how it has made me feel, and so I know in some way how that illiterate woman felt. You can't measure such things on an objective scale. You can only feel them filling you up. Her illiteracy doesn't excuse her, any more than, on an infinitely smaller scale, my desire to win the game was any excuse. Would you have defied the Nazis? Would I have? There were a lot of people who did. Most people did not. There is an old saying: There, but for the grace of God, go I.
I wrote this in my review of "The Reader":
I believe the movie may be demonstrating a fact of human nature: Most people, most of the time, all over the world, choose to go along. We vote with the tribe. What would we have done during the rise of Hitler? If we had been Jews, we would have fled or been killed. But what if we were one of the rest of the Germans? Can we guess what we would have done, on the basis of how many white Americans, north and south, knew about racial discrimination but didn't risk themselves to oppose it? Philip Roth's great novel The Plot Against America imagines a Nazi takeover here. It is painfully thought-provoking, and probably not unfair. "The Reader" suggests that many people are like Michael and Hanna, and possess secrets that we would do shameful things to conceal.Is "The Reader" a "Holocaust movie?" No. In terms of its two central characters, it is a movie about lacking the courage to speak when we should. That's something I think we can all identify with.
The trailer actually gives a good sense of the movie's theme:
This is a beautiful and thought-provoking piece. You've managed to intertwine themes of theology, science, politics, and the human condition into an insightful analysis of a film. In regards to the human condition element, I think you're right on. Right before reading this post, I had a conversation with a friend who is struggling with having to confront a couple on the verge of divorce. He's about to fly across the country to speak counsel and wisdom into their lives in the hopes that they'll find reconciliation instead of bailing on their marriage. Why is he flying out there? Because all of the couples' friends and families will not speak when they should. No one is saying anything; there's been an elephant in the room for months now, and everyone is quietly allowing it to remain. Could my friend be seen as pushy or out of place by flying across the country to confront his friends? Perhaps. But what if he doesn't, and their family falls apart?
I'm convinced that some of the most defining moments in our lives are when we choose to remain silent when we know we should say something. It's called a sin of omission, of hoping that someone else will say what needed to be said. This also works in the reverse: when we make a choice to say something--whether for ill or for good--when no one else will say it, it can change a person's entire life course. I think of the film "Atonement" and how a young girl's small choice to fabricate a story leads to radical and unfortunate consequences for her entire family.
Now I suppose I'll have to go see "The Reader." Well done, Roger.
Ebert: Another sin of omission is denying our basic natures. The movie "Milk" had me thinking about gay people who do a cruelty to themselves and others by not acknowledging their sexuality. They also do a cruelty to anyone they might have loved but never will.
The same sorts of results happen when we deny what we really want to do in life. It's easy for me to talk because I am doing what I love. But think of someone trapped on the promotion-and-seniority ladder who hates the job. They're miserable, their marriages are miserable, their children are miserable. Look at "Revolutionary Road."
Look at the famous Betty Dodson, who I met at the Conference on World Affairs. She began in life as an alcoholic housewife. After she sobered up, she came out as "heterosexual, bisexual lesbian," and wrote Sex for One, which sold a million copies. The last time I saw her she was in her 60s and turned up on opening day with her girlfriend leading her by a leash on a brass-studded leather collar. She had a big grin on her face.
Oh, dear. Brace yourself for another deluge of Intelligent Design "arguments."
Re: THE READER, I have to ask: if the Nazi woman would prefer to conceal her illiteracy to the bitter end, whatever it costs her, isn't Michael's silence basically giving her what she wants anyway? He's acting in his own self-interest, sure, but it's not she asked for him to testify on her behalf and he refused - she's not looking to be saved. For her own reasons (which frankly I find difficult to fathom) she'd rather be branded a monster than an illiterate. It's the MILLION DOLLAR BABY dilemma: do you give the person what they think they want (even if you think it's a mistake), or what you think they need (but who are you to put on that authority)? Michael's no altruist, but I'd argue that the woman his silence supposedly "condemns" would agree with his decision, however misguided her reasoning, or his.
Ebert: He could have informed the judge in confidence. I believe he feels he didn't act properly.
A very "dense" and interesting entry. You seem to be blessed with a most unblemished life if nothing greater weighs on you than a misdemeanour in a chess game, even though the opponent is blind. To live in the past, it seems to me is itself an act of self indulgence---we are guilty no less of the rights we can but fail or choose not to do than of the wrongs we did. I am in case looking forward to seeing the above quoted film along with Doubt.
For me, the entire movie was summed up in Hannah's question to her interrogator: "What would you have done? Should I not have signed up at Schleeman's?"
She wasn't doing anything illegal. She joined her country's government, and took a government job. It's a huge shock when you realize that everything she has done in the movie was to preserve her secret. She abandons good jobs, uses and leaves vulnerable young men, and joined in some of the most horrific atrocities the world has ever known, because she knows what happens when people find out you're stupid.
But the thing is, she's not stupid. Her boss at the tram station praises her work and announces another promotion, and she avoided the promotion at the department store by joining the SS. She had to, because office jobs require her to read and write, and she can't. So if she's not stupid, is her shame her fault? Not the shame of joining the Nazis (she clearly felt no shame at all about that, everyone was doing it) but the fact that her shame of illiteracy has paralyzed her critical faculties, locked down her ethics, and made all her choices those of self protection, and damn anyone who got in the way?
I have never joined the equivalent of the SS, but so what? That just means I got lucky. How much of our morality is just luck? I'm not dyslexic. I live in America. I consider myself intelligent. But I've been at a low level, go-nowhere job for eight years because I've never gotten it together to find a better one, one that would require more and different schooling, or hard thinking about what I actually want to do with my life. I just can't bear to think of it, I actually cry when looking at help-wanted sites because I'm so embarrassed at having done so little with my life. If a government program came along that offered me a good career that appreciated my thoughts and made me feel proud, alive, competent, how much would I question what I would actually have to do?
Ebert: If they were honest, a lot of people feel that way.
I thought the war in Vietnam was wrong, but when I was drafted, I reported. I was rejected, but not because of trickery or loopholes. I would have gone, served, followed orders.
Now let's get you organized. You don't start out thinking about your ultimate goal. You simply do the next little right thing. Of course, with this job market, that may mean simply holding onto your current job, but at least you know you're not letting yourself down. BTW, one thing you can do is write. I've heard of CEOs who won't do email because they can't write or spell.
Dear Mr Ebert:
Hi there. I'm the artist for that Jesus vs Darwin illustration in the middle of your article/blog/journal. Sure would be great to have my name up there with it someplace. Or a link to the original web page that it came from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bar-art/546252526 . Or both.
I'm sure you can appreciate what it's like to find your works out there on the internets, used without your permission and without your name on them.
Other than that, good journal entry!
Cheers,
-Derek Chatwood
Ebert: Damn! I found it with a Google image search on what seems to be a Portuguese page:
http://oestebravio.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html
...with a credit to a link that led to an inactive page. I have added your credit line, and recommend the link above. I share your feelings. In writing my blog-before-last on The Dude, I searched online for art and found my own photo of him with Jeff Bridges all over the web, never with credit--not even on the Dude's own damn web site!
Great confession, Ebert. I haven't seen the movie, since it hasn't opened in my country yet. But being about the hollocaust or not, the number of nazi-themed movies doesn't bug me. What really bugs me is that they're ofen favored by critics, especually Academy ones, over films with better quality. Every year there's at least one nominated for best movie or best foreign movie, and most times it's unfair. And based on your reviews, I can assume you'd rather have The Dark Knight nominated than The Reader. This bias really annoys me.
On a foot note, the gesture for "totally cuckoo" isn't universal: in Italy (or Turkey, I don't remember which) it means "there's a phone call for you".
Thanks for this thought-provoking take on The Reader. I agree with you that this isn't another Holocaust movie, but I'm not sure I completely agree with you about Michael's motivation for keeping his secret. Yes, he's ashamed, but he's also angry with Hanna. There's a part of him that wants to see Hanna punished. When he finally visits her in prison, they have a revealing exchange. (This is from memory and may not be verbatim.) Trying to get Hanna to admit to her guilt, to show remorse (for being a guard, but also probably for duping him), Michael asks, "Have you learned nothing?" Hanna responds, "I learned how to read."
Tony Scott in that same Charlie Rose interview thought the movie was making claims about literature's ability to redeem a person, but I think that is a total misreading of the film. Hanna is not redeemed. She never shows remorse or expresses guilt for her actions. The only shame she ever had was about not being able to read. The difference between your cheating at chess and her illiteracy is that illiteracy is not a moral failure. Hanna's shame is born of her pride not her remorse.
You raise an interesting question about whether such diverse interpretations of the film should be seen as a fault of the film. I must say, I found the movie more thought-provoking than emotionally involving. I appreciated its ambiguity, but I felt as if I were always analyzing it rather than experiencing it.
Loved this piece, if not only because, politically, I am in alignment. I saw yesterday a site called "IThankW" (www.ithankw.com) about how great George W. Bush was. The comments as to why we should thank him almost universally revolve around how "safe" he kept us (I guess 9/11 and all the wars and expansion/creation of new terror networks don't count) and, of course, religion. After all, Bush had faith in God.
I think Bill Maher has done us a service by making a film for the millions of people who have a different point of view. It's not a non-believer's "movement," but simply a representation for those of us who aren't POSITIVE about what happens (and why) when we die.
The level of hate from the GOP is unprecedented. I honestly think it's worse than even those on the "far, far left." My home town's newspapers (The Seattle Times and Seattle P-I) have enabled "comments" on ALL stories as a way for readers to interact. Almost always these become forums for extreme right-wingers to troll the web and insert their talking points, fresh off of Rush's playlist. It's so tiresome and distracting as a reader.
There are a number of themes you write about, but I'd also like to comment on how we almost require, as a human race, the certitude of "GOD" to behind every good (or bad) thing. There's a great, great image from the UK where a bus has a billboard on it that says: "There Probably Is No God. So Relax and Enjoy Your Life." (link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1106924/Theres-probably-God--stop-worrying-enjoy-life-Atheist-group-launches-billboard-campaign.html).
Even if you agree or disagree, it's an awfully sound, relevant point.
That was a powerful piece Roger.
We all have our shadows. It is not always necessary to make amends for the way we have acted, but it is necessary to embrace our shadows, to view them wide-eyed, with insight, brutally, honestly, for the sake of the survival of our own souls. For the sake of not being devoured by our own darkness.
Vikas
P.S. I love chai tea. Yum.
As a playwright I see this sort of thing all the time. One of the most difficult questions is how much do I telegraph to the audience. It can almost devastating to have your point missed. If I write a play about the Nazis in which my point is that we all could be Nazis, but most of my audience comes out just further believing the Nazis were absolute evil, unable to be rivaled, what good have I done? It's depressing. And as you say, perhaps why Rush Limbaugh's unsubtly is so popular.
I've stopped writing things that are in anyway sarcastically racist, because I can't stand to see people bobbing their heads along in agreement.
Ebert: I found that out to my misfortune when I ran that little piece "Your Creationism questions answered," collecting the most absurd examples of the reasoning I could find, and some people on both sides of the debate took me seriously.
Sorry about Roxie.
I'm no dittohead; I'm simply not a fan of his show.
But there's only one Rush; there are thousands upon thousands of mainstream media adherents who make Rush bigger than he seems to be. Eviller than Rush seems to be. And once you define the caricature, you have already devolved into hypocrisy, away from fair debate.
I think, in today's media climate, it's actually more brave to stand up against the collective thrill running up the mainstream media's leg than to acquiesce and consider it honorable for booing George W Bush.
To paraphrase Woody Allen, W is not as good as his adherents believe, and he's not as bad as his detractors believe. And since the great "O" has royally screwed up his cabinet appointments, forced a 600-page stimulus package (negating the "line by line" promise he so forcibly made), and heartily endorsed the great Blago during his ascendency, and since the decrepid "W" has done more for saving the lives of Africans, turned around the nightmare of Iraq to the point that they had free elections (with Arab women voting), and kept our nation safe from another 9-11, I say you oughta give your detractors a little break. Caricature does not suit you.
Of course, you could probably counter that it's not about how Obama makes his inevitable mistakes, but how Obama is about the making of his inevitable mistakes. Or something like that. ;)
Ebert: ;) ?
Roger,
very interesting post. Thank you. You have mentioned that you went to Catholic school as a youth, I wonder how much influence the Jesuits had on you there....they really emphasized "sins of omission" being as serious as "sins of commission." They also seem to be immune to pandering; they've been known to mark down people who seem to agree with them but can't provide good reasons why. (for some reason, this reminds me how much I still miss Cardinal Bernadin....)
While this is an aside and off-point, I wonder how it came to be that liberals and conservatives now are seen as on opposite ends of the political spectrum. At one point it was not seen as an inconsistency for a person to be both a liberal and a conservative. When Milton Friedman's book Capitalism and Freedom was first published, it was hailed as a classic of liberalism, yet today many would see it as a conservative manifesto. Yesterday's liberals became today's libertarians, I guess.
Maybe that's why politics is so fractious today. Like many people, I find myself "liberal" on "social issues" and "conservative" on "economic issues" and am quite disenchanted with both parties as a result. Also I can't stand pandering and I'm not sure who is worse in this regard, as both sides in the "stimulus" debate have really disgusted me...though the shudders that pass through me every time I hear Nancy Pelosi speak are perhaps a little more pronounced than the shudders that I feel listening to Rush (her attempt to justify family planning services as an instrument of economic recovery were just creepy...better family planning now leads to a reduced demand for social services in the future?)
anyway, sorry for venting, maybe just a way to avoid revealing my own shame over being silent when i should have spoken....
Ebert: I never encountered any Jesuits in school, only Dominican Sisters. They were all great for me. Assuming one agrees with family planning, it would certainly result in lower costs for social services and many other things, including diapers, within the next nine months.
My old college pal Bob Auler, LL.D, the Sage of Champaign County, was once a fervent conservative, but has now gone over to the Libertarian side. There is much in his philosophy that is persuasive, and much, too, that is amusing, sometimes in the same argument. For example, legalizing drugs would (persuasive) eliminate the profit motive for pushers preying on kids, and (amusing) act in a Darwinian way to thin the population of addiction-prone genes.
Roger, it seem clear to me that this space has been an incredibly fruitful outlet for you, and thus far this is my favorite piece that has appeared here. I read far too many blogs (and masochistically write three in whatever spare time I can find). I honestly think this is the best blog posting I've ever read. It quite simply has everything a blog should aspire to. Thanks for giving me something to strive for.
Ebert: My philosophy: All you want, and more.
I consider one of my many failures as a person to be my sometimes inability to speak out for what is right when I should speak it. It is a kind of cowardice, obviously. I never fail to fill up with rage at injustice, yet I am shamed by how rarely I have acted against it when I could. There is a scene in The Pianist where Nazi soldiers have lined up a group of men in the street for execution. This group of men surely outnumbers the soldiers 4 or 5 to 1. Yet, like sheep, they allow themselves to be put on their knees and shot in the head without resistance. That scene fascinated me, horrified me, angered me. And my overriding thought was, "How?" How does that happen? Why didn't they fight? And I had to ask myself, "Would I have been brave enough to resist?" Of course I'd like to think that I would, but I am reminded of every time that I've remained frozen when I should have acted. Or held my tongue when I should have spoken. Thanks for this article, Roger. I think this is a subject that none of us like to talk about, and it can be hard to admit even to ourselves, never mind other people, that we are sometimes cowards and liars. The only thing that makes me feel better about it is that I feel terrible about it.
Ebert: If I were in that group of men, would I have been the first to resist, knowing I would be the first to die? It is easier to be the fifth.
Whenever I was asked by someone "Are you born again?" I would just tell them "No, I got it right the first time." That usually killed the conversation right there.
Roger, I think you have the right of it here (ie Michael being more guilty). To keep with the religious flavor of your entry, I'm reminded of Proverbs 3:27 - "Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, When it is in the power of thy hand to do it." Michael had a duty and obligation to speak for Hanna and he did not.
I wish I had the time, patience and dedication to write down everything I want to say. Sometimes our biggest contribution is being quiet during the right times.
Ah, this is the only blog I've ever abstained from commenting out of profound respect for the usual comments. I didn't think I had anything to add. Now it seems empty, so I can add something regardless of what I say.
And I think you're wonderfully mad for reading all these comments.
On George W. Bush, I must say, are you really ready to declare him worst than Franklin Pierce. That is a mighty accomplishment for Bush, even if a negative one, I'd still try to steal it away from him.
And on the movie, I have never had more than a passing interest on 'The Reader' until I read this. I find it shameful sometimes, that great stories are passed by simply because they are promoted as typical Hollywood fanfare. Then I find myself figuring I didn't go watch "Being John Malkovich" because it had Cameron Diaz on it.
Ebert: Okay, you've got me. I know next to nothing about Pierce.
You might not even recognize Cameron Diaz in "Being John Malkovich." I think you owe to to yourself to see it. And she is smart and funny and really a classy person.
Your post lead me to think about the incredible power of Jesus' prayer, "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."
It is as far as I know a singular thought in the history of the world and philosophy. A might powerful one, at that.
Of course, in the story of his death, no one spoke up for him either.
Ebert: The brilliant thing about that injunction is that it cuts the ground out from under any thought that others should forgive us first.
Your take on "Horizontal Prayer" seems to be just slightly cynical. True, the person making a big show of prayer, like the Pharisee in the Gospel, is guilty of pride, but I can't believe that most people, when bowing their heads in a pubic gathering, are doing it out of a sense of self-righteousness and a desire to blend in with the crowd.
Ebert: The ones who are not are the very ones who don't need to.
People I know and like can get heated up about how "they" are trying to teach atheism in schools, and making it illegal to repeat the Word of God. And besides, anyone can see how Darwin was wrong, "because my grandfather wasn't a monkey."
Roger,
You must have a far larger circle of friends than I would have surmised. Do you really know people who refute evolution by clocking in, literally, with the old chestnut about their grandpa not being a monkey? Bishop Wilberforce may have tried this line on Huxley, who (alas perhaps only apocryphally) riposted that he would rather have descended from an ape than a bishop. But forgive my incredulity when I wonder if this is a straw-man caricature you have fashioned to make "them" appear more benighted and cartoonish than they necessarily are. I believe there are many people who so misunderstand evolution and Darwinism that they suppose the absence of a "missing link" ape-man discredits the theory forever and finally. I just don't believe these are people with whom you converse often enough for you to truly know and like them. I apologize if my suspicion is misplaced.
If you are using this line as a rhetorical device to add good-natured humor to your post, I appreciate the effort. Creationism is ripe for satire, indeed almost too facile a target. On the other hand, is not this kind of hyperbole also an insidious way in which "we" ridicule "them," and does it not reinforce the very same closed mind you find so exasperating and sad in those conservative Christian true believers who decry atheism and Darwinism in schools?
Cheers,
Dan
Ebert: Yes, I do know such people.
And I know of one who ran for president, and thinks the alternative to his beliefs is believing that "man descended from a primate."
http://vodpod.com/watch/173651-mike-huckabee-responds-to-evolution-question
Great post as usual.
I have a dilemma. I am in university and next Thursday "Citizen Kane" is being shown in a lecture hall on campus. This event is put on by the campus newspaper. However I am also enrolled in an Introduction to Film course and they are showing "Out of the Past" in our weekly film lab next Thursday. The showtime for this film starting a half hour later. I should also mention I own the DVD for Kane and it is being shown in the film lab a half an hour from now.
My question is should I see "Kane" again anyway? Or should I go see "Out of the Past" ? Any assistance you could provide for my dilemma would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Sir.
Ebert: See "Out of the Past." Then hope your DVD for "Kane" has my commentary track on it.
People say that George W. Bush is the worst President of all time because they only think in the present or near-past, and only in terms of themselves. While I do believe he is the worst President of this era, I do not believe he is the worst President of all time. The previous poster was partially correct. In my opinion Filmore, Pierce, and Buchanan were the worst Presidents because without them, there would have been no Civil War. Filmore tried to please everbody, and in the end pleased nobody. Pierce spent most of his Presidency in the bottom of a bottle. Buchanan's fatal flaw was that he believed the issue of slavery was a state's rights issue, not a moral one. Also, when the South started to secede, he did nothing about it.
Ebert: I should have said, in my lifetime.
Roger,
Thanks for once again purposefully meandering; it allows me to purposelessly follow suit.
On Limbaugh: Howard Stern once commented that, on the show business ladder, radio personalities are only one rung up from party clowns. With all due apologies to party clowns, this is a truth we should not forget. In fact, Limbaugh is positioned even further down the ladder, to the taunting clown in the carnival dunk tank (à la Gary Busey in Carny) whose job is to be hated enough that one pays for the privilege of knocking him off his perch. Step right up.
On vertical prayer: Public prayer makes me as uneasy as the Ten Commandments on courthouse lawns. Personally, I want neither self-aggrandizing public figures nor the crooks in the halls of government (I live in Illinois; we know whereof we speak) wrapping themselves in God. That's known as a "whited sepulcher," Bible fans. Like the Man says, "When you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret." Thus endeth the lesson.
Roger, I've been meaning to send you a fan letter for the last decade, and it's looking like it's not going to get done, so let me condense it now in this forum: You are not only a fine film critic, but one of the most generous writers working today, and this post is merely one more exhibit admitted to evidence. It's something I should have said a long time ago, and that's what I think.
Your blog has me remembering a psychology class I took back in High School. We studied a specific set of experiments based on behavior and the motivation of others. A group of men were sitting in a room, strangers to each other, were asked fairly simple questions. Only one of the men wasn't in on the experiment. 2 lines were drawn on the chalkboard; one clearly shorter than the other. The group was asked which one was longer. The members of the group all chose the shorter one on purpose. When the one person tried to explain that they must have been out of their minds for picking the obviously shorter one, the group made the individual feel like he was wrong. The person, when pushed enough, finally agreed with the group.
Its interesting to see how willing we are to conform to those around us, even when its clear we are in the right.
I've seen the Reader and was shocked that it was nominated for best picture. Not for its aesthetic qualities, for it is a good film, with a great performance by Winslet (Although I would have put her up for her searing performance in Rev. Road), but for so many other films that were more deserving. To coincide with your "Elevation" theory, I was much more affected by Doubt, Revolutionary Road, and The Dark Knight than I was the Reader. Just some added thoughts.
Here is a gesture I find myself suppressing when faced with people of strong conviction who seem to speak only in order to hear themselves speak: raising the index finger to my head and cocking the thumb back in the universal gesture for "if this guy doesn't shut up, I'm gonna kill myself."
In considering what I would do if faced with the choices presented by the Holocaust, and factoring in family mental history, the same gesture presents itself, but with the implied piece of hardware in hand. This is a problem that comes up a lot for many of the people I've talked to recently: in the face of the current situation on this planet (including all human and environmental problems), and the fact that THERE MAY BE NO GOOD SOLUTION TO ANY OF IT, how can we be expected to remain hopeful? My answer is empirical: the way I understand the world is through rational observation. You prove to me that there is no reason for optimism, and I'll believe it. So far, no one has been able to. So hope still springs eternal.
Roger-
In coming into my own as an adult and a reader I stumbled across your blog last Summer and have voraciously torn apart every new post you've made since then. In the time I've been reading I've been quite affected by some of the things you've written, but this post stands out to me far more than any you've made to this point in time. In many ways the position you've reached represents the epitome of my hopes and dreams. I've always been fascinated with the movies and with writing, and I've found in my past and current stages of education that when I write about film I can pour out my thoughts and insights (however limited they may be now, though I hope to hone my ability to make them as time goes by) onto the page with no regard for what goes on around me.
In light of this, I would like to thank you, though we have never met and only will in those ethereal hopes and dreams of mine, for being an incredible teacher, and incredible role model, and for allowing me and your other faithful readers into your mind. It is an experience in which I revel, and an experience which I will never forget.
I've found in life that it is much easier for me to brush off praise I receive than it is for me to brush off criticism, and I could be wrong, but I suspect that is in some capacity true for you as well. I would encourage you for this comment at the very least to succumb to prideful tendencies and take this praise to heart, though it comes from someone who in all likelihood will be a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things.
I can only speak for myself, so I thank you for all you've done for me in my life through your writings, but I can also confidently say that in thinking that, I am not alone.
Ebert: That means even more since your email address indicates you're at the great University of Virginia, where I've spend many happy hours doing movies a shot at a time.
I find that some movies, like "The Reader" act as opportunities or avenues to think about serious matters.
I haven't seen The Reader yet, but when I saw your "spoiler" warning, I read on. I'm glad I did: now I know it's a film that I want to see, whereas before I wasn't sure. This has happened to me before: I probably would never have watched Million Dollar Baby if I hadn't read a piece by you in which you described the change of direction the story takes quite late in the film. I didn't like Eastwood's film but it was a lot more interesting than the film I thought it was before I read your piece. "Spoilers" can be useful. I've seen reviews that positively mislead potential movie-goers as to what a film is about, rather than give away an important plot point. I don't think that's ever justified.
I recently posted a longish comment to a Guardian blog post, in which I suggested that people who object to spoilers are having an inhibiting effect on the intelligent discussion of film, television, plays etc. The comment was promptly deleted by a moderator, because it contained a spoiler. I'm still furious.
Interesting post, Roger. Like your friend, I am philosophically a Libertarian, which I believe represents the best of both ends of the spectrum: "liberal" on social issues (whatever you do in your life is your business, as long as it does not interfere with my rights), and "conservative" on economic issues (the government should really have just 3 functions: National defense, adjudicate disputes, and helping people who truly cannot help themselves). One thing that many people overlook about Rush is that he is very ENTERTAINING. If he wasn't he would not be as successful as he's been for this long. He's really quite funny, but I take what he says politically with a grain of salt.
We all have our own "chess game" story from our pasts that we are not proud of, but the fact that we can reflect on them, grow and learn from them, (and read others examples of theirs) makes us better people. If only our politicians on both sides of the aisle were as reflective....
Interestingly, MILK is exactly the same (or the opposite?). It can be interpretted as a gay movie or a bio-pic (not that it isn't those things), but more importantly, it is about people who DO speak up -- despite shame -- when they know they should.
And how the world changes when people do.
How nice that we have two such films up for awards in the same season, yeah?
Interesting blog post, Mr. Ebert. It's nice to read something about The Reader that isn't intrinsically linked with the fact that The Dark Knight didn't get a Best Picture Oscar nom, even if I haven't seen The Reader yet (it doesn't come out in New Zealand until April, grr).
I was brought up in a family where the females were, and still are, devout Anglicans, and me and my father are rather ambivalent about the whole religion process. My dad's a non-practicing Christian, and I'm agnostic, but that doesn't stop my grandmother, mother and sister being very open about their religious beliefs, and it shouldn't. If there's one thing I can't stand, though, it's the way in which even good people like they are seem to have both an 'us vs them' mentality and an overt self-righteousness because of their beliefs. I remember one time, when I (a history student, at the time studying 16th and 17th Century England) suggested that Catholics and Protestants shared the same God, my mother turned on me and said very bluntly, "We're not Catholics. We're not like them."
I guess this is why I, too, have an aversion to people being vocal about their religious beliefs, because of the notion that religion is, by its very nature, a divisive practice. I would like to see America elect an atheist or agnostic President. While I don't want to trivialise the discrimination and prejudice African-Americans and women have faced during the history of the US, and Obama's election and the election of a woman to the office at some point in the near future are/will signal points of great development in the mentality of the US as a nation, I get the feeling that electing a President without any overt religious beliefs would be a greater step forward, because race and gender are just arbitrary lines in the sand, whereas the election of an atheist/agnostic President would signal a massive development in how Americans, and the world, judge people on the basis of their religion or lack thereof; it would signal that belief systems, of which the Christian variety have for so long have been a counter-productive prerequisite for American Presidents, aren't as important as getting the job done. This is a neat ideal, but I don't see it happening for a while.
Ebert: I suspect a great many Presidents have been better at horizontal than vertical prayer. Jimmy Carter is by far the recent President who was and is most "Christian." I would not call Clinton, the two Bushes, Ford, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy and Eisenhower unseemly in their holiness.
Ask your mother who she thinks Protestants got their God and Bible from.
I hope your friend Jim Emmerson reads this, and re-thinks his opinion on "Life is Beautiful" starring Roberto Bennini (sp?). He seems to think the movie makes a joke out of the Holocaust, rather than simply use it as a backdrop to convey that joy can be made, even in the most dire of situations.
And I agree, creationism is faith, not science. However, ID and evolution can co-exist. "Evolution is God's intelligent design."
Concerning Michael in the movie, "The Reader", do you really believe he committed the biggger crime? Because all of us possess that some insecurity that could potentially shame us to death---it's just that some make the choice to give in to it or not. All of us could be criminals, shoftlifters and murderers. The line that we tread is no thicker than the line between law-abiding citizen and law-breaker.
Ebert: They both committed the same crime. But the consequences of her crime were infinitely more terrible. What destroyed his life is that he was forced to ask himself if he would have done what she did as a Nazi. He was fortunate not to have to make that choice.
People's political views can be a lot more complex than the talking heads want us to believe. I don't know why "liberals" support communist dictators or how torture became a "conservative" value. That's because they don't and it's not. It's too easy to label the "they." Just because George W. Bush was a Republican didn't make him conservative. He was conservative on some things, liberal on others, reactionary on still more, and in the end, he was fiscally socialist.
But I still don't think he was as bad as Pierce, Harding, Wilson, Hoover, Nixon, or Carter, or the worst two who served as bookends to our best president - #15 James Buchanan and #17 Andrew Johnson. But he'll never finish in the top two-thirds. Even guys like Rutherford B. Hayes and Calvin Coolidge will always be ahead of him.
I would also argue that The Reader makes a good case against statutory rape. Look how screwed up that 15-year-old wound up being the rest of his life thanks to her. Had it been a 35-year-old man sleeping with a 15-year-old girl, this would have been much more obvious.
Ebert: Yes, it would have been more obvious. But was he screwed up by the sex, or by his silence at her time of need?
I usually read your articles without responding, but since this article is about speaking up, I will do just that.
Why insist on using labels such as conservatives and liberals? If any opinion is open to deliberation, it is worth discussing in my perspective. The problem with a lot of religious views is that they often are based on purely on faith and faith alone, and thus cannot be discussed. Questioning faith would cause cognitive dissonance in the believer, and you end up with irrational arguments. But some liberal ideas and values can be critized for the exact same thing. The problem with the 'dittoheads' as you call them, is not their conservative values, but their unwillingness to consider other arguments.
By the way, you say that any human being could end up being responsible inexcusable evil like Kate Winslets character in "The Reader". I recently saw "Das Experiment" and "Taxi to the Dark Side" both of which explore that theme much more deeply and strongly in my opinion. But as you say, "The Reader" is more about Michael's faults than Hanna's.
Ebert: You're correct about liberals, and I will throw the first stone...at myself. I'm sort of proud, however, that after 1,200 posts on the Ben Stein thread I have remained civil and (in my opinion) factual.
Nice post, Roger. I have said many times that we likely would not be sharing many meals together, you are honest in your positions and convictions and that is to be admired. I learned not to take offense from the subtle and not so subtle jabs that are directed at me (Christian, conservative, Republican, employed ;) ). It's cool.
My mea culpa: In Law School, my best friend's buddy from California was joining us at our favorite restaurant. The buddy played Triple A Baseball and just so happened to be playing in town. His father was a major league player at one time for the Baltimore Orioles. We were munching ribs, and the conversation turned to why I didn't like Cal Ripken. I explained why I didn't like Cal and most professional baseball players. I didn't realize at the time what I was doing (basically telling an invited guest that I didn't like his father, his father's profession, his father's friend, and his father's son). I was so caught up in defending my position, I had no respect for my best friend's feelings or simple etiquette. I learned, as you explain in your piece, when to hold my tongue. Sometimes it doesn't matter how right you are.
I once tried to explain "Fargo" to someone. She asked me what kind of a movie it was. I asked her what she meant, so she revised her question and asked me this:
"Well is it a romance, is it a thriller, is it a comedy?"
I told her, "It's funny."
She answered me quickly, "So, it's a comedy."
I told her, "Not really."
She gave me a confused look, so I changed the subject.
Reading your blog is always an elucidating experience. I, myself, am a follower of Jesus and his teachings. So by today's standards, the first thing one would probably say about me would be that I'm a conservative. Am I? I don't know. I'd rather be Aaron Palmer, and let everything else that follows be a result of Aaron Palmer being Aaron Palmer.
So why can't Fargo just be Fargo? Why does it have to be filed away in one's mind as a "comedy", "tragedy", or "thriller"? And why can't a person just be a person? Why do they have to be "conservative", "liberal", "black", or "white"?
With regard to your comment about the public prayer, it's not smiled upon by the one to whom the prayer is directed, so I'll just quote what the disciple Matthew said:
"And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward."
- Matthew 6:5
And finally, with respect to everyone, whether or not your beliefs coincide with mine, I'll just quote what Frank Zappa said:
"Everybody believes in something and everybody, by virtue of the fact that they believe in something, uses that something to support their own existence."
- Frank Zappa
I think a large problem with people that hold similar beliefs as me, is that they refuse to read what "other people" have to say. It's a vicious cycle if you isolate yourself away from the world. Because, as we all know, it takes all kinds; and if you don't give any time to the other "kinds", what kind of world are you living in?
Ebert: I'm with you all the way on this. My favorite magazine is The Spectator, from London, which is true blue Tory. I love it for the quality of the writing. I subscribed to the National Review until its writing collapsed into dogma. One of my greatest writing influences in the last 20 years was the satirist Auberon Waugh, who would probably not demur if described as a fascist baby-eater. MSNBC and Fox would be more fun if they shared the same studio.
Roger,
I have enjoyed your writing for many years now, and never more so than when I read your blog.
This was a really thought provoking piece, and really made me think about the impact of shame on society. You used the example of young women dumping newborns because of their shame. Why does society feel the need to utilize shame in such a way that it is almost a weapon? I think it is a tool to allow people to put themselves on a pedestal of moral superiority. Inflicting shame on another person serves only a limited purpose, and it seems to me that shame won't undo what has already been done.
I have now stood on my soapbox long enough, and the weight of my opinions has caused undue strain upon the box. ;)
Ebert: We have two kinds of prayer in this country, vertical and horizontal. I approve vertical prayer, which originates with the praying person and is directed straight up to heaven. It is private, as all privileged conversations should be. Horizontal prayer, on the other hand, radiates out from the praying person to all those within earshot. It translates as: I'm going through the motions of praying to God, but actually I'm praying for your benefit. I am expressing solidarity with those who believe as I do, and issuing an implied rebuke to those who don't. I am an example of how everyone should believe and behave.
This is so perfectly put! This sums up my thoughts on the hidden narcissistic nature of organized religion better than I could ever have hoped to convey them. Thank you!
I have two comments about this excerpt:
Reporter: "Do you feel any spiritual events or, you know, supernatural happenings, anything like that, helped your recovery?"
Myself: "No, I can't really say that I do."
I believe this: If we really mean it when we say Thy will be done, then isn't it cheating to pray for a reversal?
1. God obviously does not "care" about who wins the Super Bowl. A common misconception that non-religious people have is that people pray to ask for things. While I believe this is an OK practice, when I pray it is more that God, while allowing his will to be done, will help us through it. Maybe he will make our pain a little less, and help us see the big picture of what is important in life (I have a sneaking suspicion that if I was face to face talking to you right now your eyes would be glazing over and you would have stopped listening, after deciding I was a nut).
2. I respect your views, I really do. I am curious to know if you have ever tried to feel anything spiritual? Don't knock it till you've tried it. Is it possible that it is there, but you're just not listening? It's very hard to do, I know: it doesn't make sense; there's no scientific proof God exists; it's superstitious. I guess my point is that too much knowledge is no always a good thing.
Ebert: I've experienced a lot of feelings that could be described as spiritual (see my blog about Elevation), but I don't consider them supernatural in origin.
This may be out of line, so feel free not to use it.... Didn't you have a reporter at the Sun-Times for many years, a multiple winner of journalism awards, who was illiterate? This reporter's stories always carried a second byline, but it was his connections and sources that provided the stories, and so his problem was covered up by the editors. After the reporter's death, his illiteracy was revealed (I think in The Reader; I could be wrong), and I don't think I was the only one in the city who was surprised to learn this. I've left out his name in case you're under some kind of cofidentiality thing with his family, or the paper, or both. I was a bit surprised that you didn't mention him in the essay proper, so maybe it's none of our business, even after all these years. Still, I am curious...
Ebert: Art Petacque. He wasn't illiterate. He was a reporter, based out of City Hall and Police Headquarters, who worked with a rewrite man, in the old newspaper tradition. His partner was the great Bill Braden. They were a newsroom double act. He'd hurry in, pull out some crumpled notes, and start whispering in Braden's ear. Braden would look astonished and start typing like crazy. He'd whisper something else. "You're kidding!" Braden would say. More furious typing.
When they shared the Pulitzer for cracking the murder of Sharon Percy, it was Braden's day off. So Art climbed up on the City Desk and said, "I only wish Bill Braden were here to tell you how happy I am."
Roger,
One of the main reasons I love reading your blog is a self-rightous one. Your moral views and intelligent writings justify MY moral values and beliefs. I will not apologize for it. I will allow myself to revel in this bit of glee!
But... I will admit that I too do not stand up for what I think is right in most social situations, especially in a medium-sized crowd. The main reason - living in South Orange County, SoCal, I'm outnumbered. And usually in a big way. The other reason - I refues to throw my opinion around unless I can speak clearly and intelligently on the topic at hand. I want to back up my thoughts with as many clear facts as possible. I refuse to spew my 'opinions' as though THEY were the facts, as good ol' Limbaugh does! Education, or rather memorization would probably be the best cure for this. But will I do that? Probably not. I'll continue to only speak-up in smaller more intimat groups. And even then I'll keep it to a minimum. I suppose this will remain my character flaw. But - I don't pretend to something I'm not. This, I'm proud of.
And, I'm glad I read on after your . This article has truly sparked my curiosity about this movie. More so than what the ads have. Sometimes... a little info goes a long way regarding what makes a movie more interesting. (technically - I suppose it's really a big reveal, but not the way I see it.)
I, as well as everyone else, would like to thank you for continuing to share your thoughts and wisdoms. I love your blog. The entries are diverse and thoughtful. One more thing - thanks so much for mentioning the Huffington's site and what a 'PIT!' it is! I thought I was alone in that too! Gad, that site drives me nuts! ;o)
Have a wonderful evening Roger!
take care
kj
Mr. Ebert,
I met you several times at the Virginia Film Festival when I attended the University of Virginia. One year, the festival was especially good, in my opinion, since the organizers selected "Film Noir" as the theme for that year. I had the privilege of watching "Out of the Past" in a beautiful movie theater, then watched you interview your hero, Robert Mitchum. I love film noir (though I hate the term) and movies in general. I am also conservative on most issues. I disagree with your politics intensely, but I happen to think that you are among the better critics out there simply because you go into movies HOPING to be entertained; while you criticize bad movies, you often make note of individual scenes or performances that shine from the muck.
As a conservative, popular culture provides hardly any art or entertainment that validate my beliefs. I can still recognize greatness from liberal artists, even when I find their heavy-handed messages laughable. For instance, "The Wire" is a great television series, but it does not instill in me a desire to: visit Baltimore (anymore than I have to, since my sister lives there); feel sorry for Baltimore's criminals; or desire that more of my tax money goes to Baltimore's coffers. Urban hellholes such as Baltimore and Detroit have been run by liberal administrations for decades, yet conservatives are still blamed for their present circumstances.
This lack of validation is what has made Rush Limbaugh very wealthy. I believe there is a lot of money that could be made by crafting movies that appeal to the "gun nut", "Bible thumping", "flyover country" crowd. This is why "Dirty Harry" and "Death Wish" were so popular in the 1970s. I don't believe Hollywood is interested in mining this market, because they despise the people that constitute that market. If their primary goal is to make money, Hollywood can produce romcoms, action movies with explosions, gross-out comedies, etc. If their goal is to win awards and acclaim, they produce message movies; it is a given that the message will overwhelmingly support liberal pieties. A movie that treats seriously and supports conservative ideas might make money, but it would be one of the few things that would be considered "in bad taste" for the filmmaking community.
(Regarding the above paragraph, I don't wish for "affirmative action" in the arts to appease conservatives; rather, I think that there is a vast, untapped market that is available, but it must be mined by artists who are willing to self-finance through friends and family, and who are willing to give up the following: awards; acclaim from trade publications; ability to "cross-over" and act/direct in mainstream movies; and critical praise. Note that I did not include money in that list).
My main objection to liberalism is that I believe it limits freedom excessively and creates a "Big Mother" atmosphere that insinuates itself into our daily lives. One example is eminent domain (see Supreme Court decision "Kelo vs. New London"), which mutated from giving the government power to seize land for public highways, etc. to giving the government power to seize a homeowner's private land because a corporation that covets that land will provide more revenue in terms of tax dollars. This, to me, is un-American.
In New York City, they have banned transfats from food (causing small bakers to close up shop), and now the health commissioner is "recommending" that all food purveyors "voluntarily" limit the amount of salt in their food. If they do not do this "voluntarily", the commissioner notes in the NYTimes (http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/more-from-dr-frieden/?scp=1&sq=health commissioner&st=cse), regulation shall follow. They have also banned smoking in restaurants and most public places. It has not generated too much backlash, since most people don't smoke.
Robert Mitchum did smoke, and in fact he lit one up in the movie theater when I saw him interviewed by Mr. Ebert. Someone noted that this was against the law. Mr. Mitchum gave a gruff snort of contempt, and inhaled deeply. No one arrested Mr. Mitchum, just like no one arrested Sharon Stone. But I worry that they might arrest a nobody like me.
Best wishes for your recovery, Mr. Ebert. Keep writing.
Suggestions for reading: "Coloring the News" by William McGowan
"Unraveling of America" by Allen Matusow
"Common Ground" by J. Anthony Lukas
"Made in Detroit" by Paul Clemens
Ebert: I am cynical enough to believe that Hollywood would make any movie whatsoever if it promised to be profitable. One reason more conservative fare doesn't gross very well is because of the deplorable state of movie exhibition in this country. Many of the red states are sadly under-screened.
The paragraph about opposition to facts (because they could be tools of the devil) positioned between the two photos of Bush reminded me of something: Bush, as portrayed by Will Ferrell, taping a message on global warming and saying "liberals and God-less tax-raisers are trying to make me look bad by using such things as facts and scientific data." Bush is cut off by the director, who says "Mr. President, you can't say they're using facts. Facts are real, they're not disputed." Bush replies "how do you know that?"
It is wonderful that you have decided to make yourself heard and no longer hold your tongue, Roger. We are all better for it. The irony, of course, is somewhat heartbreaking.
The questions you ask are ones I try not to think about unless forced, because I fear I know the answer. It is so easy to find courage and express outrage generations later on matters as to which one has never actually been tested.
I am not, for example, an animal rights activist. I likely never will be. I mean, I like animals just fine, but I eat them and don't much think about what is done to them. I tend to think of those who advocate passionately for them as, well, a bit off and extreme. But after reading your blog I consider: what might our children's children's children think of this generation? Is it not at least conceivable that sensibilities will be different and perhaps they will look back with condemnation and horror at those of us who sat passively by and treated animals cruelly (or committed other infractions of which current sensibilities do not even allow us to see)? I say this not to compare any prior atrocities with this or other matters that future generations might consider to be our "atrocities," but, merely to note that if I could give those condemners of the future a time machine, I fear they would learn a horrifying truth: They most likely would have been just as passive as I.
This thought makes me uncomfortable and not a little sad.
A question: I disagree with you on so many things, yet you are such an interesting and insightful individual--I like you and imagine you would be a good friend. Your politics wouldn't matter to me. So, to the question: I like you without regard to your liberal politics. Would you be able to like me, or someone like me, without regard to my conservatism? Put it another way: On what basis do you choose your friends? Best wishes always to you, sir.
Ebert: One of my very best and closest lifelong friends is a reactionary. I love the guy.
Not surprising at all, Roger. I got my BS from Wharton, and we had exactly one semester of required English. I am still firmly of the opinion that that was a requirement out of which I should have placed on the AP test; I got a 4 on my Spanish AP -- on which I thought I'd tanked -- and a 3 on English, and I know my verbal/writing skills did not warrant a middle-of-the-pack 3!
Another example: a company at which I worked that was capitalizing on the M & A craze of the late-80s/early-90s had a Marketing person just below her departmental VP who was getting her MBA from Kellogg. One time, something she'd written landed on my desk, and I proofed it and gave it to her boss, with whom I was friendly, and who later got me a book entitled Wordsmanship (http://www.amazon.com/Wordsmanship-Dictionary-Claurene-Dugran/dp/0930454111/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233880479&sr=8-1) when I was her chosen Christmas grab-bag recipient. The writing was unbelievably atrocious, even by the "standards" I'd seen at my B-school.
And where do CEO types come from? Schools like Wharton and Kellogg. 'Nuff said.
As a Canadian who's lived in Asia for ten years, what's most intriguing about a country like Japan, for instance, is how the entire nature of conversation and argument itself -- agreement and dissent -- is shaped in a different manner.
The point of social interaction is, essentially, to not disrupt the harmony of communication, to bend your opinion so that it subtly matches what everybody else is thinking. Children are taught from a young age that your individuality, your view of the world, your thoughts on this and that, are not paramount or crucial; what matters is keeping the course of conversation smooth and agreeable.
The stereotype of the 'ugly American' is most keenly felt in a place like Japan, because we so often fail to realize that in many, many countries outside of North America, it is not you and your ideas that matter, but the people around you, and their feelings, and their concerns.
It may not be a perfect style of getting along with one another, but it certainly seems to make one more empathetic, and even more humane.
Roger, you asked, "I have been a coward, a liar, a hypocrite, because I have been unwilling to act as I believe. Have you?"
I have. I was. I am no longer.
I was raised in a religious family. First in a Baptist church, then an independent church which was part of the Charismatic Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_movement) that eventually became one of the largest churches in Malaysia--a predominantly Muslim country. I was so heavily influenced by religious fervor that I was willing to die for Christ and wanted to give my life in service of God. Obviously you can draw comparisons with extremist ideologies which train people to kill and die in the name of God.
Despite my faith, I found myself in grade eight leading a group of classmates who bullied a fat, East Indian boy with a high pitched voice. He was just an athletically inept, harmless boy with thick plastic glasses. But we abused him verbally. At times, physically. Being reasonably intelligent (he was in the top quartile of the class), I am sure he wondered why he was the target of such cruelty. I remember seeing him sitting in his chair with tears streaming down his face hoping the teasing and bullying would stop. I knew even then that my actions was cowardly. But humiliating another human being in public gave me perceived credibility in the herd so my place in the tribe was secure.
Years later on vacation from Canada, I ran into Shanmugam on the streets of Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Seeing him as a grown man shamed me. I wish I tell you that I apologized for my behavior. I didn't. The thought occurred to me as I shook his hand. But the randomness of the encounter and rush of embarrassment at my collection of his mistreatment at my hands led merely to a "Hello", "What are you doing these days?" and a "Goodbye". In addition to being a Christian, I was a hypocrite.
Part of my religious fervor was due to the stimulation of the vagus nerve which I experienced in worship services, speaking in tongues and falling under the Spirit. At that time, I believed that such experiences were conclusive proof of the divine. I would later discover that great works of art, music, sunsets and movies - yes, movies - could move me in the same way although I did not know why. After graduating Summa cum Laude with a degree in Business Management from Oral Roberts University (yes, the whacky one), I studied at a renowned theological college under professors who had contributed to the translation of the NIV Bible and developed some ability to decipher the Holy Bible in its original Greek and Hebrew. I eventually became a pastor of a Pentecostal church in Canada.
I was told I had a talent for public speaking and delivering moving sermons. People were easily influenced by my public speaking. After serving for six years in two churches, I woke up and stopped believing. I stopped believing because faith is not reason and I had had enough life experience to reason. Being in Christian leadership, I had stepped behind the curtain as it were, and saw the great Wizard of Oz was no more than a sham. Up till then I had unknowingly participated in and perpertrated a lie. I was a liar.
Quitting religion is hard - especially when that is all one has known since birth. Stumbling upon Bill Moyer's interviews with Joseph Campbell was like discovering a Rosetta Stone which unlocked the links between mythology in the ancient near east and the origins of the Bible. Campbell's explanation of the power of myth was a doctoral thesis in hermeneutics--albeit one which diversed from the literal interpretation of the Bible I had previously known. Then I read "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James and the rest of the pieces fell in place. I understood the need for religion but I quit religion for good. Friends from over 20 years ago look me up on Facebook and are not sure what to make of me anymore.
After a year of formal separation in 2001, my divorce from my first wife of just under ten years was finalized. It was a marriage that should never have taken place. I had gone to my parents and my pastor the week before wedding in 1990 to call it off. They put it down to nerves and told me it was normal for a groom to fear commitment just before the wedding. I knew the real reason why I should not have married her, but lacked the courage to pursue my conviction.
As it requires knowledge of semantics, narrative structure and storytelling, I repurposed my skill in Biblical hermeneutics to reading and writing movie scripts. I realized that storytelling and religious myth-making were two sides of the same coin. Both have a message they want to share with an audience. I shot my first short film in Vancouver, Canada after reading Robert Rodriguez's "Rebel Without A Crew". It was uneditable.
Figuring the best way to learn was to be on a movie set, I worked as an extra. Notable memories? Having a one-liner with Tom Arnold for an episode of Outer Limits, watching Sean Penn and Jack Nicholson doing a scene, walking next to Angelina Jolie in "Life of Something Like It". Every time I was on set for a TV series like "Beggars and Choosers" or "Breaking News" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0245022/), I studied the lighting setups and camera coverage. My filmmaking got better with time. An independent feature film I shot even won small awards (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408209/).
I met my present wife on a film set. She was a makeup artist I hired for my second short film. We have been married a wonderful 8 years come September and are happy parents of a five year old daughter. Waking up was hard. I hope I will never have to lie or perform an act of cowardice again. If tested, I hope I shall not repeat my mistakes of the past.
Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil - the evil that lurks within.
Ebert: Most people are not lucky or brave enough to take a hard look at their lives and change what they believe needs changing.
I agree with you about the attacks on evolution. And about George Bush. And yet I am a Born Again Christian. There is, perhaps, a logical fallacy here - all of the loud mouthed idiots that attack Darwin are 'Born Again Christian' does not prove the corollary (I hope this is a corollary) "All Born Again Christians are loud mouthed idiots". Perhaps a little like saying "because all passionate Nazis were German, all Germans are violently anti-semitic".
All being 'Born Again' means, I think, is to have made a mature, adult commitment to Christ. While Richard Dawkins would have it otherwise, this is not the same thing as throwing one's brain in the trash.
Although I cannot perhaps make this argument too strongly - there are an awful lot of loud-mouthed, idiotic, Born Agains from where I sit.
Ebert: Dawkins is reasonable about evolution, but shrill about God. It is unwise to make your argument in a manner assuring its rejection.
By Stanley Dancer on February 5, 2009 6:02 PM
One example is eminent domain (see Supreme Court decision "Kelo vs. New London"), which mutated from giving the government power to seize land for public highways, etc. to giving the government power to seize a homeowner's private land because a corporation that covets that land will provide more revenue in terms of tax dollars. This, to me, is un-American.
Ebert:
I am cynical enough to believe that Hollywood would make any movie whatsoever if it promised to be profitable. One reason more conservative fare doesn't gross very well is because of the deplorable state of movie exhibition in this country. Many of the red states are sadly under-screened.
Interesting piece. We all like to think we'd be the ones who don't go along, the ones who stand up and do the right thing. Sometimes I am, and sometimes I'm not. Believe me, I have a lot of excuses when I don't... but I know that they're only excuses and that I should have done better. I hate that feeling.
The story line can be the Holocaust, especially if it's a GOOD movie. We could have 1000 movies based on the Holocaust, as long as they are GOOD.
That said, some subjects are off limits to Hollywood. As far as I know, no movie has been made of the Nazi hero, Otto Skorzeny, even though it's one of the most fascinating stories of WWII. He's a Nazi, the story can't be told.
/Why haven't Wilbur Smith's novels been made into more movies, dang it!
Some gay people are willfully holding out while others believe they are unwillfully holding in. It would be hard for me to characterize the latter as cruel.
Did you mean "suborning" or "subverting"?
Ebert: It's corrected.
Roger, thanks for a great blog. You're being elevated into my list of all-time heroes, alongside Mike Royko, Jerry Garcia and George Carlin. Congratulations on being the only live one. Qualities required are abudance of talent, total lack of pretension and all around good humor.
I still think Nixon was the worst President ever, but I'm willing to make Bush a close second. The thing about Nixon - he could have been a really good one. Bush never had a chance.
The interweb fanboys are full of wrath for THE READER because, as they insist, it is an unworthy Best Picture contender for an Oscar when compared to their DARK KNIGHT. Angry fonts have flown rejecting THE READER, as if it might not be MILK or BENJAMIN BUTTON which cock-blocked that over-rated comic book film.
Yet Roger has written eloquently about it twice, and he has suggested there is a great moral debate to be found interpreting the film. (Of course, Mr. Ebert is also the one who has written ad nauseum about DARK KNIGHT's substantive moral depth, so he could just be wrong about this film, too. ((See? I can write on the internet like a dittohead without betraying myself among the liberal friends I admire. I love modern discourse!)))
Of course, it is not playing at any of the thirteen megaplexxes (megaplexi?) near me. I'll have to save it to my Netflix queue.
Thanks very much for adding a credit and link with my illustration. I'm terribly sorry to say however that doing so appears to have caused a massive italicizing of the remainder of your journal. I apologize for the formatting trouble, but appreciate your gracious response.
um, would this be a bad time to ask, while you're fixing the runaway italics, if you could correct my name, which should be "Derek Chatwood"?
I fumbled the last name with my first message. I don't know where you got "Bruce" from, but it probably has something to do with you heroically reading and responding to more comments and emails than pretty much anyone on the internets.
Regardless, cheers and thanks again!
-Derek
Ebert: Good gravy! Could I have possibly gotten anything else wrong? Maybe I was thinking of Bruce Chatwin.
I just wanted to chime in and say that I'm a conservative but that Rush Limbaugh doesn't speak for me or my beliefs and I'm sure most friends/family who are also conservative would say the same thing.
I think part of Limbaugh's popularity comes from the fact that he's a sort of boogeyman that the left likes to characterize as speaking for most conservatives. That and his ratings are artificially inflated because if you drive through say Nebraska he's on every other radio station.
As for creationism, I don't think you really understand what it is but I think you've also demonstrated that you're not really interested in learning about it either. And no I am not a creationist myself I have my own idiosyncratic views of the matter which are neither creationist nor evolutionist orthodoxy but probably more in line with evolution. Regarding yourself though, I'm of the opinion that you're no different than the creationists who mis-characterize evolution.
Ebert: Not interested? In reading 1,250 comments, I have looked into every single citation from the ID side and found them false or disproven.
You are the main reason I break your best commandment---thou shalt not start the day online. This site has become a cherished experience,a little more than a remote interaction.
A really candid and courageous entray for which I seem to have much to respond and let me search for the words and oppurtunity to do so.
I was talking to a coworker the other day, a born again Christian. He told me about how unhappy he was before he converted, but now his life is great. And he is happy. He certainly seems happy. I said that's awesome buddy, but I'm not a believer and I'm happy too. He grinned condescendingly and said, no you're not. I looked at him strangely and said, I am, seriously, I'm pretty content. He said, yeah, but when you're lying in your bed at night and thinking about life, you're not really happy, are you (notice there's no question mark here). It was at that point I decided to change the subject. Apparently the only way I could "truly" be happy was if I conformed to his beliefs. As nice of a guy as he is, to hear him talk like that literally scared me. It is this kind of blind faith that has caused so much misery in the world. One has to wonder, what's worse, those who believe blindly or those who go along with the believers? I would probably say the latter.
I'll try to be succinct, which is against my nature. I have a soft spot for religion. I grew up in church, and now, at the age of 30, of finding myself doing something akin to choosing to believe in Santa Claus.
One thing I don't feel I've acquired yet, is the ability to get sexually aroused by verbally plowing into a person of faith. The tones you hear in Limbaugh's voice are the same tones I hear by, not the majority, but the majority of vocal nonbelievers.
What's my point? I don't know, but I suppose I lean toward the believers' side, even though 85% of them would call me a heretic.
Hmm. I have a lot to say, but I won't say most of it. I think I should keep my mouth shut - but there's a little thing I want to comment on.
I'm -- you know what, I won't say anything about my beliefs. I think that arguing about whether or not the Theory of God should be taught in schools is a huge step backwards, in the same way that I think that Richard Dawkins is no better than Ann Coulter. (That has got to be the most controversial thing I have ever written.)
I can respect what atheism is trying to do. But I resent the ones going around trying to get more people to be like them. I hate it when someone says, "I'm offended by you saying 'In the year 3000BC'." This is not constructive. This is pointless. This is like saying we shouldn't say "cold" because there is no such thing as "cold" (cold is the lack of heat).
If I decide to believe in God but there isn't one, sucks to be me, I guess I missed out on a lot of things in life; and if God exists and decides to punish me for not believing in him, then I've sinned and I'm probably (if the major religions are correct) going to hell.
I guess the real problem is fanaticism. Bin Laden and Coulter are really opposite sides of the same coin. Dawkin's insistence on hating God so completely puts him in the same league.
Ebert: I tend to agree. He goes over the top and loses his intended audience.
i took the same political journey as your friend , libertarian via republican
as for bush. isnt he like charles bronson in 'death wish'? I think 9/11 was such a shock.. that it changed himl
To Roger and anyone who thinks George W. Bush is the worst president in history,
watch these two hilarious video's of comedian/actor Robert Wuhl, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7MqrWHM9MA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNQb3DPpf64&feature=related . Franklin Pierce was a pro-slavery president who hastened the civil war.
"The difficulty arises when other people in the group are so full of their convictions that they assume (a) all sane people must agree, or (b) they possess the Truth, and you must learn it for your own good."
I hope I don't come off as those A or B people who think they only my way is the sane way or I hold the truth, because I like to pose questions rather than speak my beliefs, such as the recent blog before last where I asked questions like "do you need to be conscious of your death for an afterlife?" or I'll add another one "Can you forgive an offense on you that happened in your sleep that could have been done by yourself while you were awake?" I ask these questions because they simply came up in my life, not because I'm trying to sound clever. Okay, on the first question, I admit, I don't believe in an afterlife or God because all these feelings can be observed physically as parts of the brains that are being used (as brain research has shown), and it comes off as irresponsibility like "God said I can meddle in my chid's life". So, I did throw out that question as rhetorical. But the second one, really came up. Let's say someone broke your finger in your sleep but it could have been you because you loved throwing a baseball around so much you just kept playing? Forgiveness can be clouded in mystery as to who to forgive: yourself or the person who will deny it up and down. I guess Archbishop Tutu would say attempt it anyway and it's on their consciences.
"If you listen to Rush, you quickly realize that it isn't what he says but how he says it."
Him and many others, I agree--one guy yells like bloody murder every night his sound bites for 5-10 minutes. These guys pander to the most heartless of people, seeminly blatantly. They capitilize on these people's shameful hate--or other races, whatever. But I'm more of an issue/policy person, which is like saying I have no business running for office. The number one issue with the world is the Saudi's and eliminating poverty is the number one problem. Alcohol fuels (ethanol and methanol) can fix both of those with all new cars being flex-fuel as is Obama's energy policy to do by 2012.
"And what have I done that I am ashamed of? Yes, and certainly more than once. I have been a coward, a liar, a hypocrite, because I have been unwilling to act as I believe. Have you?"
Yes. Siskel's first plan of action would have shut me up. I'm not winning that contest of telling the most embarassing story, because I'd definitely win.
I’m agnostic and think that since none of us know if there’s a god that it’s pointless to argue who’s right or wrong. I remember shaking my head listening to Huckabee and feeling perplexed to why some people would support his beliefs as being fact, especially a man who’s running for the presidency. Listen to the audience applaud him when he’s finished. I went to a high school in Washington, IL that had some controversy of no prayer at graduation (it was discussed on television on the 700 Club and Letterman). I remember sitting there in the bleachers as someone stepped up to podium to give a speech about their graduating class, but instead began to pray. The crowd cheered and it was then I realised that there was a difference between praying privately (vertical) and praying just because you want to make a statement to everyone else (horizontal). I didn’t consider myself religious from there on. But Huckabee was right for saying that he should have never been asked that question. In article VI section 3, it states:
“The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”
But then he goes on to answer it like he was giving a history lesson (similar thing happened with McCain and Obama at one of their debates, and they both went on to answer the question as well). I wonder if there will ever be an outspoken atheist or agnostic elected as president.
Ebert: In the foreseeable future, not an outspoken one. I wonder how far a candidate would get replying, "My religious beliefs are none of your business."
"People I know and like can get heated up about how 'they' are trying to teach atheism in schools, and making it illegal to repeat the Word of God."
I know the feeling. I was homeschooled for until the 11th grade, and often heard complaints in church alone the lines of "they've taken prayer out of school." When I finally enrolled into an inner-city public high school, I read the code of conduct and found no rule against praying. I prayed at lunch sometimes and never got into trouble for it. Announcements for "Prayer At the Pole" were even broadcast on the school news.
I can't recall a teacher ever saying "there is no God," either. (College is a different matter.) The pastor at my home church recently wondered if public schools were teaching children that many of the founding fathers were Christians. I don't remember this being a major part of my social studies education, but should it be? Is it necessary to talk about Thomas Jefferson's and Benjamin Franklin's doubts as well? How about Albert Einstein?
"I believe this: If we really mean it when we say Thy will be done, then isn't it cheating to pray for a reversal? Que, sera, sera."
In Exodus 32, the Lord tells Moses he will destroy the Israelites because of the golden calf, but Moses persuades him not to (audible gasp), citing an oath the Lord had made to Moses. And in Matthew 26:39, Jesus prays that he will not have to suffer through crucifixion, if possible. "Yet I want your will to be done, not mine." (NLT)
I think that last sentence sums up what Christians should keep in mind when making any prayer about the future. I think it may be in the Lord's will to "reverse" a situation if his people ask for it (Moses), but it is important to realize it may not be (Jesus).
Ebert: Teaching atheism has no place in the schools, either.
Some of the founders didn't believe in God, or the Christian God, Jefferson among them. The statement "we were founded as a Christian nation" is historically untrue. We were founded largely by refugees from religious persecution who explicitly separated church and state.
"You may believe, as I do, that you know more actual facts that anybody else at the table. But what if "facts" are just one of the devil's tools to defeat faith? What if they're a smokescreen used by atheists, Satanists, liberals, intellectuals and the Elite to lead our young people, astray?"
What if you consider YOURSELF all of the above? (Well, except for a Satanist, of course - and that's just because I can't see worshipping ANYONE)... :)
Pierce and Buchanan didn't get a bunch of kids killed.
Just a few weeks ago I was on vacation, far from home. I had a wonderful time and was happily surrounded by strangers during evening conversations over dinner or drinks. Well, one night a very nice young woman joined our ever-changing circle. She was intelligent and interesting and studying to be a doctor at a fine American university. All the conversations were flying around the table simultaneously and I was engaged in deep discussion with an Englishman on the question of ‘Why are railway track gauges the distance they are’ and other such mysteries (turns out he was right and I was wrong, but I did win the ‘why is a nautical mile called a knot’ debate).
Out of the corner of my ear I heard our medical student ask ‘Have you seen Expelled? OMG it’s SO good!’ She then proceeded to gush over the movie and recite many of her favourite points. My own Train of thought came off its rails as my attention swung fully in her direction. All the other voices became subdued in my mind to the point where they were only a murmur in the background of my attention and I listened…. and waited… like a sprinter on the start line when the gun is about to go off. I was eager to call her out on her misunderstanding of the basics of science (did I mention she was a medical student, yes?, ok good) but I didn’t say a word, not one. The start pistol never fired in my mind, I didn’t pull the trigger.
You see, if I was with my friends I wouldn’t have hesitated to rebut every one of the inane points she raised. I would have been well armed for the task because I read "Win Ben Stein's Mind" not long ago, and at the very moment she was speaking I had Richard Dawkins – The God Delusion in my backpack as reading material during down times. I even had allies in the debate! A hardy New Yorker took the bull by the horns with a confident “I don’t believe in any of that crap” rebuttal that had me in stitches.
I love a good argument, and religion is one of my best subjects because I’m very well informed. In fact, I love to debate so much that when I was younger I would sometimes take the other side of the religion question just to keep the discussion going if I felt we atheists were winning to quickly.
When you get older, time is a little more precious. You are less inclined to raise your voice when you know you’ll need to lower your intellect simultaneously, if you expect to make headway with a ‘firm believer’ in either religion or politics. So I also tend to seek out like-minded people in the crowd, and we can watch each other as we roll our eyes. That’s the smug answer. There are other reasons one doesn’t readily admit to. What if she won our debate? What if her answers were crisper and more articulate? I’d look like a dummy in front of all these strangers! But I still would have been right. Knowing that, I often regret it when I censor myself.
A few years ago when the Iraq war began, Bush(or someone in high office) declared "We must fight this war to preserve the peace." I always wondered why I never read in newspapers how similar that sounded to George Orwell's "1984."
I didn't care for "The Reader." I can't argue with anything you wrote, but I still didn't care for "The Reader." You reveal insights into the film I admit I did not fully consider, but then the problem isn't with its themes.
I am not "sick" of Holocaust movies. I could watch a million of them, if they're good ones worthy of the subject matter. Six million Jews were killed by the Nazis; I suspect all six million stories would be worth telling. It was a tragedy of such profound magnitude that I think we will never exhaust the meaningful stories that could be told about it.
To paraphrase one of my favorite quotes of yours, Mr. Ebert, my problem with "The Reader" isn't what it's about but how it's about it. The shifting through time is confusing and poorly achieved; David Kross looks too young when he plays Michael in the 1960s, Ralph Fiennes looks too young when he plays Michael in the 1990s, and Hanna looks too old in later scenes where the makeup department went overboard and made her look like the creature from "The Mummy Returns." The excess attention to nudity throughout the film is a distraction; I'm no prude, but when Kate Winslet's nipples draw more attention than her dialogue, there's a problem.
It's also a distraction that a story largely about German literacy is told with German-accented English. It takes me out of the scene when Hanna asks Michael about German literature, but he reads to her in English out of a book clearly printed in English. When she begins to learn how to write, she sends notes in crudely written English; I thought, "Joke's on her, she must think that's what German looks like!" Methinks my mind shouldn't be making jokes to itself during a movie like "The Reader."
Perhaps that is why when Michael makes his life-changing decision to stay quiet it felt like an afterthought. At that point, I was still wondering why a twentysomething law student still looked like a sixteen-year-old, but with stubble.
I do, however, agree with just about everything you said about religion. Especially the stuff about politics and religion around the dinner table. I am a liberal. My sister and her friend are Born Again Conservatives. They voted for George W. Bush and John McCain. At a dinner with them and a few others, I made the mistake of asserting that I am pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. This dinner took place in South Carolina; I feared I would be trampled by elephants or chased back into blue territory. This was not a moral error like Michael's or Hanna's. But I still cringe at the thought of it.
I also agree with you about culpability. In a Social Morality class in college, we discussed the Kitty Genovese case: a woman was viciously murdered, but none of the many witnesses called for help. Most of the class vilified the witnesses, overlooking the fact that most of them were probably ordinary people like us. I can't claim to understand them, but whatever their reasons, I hope I don't have the opportunity to find out how I would react. I'm not sure I want to know.
Thank you Roger Ebert for your beautiful and revealing essay.
I have been a fan of yours since my teens. Initially due to the TV show you first did with Gene, and then later through your books, syndicated reviews and now your on-line presence. You have been a link on MY website for years.
I passed on your essay to some pals of mine at my Unitarian Universalist Church in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada who are planning on putting together a humanist/atheist church service this year.
Last year I was wanted to get a sense of how an atheist finds a framework to create hope without the structures of what "belief" fundamentally brings to the picture. Often hope requires a certain leap of faith. My question took me on a journey that included reading the works of Dawkins and several other well know atheists to find some answers, but sadly all I seemed to find was a lot of bitter rhetoric and vicious mud slinging towards anyone who does believe.
You not only found a route towards hope without any traditional sense of faith, but also have also found that path through an abundance of love and understanding.
Thank you for sharing your profound wisdom and insight.
Thank you for taking risks by being so personal in sharing your memories with us and making yourself vulnerable.
Thank you for letting us relish in the joy that is the movies and for revealing the deeper messages underneath what so many dismiss as mere pop culture.
Thank you very much.
Your first two paragraphs reminded me of the 1947 movie "Gentleman's Agreement" which was, essentially, about speaking out against a wrong. You remember the movie: Gregory Peck,Dorothy McGuire and John Garfield, who was black-listed after making the movie. The hero (Peck) ultimately tells McGuire, his fiance, that she is encouraging anti-semitism when she remains silent (because she is so well-bred and polite)when Jews are being slandered.
I was also taught to be "nice" and not argue with people but that movie affected me for years and I created scenes that embarrassed my parents on many occasions when someone spoke against other races, religions or nationalities. My parents always agreed with what I was saying but hated that I argued with people. Now that I am old, I have tempered my behavior and often just walk away. That is what I am ashamed of after reading your article: that I have given up the fight.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke.
Roger, what if I were the only one to whom you wrote this beautiful, moody apologia. And after finishing it, I looked up and said "guess I won't go see 'The Reader' after all. Sounds dumb."
Surely there's a point to this thought, as it made me chuckle.
There must have been. Still chuckling.
Mr. Ebert, I don't think I'm incorrect in believing that your ideas in this blog are very philosophical and personal; therefore, however "controversial" my views may be, they're not off-topic:
As probably the first outspoken Scientologist on the boards I have a lot to say about the ideas of personal integrity, responsibility, honesty, ethics, justice, the mechanics of the mind and such. L. Ron Hubbard has written volumes on the subjects*, with credit and influences given to the likes of Lucretius, Darwin, Francis Bacon, Herbert Spencer and the like.
With regards to "The Reader":
What I find most important (and others have put mention to this already) is that Winslet's character, when asked, never felt remorse for her deeds. Only after Fiennes' character expresses dissatisfaction, does it dawn on her.
Justice is served when ethics is not present. Her character showed almost a complete lack of right and wrong. If the prison system is good for one thing (and it's often not, as my next sentence points out), it's retrospect - a lot of free time to search for redemption. Winslet's character manages to spend an entire prison term apparently not doing this!
I believe Fiennes' character made a sound moral (as opposed to judicial) choice in keeping mum. He saw that she needed time to ruminate. He saw her lack of ethical principals. She couldn't be honest and she couldn't deny. Getting her off the hook wouldn't have done her any real favors. And I don't see her taking the blame as being a moral, or responsible act at all - it was cowardice! It took her 20-some-odd years in jail to confront being a dunce and she was only able to confront her past for a day before succumbing to a total non-confront (cute way of saying "suicide").
In summation, the movie was as much about judicial justice vs. ethics and morals as anything else, and I side with the moral choice "Fiennes" made at the trial (if not all the odd choices he made in his youth and his marriage). Sadly, his choice didn't have the intended effect (which, again, he makes clear in his talk with her).
*Suggested reading on the basis of my loose citations: "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" & "Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought".
I'm delighted by your description of the dinner-party-problem: what to do when you disagree with the insufferable blowhard talking. I'm a little disappointed you neglected its converse: what to do when you agree with the insufferable blowhard talking. These opportunities to challenge your own beliefs are priceless.
Roger,
"I believe Conservatism has proven itself disastrous every time it has been implemented in this country."
Isn't a statement like that above the equivalent of acting like a "dittohead"?
I looked up the word "conservatism" on Wikipedia. Would you consider the prior administration to be conservative if generally the word is used to mean a resistance to change?
Some change is good and some change is bad. Conservatism at its best should be a check on poorly thought out ideas on how the government can help us. Hitler and Stalin were big government guys with new ideas. I think your issue is with the Republican party.
Regards,
Eric
Ebert: I should have put "conservatism" in quotes. Bush was no more conservative than the Mad Hatter.
"As men's prayers are a disease of the will so are their creeds a disease of the intellect." -R. W. Emerson
Does this mean that the always busy Roger Ebert actually has time to watch tv? do u watch the incredibly perfect gem known as Mad Men? if so what else do you watch? You'd love Damages and The Wire
Ebert: A little. I like their dinner party scenes.
In regards to second hand knowledge: In society some people simply have to go and search, while others wait for the answers. On some level everyone speaks out on faith, or out of the love and trust in someone more experienced.
Arguments are always better when they are practical, so the question becomes-- Does humanity have anything better than a supernatural God? In the year 2009 religion continues to be the most efficient way to keep the brain healthy. A unique example is psychiatry, every single person does not need to see a shrink regularly, but some do--and more might be in need. (But ultimately, the neediest person in the world turns to God.)
Watching the reader was my favorite movie experience this year. I harbor a lot of shame myself, so maybe I could relate. I really appreciate Winslet's acting in the film, especially as displayed in her penultimate scene. In watching Winslet's character I was reminded that psychological issues have a physical imprint on the brain itself. The brain can undergo rewirings, shrinkings, and enlargements--a great deal of the impetus for all of this are simply thoughts. An unbalanced mind that has experienced continuous pain and loneliness is very likely and unbalanced brain-- and this brain needs to be rehabilitated as would any other organ. Knowing things does not automatically heal someone, the same way that a knowledgeable psychiatrist might be in need of therapy. One of the many methods of different religions involve deciding on "healthy" and "not so healthy" thoughts to prescribe to followers, since that is where many problems begin. (this helps to explain the act of close-mindedness on the part of some.) When its all said and done we all have our distinct motives and everyone can't go out on this search for truth.
I have a strong desire to totally wash my hands of all political participation. When I try to look into the issues, I find that they are almost always so complex that I'll never manage to reach the bottom of them, that usually most position advocates aren't ever precisely lying or precisely telling the truth, and that even when I do manage to get to the bottom of an issue, all sides have a kind of logic to them and so choosing among them is ultimately an emotional choice, not a rational one. And to be frank, I usually don't have the kinds of gut impulses that most people seem to have that allow them to take that irrational (and I mean that word in the good, Kierkegaardian-existentialist way) plunge. So I'd rather just opt out.
This desire, however, is combined with the fear that this washing of hands is an immoral thing to do. After all, one can't possibly avoid making decisions. And decisions have consequences for other people and for other living organisms. To recycle or not to recycle. There is a moral question here that is faced many times every day and for which the stakes are enormous. And there are seemingly reasonable people making seemingly reasonable arguments for the merits and costs of both choices. Other moral/political questions faced every day are whether or not to eat meat, whether or not to buy American, whether or not to confront some well-intentioned person about their unintentionally racist comment.
I feel overwhelmed with the weight of moral decisions and by my inability to make up my mind about anything. Because this is a shame to me, I keep this even from my friends, who are all intelligent and who all seem to have strong convictions. Usually I just go along with whatever they say, nodding my head and such, saying what I figure it is that I would say if I felt as they seem to feel. I wonder if it is often this kind of indecision, just as much as cowardice, that lets people who want to be good stand by while horrible things are done. Of course, even to me it seems pretty bloody clear that Nazis were the bad guys.
Ebert: The human race grew up learning to go along with the tribe. A recent survey showed that people of whatever political opinion tend to cluster together, and agree with their neighbors.
Refering to what Rafael Lino wrote about not seeing "Being John Malkovich" because it had Cameron Diaz in it. When I was much younger, I did not want to see "The Karate Kid" because I thought it would just be a silly movie about some old guy teaching some young kid about how hard work will make him successful in life. Even in the scene where Daniel wants to give up his lessons and Mr. Miyagi calls him back to the backyard where Daniel had been working, I still thought it would be a cheesy scene in which Daniel was supposed to be proud of the work he did and if he could change a backyard, he could change his life. Then suddenly, Mr. Miyagi shows Daniel that he'd been taught basic karate moves just by "waxing the car" and "sanding the floor." I was surprised to find out that a "silly movie" could have such a profound effect on me. I vowed never to judge a movie on the actors in it or believe that it would be 'silly' until either reading a qualified review or actually seeing it myself. People around me won't see a "Tom Cruise" movie, a movie about airplanes, or any movie that makes them sad, and I find those reasons to be unreasonable. You're missing good movies like "Magnolia", "The Aviator" and "Attonement" just because of one tiny aspect of a movie. Now, if you tell me that you don't want to spend $10 to see "Valkyrie" or "The Reader" then I can understand that, even though I may disagree.
Also, what you wrote about magazines made me remember that for many years, I had a subscription to Starlog. I enjoyed the articles back then about the various Sci-Fi movies coming out. Then, over a few months, I started to see that the writers fawned over every Sci-Fi and Fantasy movies, even when I would see them and think they were horrible. I started to wonder if Starlog was just a big shill for the studios and when my subscription ran out, I did not renew it. I miss reading Premiere magazine each month because that was an interesting magazine about the movie industry that wasn't afraid to say if a movie/actor/studio was bad.
Ebert: People didn't want to see "Henry Poole is Here" because it was about an image of Jesus on the wall. Either they believed in such images or they didn't, but either way they weren't open to a movie about a controversy over it. My review of Henry Poole touched on the question of belief vs. science:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080814/REVIEWS/808140303/1023
I suspect whoever wrote that original post listens to Roger Ebert too much.
The reason many viewers object to Holocaust movies is not so difficult to understand: Most Holocaust films reduce one of the defining tragedies of human history to a McGuffin. In SCHINDLER'S LIST, the Holocaust provides the opportunity for a callow industrialist to develop his sense of compassion. In THE READER, the protagonist's refusal to reveal a dirty little secret is considered an evil on par with -- or at least of the same species as -- the Holocaust itself. (Memo to Schlink: Nope.) Of course, we've seen these silly moral tales before, albeit with different McGuffins -- Will Smith's SEVEN POUNDS is similar to SCHINDLER'S LIST, except that the story revolves around an automobile accident rather than the Holocaust. (Both films bear a strong resemblance to MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION.) And yet the changes in circumstance and degree don't really affect the story: We still have the same arc of transgression, penance and redemption. The most important characteristic of a McGuffin is that its function is entirely structural: It is but one element in a narrative whose trajectory is already determined, and although the McGuffin may seem like the center of the narrative, it is in itself irrelevant to the action.
Sadly, the inevitable outcome of this trivialization is on display in the original post. Even an implicit comparison of the Holocaust to a financial panic is beyond offensive. Reprehensible as Bernard Madoff may be, no one is accusing him of burning other people's bodies -- just their money.
I think this blog post is the best yet. I felt a pang of recognition while reading about the error you made with your South African friend. It's not always just the consequences of your mistakes that hang on your mind. Those mistakes can seem to define you to yourself, and lead to more shameful behavior.
Dear Roger,
I still haven't seen The Reader, but I most definitely intend to. I'm a little bit surprised by the reaction of certain figures to the film as 'yet another holocaust picture'. Whether or not it is correct in being diagnosed as a 'Holocaust movie', it seems to me an odd statement to make. Something that occurred to me while reading your article:
I studied in Potsdam for a year between 2005 and 2006. Potsdam is just outside West Berlin; far enough outside to lie in the territories of the old East. Berlin is one of my favourite cities, and- through its people, culture and architecture- contains a mix of 20th Century history like few places I know. There is a walk I used to take visiting friends on, which began in Alexanderplatz (which you will recognise from Goodbye Lenin!), continued down Unter den Linden, which contains several monuments to the German imperialism of old (and past the Neue Wache, a building which has been like a pawn in the shifting hands of German power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Wache), left at the Brandenburger Tor (which is right beside the Reichstag), down past the new Holocaust Memorial (objected to by many as 'yet another holocaust memorial') and finishing in Potsdamer Platz, the biggest enclave of post-Soviet capitalism in Berlin, situated in the former no-man's land of twenty years ago.
The interesting thing is that many of the indicators of Soviet culture are being removed. Alexanderplatz is being completely renovated. The square I saw six years ago on my very first visit looked completely different when I returned to study. I have not, unfortunately, had the opportunity to return since and I can only guess at what it looks like now. The walk I described would also take us by the Palast der Republik, a horrifying piece of architecture which nonetheless served a purpose in this post-DDR world. It reminded people. In the years after World War II the old palace, which had been damaged by bombs, had been demolished. It was proclaimed an imperialist symbol and done away with. The Palast was eventually erected in its place by the DDR government. It too has now been demolished. When its demolition came, many of the people objecting to it were not communist or socialist or possessing of any special allegiance to the symbol it presented. The objection was that the current government was doing exactly the same thing that the DDR did: whitewashing the past. Looking at what has happened to Alexanderplatz it is hard to disagree.
So here's my argument: it is important that things be remembered. Films are an important cultural artifact, and can be used to observe and contemplate times and places which no longer exist- even the very recent. Films like the aforementioned Goodbye Lenin! and The Lives of Others, belong to an important and unfortunately small canon: the 'DDR movie'. Perhaps its appeal is too narrow. Thankfully the appeal of World War II movies is somewhat broader. I would rather that very many films were made involving the holocaust than too few. It is important that these times be remembered. As long as they are well made, well acted, and the story is worth telling, I will still watch. Nobody is being forced to see any of these movies. The usual reaction when a popular film wins the oscar is: 'They just went with the popular vote'. When a left-field choice wins it is: 'The academy is trying to be different'. No matter who wins, the academy is the loser. Disband, all is lost.
A couple of other brief notes:
1. Perhaps Tony Scott's comment is sour grapes. His brand of kinetic action thriller has gone unfortunately unrecognised by the academy for a long time. Perhaps he should consider diversifying.
2. The comments of Huckabee are amusing: it seemed when he was saying that there were a lot of choices for an atheist or non-believer President, he was implying that there are more 'Godless heathens' than those with true faith. This is the alarming thing about loudmouth Christians in the USA. For all their bluster, they seem to play on a massive sense of persecution. They clearly haven't been looking at the polls. It's probably the brother of the 'liberal bias' claim which is one of the greatest oxymorons I have ever encountered.
LOVE what you say about vertical versus horizontal prayer. I'll be sure to steal that liberally in conversation. I recently had a debate with a friend of mine in which I tried to explain this concept to him. He, being a Maryland Catholic, had never seen the kind of horizontal prayer that I, a Texas agnostic cum deist, had seen on a daily basis.
However, I disagree with you about The Reader. I agree that that silence should have been the theme, but instead the theme for me was atonement. In my mind, the filmmakers not misguided critics, made this about the holocaust by including the scene with Lena Olin in which she gives us a self-righteous tretise on what Holocaust Survivors would accept as repentance. I hate this scene because somwhere between Hare, Daldry, and Olin their work made me roll my eyes at a holocaust survivor.
The too-long and ineffective visit to the old concentration camp came off as trite and manipulative and also not very effective to those who have already gone to the holocaust museum in D.C. It did not fit the moment, and it did not render these things in a memorable way. (I'd long before been exposed to "the shoes" and I didn't think the film did them justice) Instead The Reader (in my mind) USED the holocaust, and that's what I can't forgive. It works thematically. Each character is seeking forgiveness for the crimes they committed (silence): Hannah for the people she let die, Michael for letting Hannah rot in prison. But at the heart is the question "How do Germans atone for the Holocaust?" I suppose this isn't a bad question to deal with, and I suppose it works within the film's structure. But I don't think the elements involving the Holocaust were effective, and so I suppose is the problem others have; not that The Reader is secretly another boring Holocaust film, but that The Reader is at its worst when it tries to be a Holocaust film.
For me The Reader lost its focus, so when Michael tells his daughter Hannah's story I felt little catharsis. I also had the creeping suspicion that this film was nominated for all the wrong reasons. I don't think people despise the Holocaust as a film subject, but perhaps people are tired of films dealing with the Holocaust having a distinct advantage in awards situations.
Roger, you might understand movies, but history...not so much. Quite a lot of Presidents have been guilty of subverting the Constitution, and their guilt is a lot more clearly defined than George W. Bush's. Let me suggest Abraham Lincoln (suspending habeous corpus), Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt (much of his New Deal was ruled unconstitutional, and his methods to aid Britain in the early days of World War II weren't altogether ethical). It's just lazy to say that Bush was the first, even postulating that he was guilt of doing so.
I don't know what "accessory to murder" even means in this case, but I should think that legally, starting an unjust war or killing suspected terrorists isn't murder. It isn't legal, of course, or moral, but I don't think even the most zealous prosecutor would try to prosecute Bush for murder. (War crimes, perhaps, but not murder).
Anyhow, must of the allegations of Bush's war crimes seem to follow the conspiracy model of history--"there isn't much evidence to see, so just imagine how big the cover-up is!" I never find that logic convincing.
And the entire "evangelicals think that perhaps facts are the devils tools" idea is incredibly unfair. Trust me, there are no evangelicals (even the crazy snakehandling ones) who actually think this way. On the contrary, they think that they have all the facts and that the rest of the world is deceived. Illogical, perhaps, but far from your depiction of them. Granting their fundamental postulates, even the most extreme fundamentalists are actually quite logical.
Ebert: Would authorizing torture and rendition make him an accessory?
http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/evolute.html
"I am not sure how well this is known. I have tried, in preparation for this talk, to read some evolutionary economics, and was particularly curious about what biologists people reference. What I encountered were quite a few references to Stephen Jay Gould, hardly any to other evolutionary theorists. Now it is not very hard to find out, if you spend a little while reading in evolution, that Gould is the John Kenneth Galbraith of his subject. That is, he is a wonderful writer who is beloved by literary intellectuals and lionized by the media because he does not use algebra or difficult jargon. Unfortunately, it appears that he avoids these sins not because he has transcended his colleagues but because he does does not seem to understand what they have to say; and his own descriptions of what the field is about - not just the answers, but even the questions - are consistently misleading. His impressive literary and historical erudition makes his work seem profound to most readers, but informed readers eventually conclude that there's no there there."
-Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist
Ebert: I am cynical enough to believe that Hollywood would make any movie whatsoever if it promised to be profitable.
I guess the success of The Passion of the Christ must have come as a big surprise to them. I'm a little surprised that no one has tried to make "The Passion of the Buddha" or "The Passion of the Christ part 2" given as how they love to make spinoffs of a successful film.
I’m afraid of many things, but owning an opinion out loud has never been one of them. That isn’t to say I’ll rush in where angels fear to tread and jump into just anything screaming “CARPE DIEM…!” You have to pick and choose your battles wisely, otherwise it’s a potential bloody nose for nothing. At the very least, it helps to be in the mood for it and as luck would have it, I am – for this is my sort of topic – thought-provoking!
And so without further ado: bungeee…!
Imo, people take themselves with them wherever they go, and that includes the worst not only the best of what’s got into the making of you. I think America has in some ways, turned into what it sought to leave behind for having failed let go of it. All the old hypocrisy, injustice and abuses of power. It’s managed to recreate itself over the years and by ironically abusing the very freedom so hard fought for in order to achieve it, while aided by a well-intentioned desire to be tolerant. You guys tolerate the very thing your democracy wasn’t suppose to less you likewise fell victim to it; namely, the blurring of church and state. And it hasn’t escaped my notice that wherein patriotic Christians used to sing God Save the Queen, now it’s God bless America. I wonder where you learned that, hmm?
Patriotism and politics were deeply intertwined under the Kings and Queens of the British Empire. And why it was so easy to lose your head beneath an axe if you found the courage to speak up and openly dissident. (Yes, the British still sing “God save the Queen” to this day, but they’re usually about to start a soccer game.) Point is, you left the old world in search of the new for a reason, and yet I find more enlightenment in that place now by comparison.
Case in point: the very Nation that gave birth to so much in yours and patriotically commemorate a foiled attempt to blow-up the Houses of Parliament on Nov 5th in 1605 via “Bonfire Night”, have recently had a change of heart where ol’ Guy Fawkes is concerned. Many now admire his reasons for wanting to overthrow the Protestant government due to the underlying context of his actions; he rightly regarded the persecution of English Catholics as unjust and unfair. And today he is often toasted as "The last man to enter Parliament with honorable intentions." Note: I don’t like what he tried to do, but I admire why for the same reason I think is wrong to pick on Jews or Muslims or whatever.
Can you imagine anyone in America allowing something similar for making the distinction between what someone tried to do versus “why” they tried to do it? I mean, remember the fuss over Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weathermen? In the case of Guy Fawkes it inspired a film called “V” for Vendetta; albeit the filmmakers took liberties with Alan Moore’s graphic novel; quote from Wikipedia:
"[The movie] has been "turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country… It's a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neo-conservatives—which is not what the comic V for Vendetta was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about England."
I personally loved it but I get where he’s coming from for I’ve read the graphic novels and Moore wanted to ask the reader, is this guy right? Or is he mad? And leave it up you to decide.
Anyhoo, I think he makes a point about America. Too “timid”. I agree. You’re so afraid of religion due to it’s power and influence politically in your country, that it keeps you from saying what you really think for fear of losing your heads; and thus his story was appropriated in order to tell your own. To be fair, those who do find the courage to speak are often vilified by religious groups and accused of being biased-liberals with an axe to grind against religion itself - as opposed to taking a fair shot and what might hiding behind it. Not the same thing as being anti-religion. And why I don’t think Roger, is.
It’s not that I find Americans intolerant you understand but rather, that what some of what you choose to tolerate, so ultimately self-defeating. For reminding me of past battles already waged and won. I mean, haven’t you already won this war? Isn’t the separation of church and state guaranteed in your constitution? I don’t recall who said it but “freedom once achieved gets lazy” and maybe that’s what happened? Everything you wanted to accomplish was, and then you decided to relax and enjoy the fruits of your labors by the pool and took your eye off the ball, so to speak? Allowing everything previously held at bay to sneak up on you now?
Not that I’m an authority on the United States. Hardly. It’s just that I thought you guys wanted to be a place where religion didn’t get in the way of civil rights. That you’d already determined it was the only way you’d ever be able to all live in the same country. And that to be an American means agreeing to do that.
Note: I certainly don’t think Canada is this perfect country – far from it! There’s tons of stuff we could be called on. But I do think it’s easier to be openly political and say what you think without having to tippy-toe quite so much. People don’t try to shut you up here so much as crush you with a better argument – assuming there’s time before the hockey game starts.
And there’s what I think as best I could express it at the time.
Ebert: I have only two footnotes: (1) We still sing "God Save the Queen," only here it's titled "My Country 'tis of Thee." (2) Say what you will, "God Bless America" is a great song.
And what if the crowd is your own family? I come from a very strong Christian family, am married to a very strong Christian woman, who is also a very good person. My parents are devout Catholics. I am spiritual, but do not take the bible literally at all. Evolution is obvious. Creationism makes no sense to me. At frequent family gatherings, we pray before we eat. No problem. If someone is sick, my brother will lay hands on that person and pray for their recovery, fully believing that the healing will be done. Once again, no problem because it certainly can't hurt.
We have, on occasion had some rousing discussions about Christianity. I often see things much more in gray than their black and white. Yet, I often quietly let it go without comment - trying not to stir up any family resentment. I cannot convince them of my beliefs, so I keep much of it to myself. They are blind to other opinions in this regard. And so it goes. I have nothing to gain by imposing my thoughts and trying to bend theirs.
I am sure that many Germans did not stand up to Hitler for fear of their own persecution, regardless of whether or not they felt differently. It seemed to me that the woman in The Reader might have also been so traumatized by her actions or lack thereof, that she became numb to emotion. Perhaps she was shamed by not being able to read, but later in life, during the trial, perhaps she was shamed so much by her actions that she felt guilty enough to silently let the verdict come down against her.
When I think about whether I am conservative or liberal. I find it ludicrous to let myself be labeled so easily. I hate the herd mentality. But it is obviously rampant on both sides of the political aisles. I think is better to be a thorough thinker on each issue, whether political or religious and let ones actions do the talking.
Boy, you sure like to open up the can 'o worms once in a while, don't you? When did "liberal" become synonymous with hating your country? I LOVE my country. (Visiting developing countries made me realize the blessings we have by just being born here.) For that matter, when did "conservatism" become synonymous with "Christian"? There is NO WAY Jesus would have voted for George W. Bush.
My God, I wish I could hold my tongue on politics and religion. Its probably why I'm teaching at a public school for peanuts. (Which I love. So there.)
I've been teaching evolution for ten years now and writing a dissertation on the effect of cosmological beliefs on science achievement. I also have a son who could have benefitted from embryonic stem cell research, for which Bush cut federal funding. It frustrates me to no end when my students ask me if I "believe" in evolution or creation. People present these two options as if they are equally valid ideas with intellectuals debating both sides, like whether conservatism has been disastrous every time it has been implemented in this country. The evolution "debate" should not be considered controversial in this country. We should not use words like "believe." We should use the word "accept" when describing evolution.
Creationism (Or Creation-Science or Intelligent Design or Whatever New Name Given to The Same Old Idea) holds no evidence whatsoever. It is as scientifically valid as astrology or the "evidence" that Neil Armstrong was really on a sound stage in Nevada. All evidence points to evolution. No evidence points to special creation.
I have drawn a Venn diagram (two interlocking circles) on my dry-erase board, one circle labelled "Evolution" and the other labelled "Creation." I put the word "observation" in the middle, because both sides use observation to support their cause. But that's about it. In the "evolution" circle, I put words like "evidence," "fossils," "falsifiability," "consensus," and "measurement." In the creation circle, I put words like "faith," "anecdotes," "miracles" and "stories." On this very journal, I got into it with someone named Tyler D.. (This was before the Ben Stein thing.) Tyler actually thinks that the Grand Canyon is evidence of the Great Flood. The worst part about that whole debacle with Tyler is that anyone who reads what Tyler D. wrote can tell that he is an intelligent, thoughtful person. Only in America would someone as smart as Tyler refer me to a site that informs me that people had dinosaurs as pets.
This being written, consider the legacy of George W, Bush, as it pertains to science.
George W. Bush is either:
A. So monumentally intellectually incurious as to have never listened to any of his biology professors at Yale and Harvard.
Or...
B. So soul-less that he is willing to appeal to the Christian Right by saying he thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution, even though he knows it shouldn't.
My suspicion is the latter. Which is even worse. We are all going to pay big time for the last eight years.
I wish more people would have spoken out from the beginning. Look where that has taken us. This is what happens when we don't elect our best and brightest to the Presidency.
"The Reader" would be my host-hated film of the year, were it not for that treacly poverty fantasy "Slumdog Millionaire", with its stick figure archetypes and lack of narrative momentum. "The Reader" demands we seem sympathize with a woman who is a death camp guard, a pedophile, and the kind of person who writes in library books. Suggesting she was a victim of circumstance is a lame argument, considering she was not "following orders" when she slept with a minor, much in the same way Roman Polanski's personal tragedies do not absolve of sleeping with a child. The film fails ultimately because it has nothing new to say about the law(which is given short shrift to the statutory rape, or "love story"), German Holocaust guilt, or the loss of innocence. "Judgement at Nuremberg" tackled this line with more class, intensity, and taste. And the "She made us read to her" line was unintentionally funny, lacking the intended potency. If this had been a film with a male Nazi sleeping with an underage girl, or a male Nazi sleeping with an underage boy, you would never hear the end of it. Ralph Fiennes was superb in evoking inner torment, but IMHO, Ralph Fiennes was denied a nom for his arguably superior work in "In Bruges". His Harry Waters is an original. How "The Dark Knight" was passed over for this and other banalities is appalling.
Well, well, you have finally come clean and shown your true colors. I've never heard or read these sentiments from you before but i don't know your complete ouvre. I did have faith that you had it in you.
Here's what i've learned deep in the heart of texas.
Human consideration is irrelevant to Truth.
Maybe that's why so many humans can't abide it!
It's amazing how some people think they're progressive for being bigots. How they think they're fighting prejudice for being prejudiced. How they think their open-minded by dismissing opinions conflict with their own.
I'm writing about you, Roger, not about the straw men you castigate. Your opinions are shameful.
Ebert: I should have put "conservatism" in quotes. Bush was no more conservative than the Mad Hatter.
Thank you for saying this. Conservatives (such as me) lost our faith in the President when he rejected the core fundamentals of conservatism (maybe some other things helped us lose that faith, too). I think that I, and my fellow bloggers, tend to get ourselves in trouble when we start throwing around conservative and liberal tags onto things and then immediately declaring such things bad. We respond to glittering generalities as a species, I guess. That's why many people who tune in the Super Bowl watch the commercials more than the game.
I just want to bring up something troubling in your piece Roger regarding horizontal and vertical prayer. I understand your statement that horizontal prayer can be viewed as a show to others that you have belief. But what about prayer in church service? The Catholic Mass, the Protestant Service, etc.? Isn't part of being a believer (small "b" intentionally used here) professing our faith to others? We recite the Lord's Prayer, we have Communion, and we profess the Apostles’ Creed or Nicene Creed. These are all part of the traditional church service, most of which is "horizontal" prayer. Isn't professing faith a cornerstone of Christianity? And isn't professing our belief (be it religious or ethical) what you are exhorting us to do in your blog: standing up for one's beliefs despite the ridicule or the harm that it may cause?
As an aside, I have been looking up scientific studies about prayer and they are mixed. I found a NYT piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html) that reported on a finding that said prayer actually had a negative effect on some patients "because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested." I couldn't help but chuckle at this article. They took as their sample a group of 1,802 people who had coronary bypass surgery. Fifty-nine percent of the people prayed for suffered complications from the surgery. The conclusion from reading the piece is that basically, not only is the power of intercessory prayer not helpful, it actually can result from further complications. Let's not look at the type of complications of the 59%. Let's not look at the severity of the diseases, the health of the individual, the surgical facilities, the ability of the physicians, the competency of the nursing or aftercare, the actual hospital. I mean, logically, there are only two ways the study could conclude: either prayer helps or it does not help. You either believe or you don't. How could prayer make it worse?
Thanks again for the thought provoking words.
Ebert: Ideally, at a church service, you are praying with, not at.
Roger,
Oh, I loved this blog. I have written you over the years on occasion, and although I began as a suspicious, hard-line, ultra right-wing, born-again sort, homophobic, thankful for a "Christian president," things began to change. I'm not sure how and when, but they did. One possible turning point would have been my own response to the Holocaust--and I agree that The Reader is not a "Holocaust film." My 7th grade history project for Mrs. Smith (thank you, Sherry Smith, who taught history at Carthage Junior High in Carthage, MO--you gave me a vehicle that altered my life profoundly. I will never forget that you are what teachers should be) was on "nazism."
I wound up reading much more that some might think appropriate for a 12-year-old on the Holocaust, and one day in the middle of my project, it came to me that 6 million people had died simply because they were Jews. I wondered if I would have hidden and helped Jews who came to my door, and I finally decided that the only way I could answer that question was to "do what is right" in the areas of my own life (no( that I always did. Or do.)
30 years later, I realized that was only part of the question. The other part was, would I have cheerfully and willingly turned Jews, (and Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and people with dissenting opinions) over to the Nazis and cooperated with a program of evil because it had so many "good features" and because it allowed me to live safely, agree with the "authorities," and avoid imprisonment or torture or death? I had wanted to believe myself a hero ("would I hide Jews?") but was afraid of facing that I could have been a monster, too. I think the answer to that question--if an answer exists--is found in how much I am willing to speak up when I need to. I, too, have some shameful moments--and they aren't necessarily what many people would consider a big deal. But I know they are.
Over time, I learned that I could--and do--remain unapologetically a Christian who finds the metaphor "born again" useful but not the sum total of my Christian belief, who realized that other people could actually be Christians too without conforming to what I and my other friends of like belief considered to be The Only Truth, and who understood that people of other faith traditions could have belief that was life-affirming and motivating. I stopped thinking I was the top of the food chain spiritually. I became a Democrat because that party reflected my values and beliefs better. I go to an inclusive church that happens to be mostly gay, even though I'm not. I stopped thinking that I could have the answer to everything all in one neat package. I learned to think for myself. I began, I hope, to be willing to keep what I believed to be true and to discard what I believed wasn't.
You are one of the voices who helped me begin to think on my own. Thanks for this blog--and for all your blogs. Thanks for being honest and thanks for provoking people to think. Thanks, Roger--this is one of the most humane blogs on one of the most humane Web sites. Oh, and it includes film, too--what more could a person want?
Ebert: It is not often mentioned that the Nazis also killed Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, communists, and some dissenting Catholics, Hispanics, Asians, and others.
My beautiful friend Roger,
'the following argument ought first to have been adduced against all science both ancient and modern. If the world is not created by God, it is not. If we do not recognize that it has been created by God, we do not recognize that it is.' - Karl Barth
The problem comes down so dramatically not to an inability to speak up when needed, but on a larger scale the inability to not gather around one's own group. who knows, maybe this could be considered a subtle argument for evolution. We're still pack animals perhaps... nonetheless can you see how this is the case? The inability to gain a comfort with one another leads to the need to surround oneself with those who do not disagree and/or to not speak up when one does, maybe this could be considered a subtle argument for creationism. We're still deeply spiritually isolated, "fallen" beings perhaps... nonetheless, you can see this happening. Really the positions you speak of, stalwart creationists/republican/conservative christians are typically concentrated in certain areas, but the question ALWAYS applies... okay, well what group are YOU in? always valid. Okay Okay, maybe we all, I know myself included, likes to think of him/herself as a transcending figure, one who travels in and out of circles that hold dramatically diverging opinions... yeah yeah yeah, I got ya. Sure. Though i genuinely applaud you (and my last 2 sentences were genuinely not in any way meant to reference you, but everyone, with special reference to myself) , if you do come across people who hold these staunch conservative positions I am pleased and glad that you are running in circles where people believe differently than yourself.
I myself find uhm... myself in this position you speak of often. I believe I tend usually to side with the least spoken of argument. I don't think I especially cross over the social boundaries often enough, yet somehow find my niche of 'opinions' (which i'm trying to rid myself of) that make me 50% boring, yawny (if it's not a word there's no reason to spell it right), unintellectual conservative Christian, and 50% more left of center than 90% of house democrats would admit to. This is usually where I spend most of my time in my mind actually, since I live in Alabama.
But I am now in Chicago I suppose (through the power of this box) speaking with others around the world and I guess my mind shifts quickly to that Karl Barth quote. I think about how much I understand the type you're referring to. I understand that there are those with their insane conspiracy theories and Rush Limbaugh rhetoric and mostly antagonistic we really stopped even trying to pretend ten years ago that we're compassionate conservatism. I KNOW. believe me. Yet at the same time I mostly gravitate to a place nowhere in between. I think that we're are own worst enemy in taking Chrsitianity further from the intellectual and dignified place it once had. It's always been a fractured story, but I do think that we've lost our roots and indebtedness to deeply intellectual faith. Theology has lost its place in the academic sphere, at least the place it once had. there are still great theologians at Oxford and Princeton and Harvard and Duke etc etc. Robert Jenson, NT Wright, David Bentley Hart, Colin Gunton, etc etc. But I blame the academic world as well as the Christian world for removing intellectual consideration and process from faith. Though most of the really good, yes even 'evangelical' theologians of today would most likely not be '6 day creation' proponents, yet at the same time they would be broadly considered 'creationists' and the great theologians of the ages would certainly be. I think Karl Barth is my favorite theologian and he makes the statement:
"There is free scope for natural science beyond what theology describes as the work of the Creator. and theology can and must move freely where science which is really science, and not secretly a pagan Gnosis or religion, has its appointed limit"
I guess that's really how I feel. I believe that statement is about the greatest understanding of the relationship between theology and science I have ever read. Science has its limits, but God's Word does not. I don't expect you to agree with that, but if theology is to have its place in society, even as a whole, it must believe that and stop trying to defend Christianity from science with a greater science.
Have you ever read Kierkegaard? I just think one of the greatest achievements in they way we've come to understand the world have come from those who can say that human thinking is absurd. Yes, some of the attempts at creation science are perhaps absurd, even laughable, but for the love of all things good, come on. Can't we at least say that evolution is also absurd! Not as an intellectual discipline, but just as something that we as humanity have come up with. is this the best we can do!? Seriously.
THE READER...
Yes, great great movie. I watched it with reading little about it going in. I thought it was wonderful. I felt the moral dilemma and regret of the boy/man, I cried when he sent her those tapes with him reading the books. I just thought it was wonderful. I thought its only weakness was how the relationship between Fines and his daughter should've been more developed since it was important in the end. I thought this was probably an issue that was necessitated from following the book to a reasonable level while it provided elements that would've been difficult to fully develop in the film. It's a minor flaw. I couldn't believe my eyes when i saw the metascore! what! insane... I think you and the oscars are about the best source for opinions on movies in my mind.
Ebert: A little.
The fanboy in me simply has to know if the new Battlestar Galactica is/was part of the little TV that you do watch.
(Please say yes)
Ebert: Sorry.
I always wondered why extremism on either side of the "conservative"-"liberal" equation resulted in horrible things like Nazi's or Communism. My mom (who incidentally is a devout evangelical Christian, but wrote her college thesis on Why Jesus was a Communist) helped me understand this a bit better. She said that rather than conservativism and liberalism being on a line with one philosophy at either end, it was more like this line was bent into a circle, and that the more extreme your philosophy, instead of ending up radically different than your opponent, you ended up the same. I always found that fascinating.
Roger,
For years I have relied on your words before seeing any film. In fact, if I watch an older film, I search your archives to see what you thought about the film back in the day. Now I find myself draw to your thoughts on life in general. Your honesty regarding 40 years of guilt for cheating in chess struck me as very true and anything but trivial.
I am happy to report that cancer has not robbed you of your voice. If anything, lately you seem to be speaking with desperately needed clarity and conviction.
Thank you for that.
I owe Rush Limbaugh for about 6 years of gainful employment.
Like thousands of others, I was working in an AM/FM combo when Rush broke through into circulation. That was the era of the fateful "caller abortion" routine, where he would hang up on people while playing a SFX of a baby crying and a toilet flushing.
Unpalatable? Maybe. But for those of us working the no-school-announcement and recipe-on-the-radio beat, it was a godsend to see those phones light up again.
Rush single-handedly saved AM radio for over a decade. Now that his star is somewhat more tarnished (despite the polishing with oxycontin salve), AM is back on its trajectory into the toilet. What do you get now, except for WGN and other flamethrowers? Ranchero music. Piolin a la manana. The Electric Weenie.
Hey, other people have tried more content-oriented programming on AM and have had varying degrees of success. Talknet gave it a try and true enough, Bruce Williams was fun to listen to as he approached stroke levels of outrage over finance, and Dr. Dean Edell is still kicking around. But nobody in the modern era grabbed the public's ear the way Rush did, and I never felt better about working AM than when I'd hear that "pop" at the end of My Boy Lollipop and know I was about to hear more on Barney Frank's antics in, around, and sometimes under congress.
Rush is an institution, tarnish and all, and has done more for modulating the amplitude than anyone else in the past three decades. The King is not dead--it is true, he smells a little funny these days; but nonetheless, long live Rush.
Now where's that old Joe Pine tape of mine?...
Joe: "I'm a little surprised that no one has tried to make "The Passion of the Buddha" or "The Passion of the Christ part 2" given as how they love to make spinoffs of a successful film."
Actually, Warner Bros has been asking Frank Miller and Zack Snyder for a sequel to 300. Prepare yourself for "Dawn of the Spartan Dead."
Roger, I've busted out occasionally in response to some outrageous statements on the part of my sister or my other sister. I've also, in the past, stayed silent. I believe the staying silent has been the worst of the two. I'm trying to be more courageous, but it ain't easy.
And that's not the worst I've done. Suffice to say that I have reasons enough to be ashamed of some instances of my past behaviour.
However, a couple of thoughts surfaced, in a free-associational manner, as I read your blog.
First of all, about extreme doctrinaire "Conservatives", from Pinky and the Brain
Brain: Pinky, I think I know who's behind this: that clown we saw in Washington.
Pinky: Newt Gingrich?
Brain: No, the other clown.
On George W. Bush and his alliance with the religious right:
I'm currently reading a book called "Command of the Ocean" by N.A.M. Rodger. It's the second in a series of 3 books about British naval history. The first was "Safeguard of the Sea", and covers the period up to 1650; the second volume covers the period from 1650 to 1815.
The year 1650 is the year after Oliver Cromwell and his republicans deposed the Stuart monarchy in the person of Charles I, and turned England into a republic for a while. The author notes their extreme religious views, and this section of the book could describe your country over the last 8 years (I don't have the book so the quote is not exact or even complete):
the Parliamentarians were strict Protestant believers, and their belief in God was the sole source of political policy and its guarantee of success...they believed their success on the battlefield was proof of God's favour...therefore, despite the fact that the pronouncements of the Holy Ghost often followed their political agenda...they believed that opposition to their policies was not merely misguided but wicked, doomed to failure in this world and damnation in the next..."
Those commentators on this blog entry who have deplored the tendency of the Rush Limbaughs of the world to hector others...I think they ignore the idea that these people don't just believe but know they are right, and that by disagreeing with them we are dooming ourselves to hell. They can't help but want to try to "save" us. I think the tragedy is that they don't realize how allowing them to "save" us would cost us who we are. And by "we", I mean anyone who doesn't fit into their worldview where Christ is white, government is wrong, Democrats are socialists if not communist threats to America, etc.
The other sound bite that flits into my mind is a quote from an episode of Babylon 5:
Political officer: With our basic freedoms at stake, no response is too extreme.
Every time I heard that line, I think: "Oh? Even if that response costs you those freedoms?"
Lastly, to two of your posters:
Jen S:
...I've been at a low level, go-nowhere job for eight years because I've never gotten it together to find a better one, one that would require more and different schooling, or hard thinking about what I actually want to do with my life. I just can't bear to think of it, I actually cry when looking at help-wanted sites because I'm so embarrassed at having done so little with my life.
I know how you feel. I feel shame about not "having done enough with my life". I'm trying to work through it, and I've been inspired by an exchange from a television program called Avatar: The Last Airbender. Yes, it's an animated show aimed at kids, and yet it contains (as far as I'm concerned) much insight.
Uncle Iroh: You will not be able to do ...[call it x]...until you deal with your shame.
Zuko: I don't feel shame. If anything, I'm more proud now than ever.
Iroh: Pride is not the opposite of shame, but its source. True humility is the only antidote for shame.
So I've been trying to identify what I feel proud about, that would lead me to feel I have failed in my life to realize the promise. I'm making progress I hope, and if this can help you too, to take some steps forward, I can consider that my Good Deed For The Day.
To Joe who posted on February 5, 2009 5:23 PM
God obviously does not "care" about who wins the Super Bowl. A common misconception that non-religious people have is that people pray to ask for things. While I believe this is an OK practice, when I pray it is more that God, while allowing his will to be done, will help us through it...
I read on another blog that, before the election, there was actually a pastor in the United States, who was publicly praying to god to let McCain win, because there were so many "people in the world prayihng for a certain person to win, and if that happens, that woul dmean that their gods are bigger than you, God." So please let "right" guy win.
It's not only non-religious people who suffer from that misconception. Which neatly proves Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.
Good day Mr. Ebert,
I have yet to see this movie, so I do not know if the following scene was put into the film, but I have read the book. Can I assume that you have read it as well?
In the novel, Michael struggles with the question of informing the court of Hanna's illiteracy. In fact, I believe he even considers speaking with the judge privately. He brings the question to his philosopher father, who advises him to not to tell the court; that adults should decide what is best for themselves, by themselves. To summarize the elder Berg's point, that to speak to a court official would reduce Hanna to an object unable to make her own decisions, thus compromising that person's dignity.
What are your thoughts on this? Does the father have a point? If so, why is Michael "wrong" to not speak to the judge?
Could it be that there simply is no right answer?
Ebert: I have not read the novel. The movie is made in such a way that Michael does, I believe, feel the guilt.
Some things I'd like to read your take on, if you are so inclined to write on them.
-- What does a producer do? Why do they get best pix awards? If directors are the autuers, why don't they get that award? Or, how can you be a best director and the film not get best pix? (Have you written on this before?)
-- I tried to watch the original Stepford Wives and thought I would fall asleep before they even got the movie going. But ... is the current faster pace of TV and movies responsible for short attention spans, as some scholars have said?
-- Free market theory. They apparently forgot to add greed to the theory. OK, you're not an economist. But I bet you could have fun with this.
-- How have you been affected by the weird celebrity-culture world we now live in? I.e., do paparazzi hound you? Pre-surgery, could you go out to eat and not be interrupted? Or was that okay with you? (Many years ago,I saw you at an antique store in LaPorte, IN, and didn't say hello or tell you how much I appreciated your work because I didn't want to intrude. I'm sure you would have been polite. But what's it like to live as a public figure of sorts? And no, I don't know what sort.)
Regards,
Callie
Ebert: I was never exactly so famous that was a problem.
SPOILER ALERT
I understand your point about "The Reader" not being a Holocaust movie, but I only partially agree. A movie can be about more than one thing, and I think "The Reader" is at least partially about the Holocaust (and the writer and/or director wanted it so) because of one scene: Michael visiting the concentration camp and seeing the stacks and stacks of shoes.
I didn't like the film overall simply because I didn't think any of the conflicts were particularly novel or engaging. Why is Michael's silence so damaging? It is an issue only if you think Hanna should not have spent so long in prison. What would you/I have done if in her place? Interesting question, but not one particularly well-explored in the film, and not novel to any degree. We can have a fulfilling debate on that topic just as well without seeing the film.
And by the way, evolution has no conflict with God. It CAN have a conflict with some religions. That distinction -- and how there is no distinction between God and religion for some -- is what drives the debate.
Great entry, as always. My only complaint is that your output isn't more prodigious. Thank you.
P.S. I'm still waiting and hoping for Clint Eastwood's "A Perfect World" to get its proper recognition. Perhaps a Great Movies entry would help.
"Religion is a lot trickier. You're not talking about opinions."
No, you still are, unless the religious person is a mystic. But you go onto make much the same distinction with the vertical/horizontal deal.
The question of how to deal with such people - those whose views have been gotten "at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from others" - is trickier. I've done the confrontation bit, and it provides fleeting satisfaction, but leaves the person no better off - in fact so far as it serves to antagonize the person, and to seem like an attack on his character, it may strengthen the belief, which he will come to identify more and more as a part of himself - which is funny considering he acquired it secondhand. I've also tried just ignoring such people and considering them children who should be let alone with their harmless, thoughtless beliefs - and I've thereby gained serenity for a brief time, always a brief time, before remembering how harmful those harmless, thoughtless beliefs often are.
The best answer I have found is the example of Socrates in Plato's "Apology". I'd give you a link to the Jowett translation (personal fave) but we all acknowledge your proficiency with The Google, so I'm sure you could find it in no time if you ever wanted to. More than all the rest of Plato, I think, that piece has a lot to teach anybody.
Yehiel Dinur sobbed and collapsed on the floor of the courtroom where Adolf Eichman was tried for crimes at Auschwitz. He later explained it was because Eichman was not the demonic monster he had envisioned but an ordinary man, like himself. He had come to the reality of the human condition - that the battle between good and evil dwells in each of us; that idea frightened him.
I believe in God. I know he made man to have nothing above himself except God. Whatever else we place above ourselves, will always corrupt us. That was Eve's failing - she listened to a voice not from God and gave her authority to it by allowing it to corrupt her. She had been told the truth and rejected it. Both major figures in this movie sound as if they also knew the truth and reject it.
I thank you for your review. I will go see the movie. We need to always remember the holocaust was a real event in real history - no doubt the next holocaust will be against Christians.
Sometimes I wonder if Proposition 8 passed because too many people were afraid to speak out. Too many homophobic or just plain scared people who knew what was right, but didn't want to be viewed as "gay" by the people in their lives. It's something I've thought about every day since it passed, and "Milk" certainly intensified those thoughts. If only the Mormons hadn't interfered.
This entry brought up alot of interesting thoughts. My big one, aside from Prop 8, was the story about Gene and how he asked people to tell embarrassing stories. One of my favorite drinking games is "I Never," where you go around the table and people say things they've never done. If you've done it, you take a drink. Fun and silly, to be sure, but more often than not, you find things out about people that you wouldn't have otherwise. And though many of the things you find out are frivolous, there's occasionally some insight.
One night a friend confessed to me that when we had been playing the game, he had lied about one of the questions, which was "I've never kissed a guy." He was so ashamed that he hadn't been able to be honest with us, even in the context of a drunken party. And though I felt it was no big deal, he clearly felt like he had betrayed some part of himself, some deep seated desire that he either refused or didn't want to acknowledge. It really made me think, and we became much deeper friends for the experience.
We all need to be more honest about what we know, what we don't know, and what we are willing to tell people. The world could be a much better place.
I can't tell you how many times I've encountered "horizontal prayer." I just never had a good name for it. It seems to me that prayer of that kind is more like an actor trying to perform for an audience.
It strikes me that, if one is addressing an all-powerful, omnipotent being, prayers would tend to be very simple and direct, since he/she/it would obviously have a much better grasp on the situation, and wouldn't really need to be informed about it.
The existence of God is something "the prudent are hot neither to confirm nor deny," as Bierce put it, but in atheists I've never met a more Christianly puritanical bunch snobbily forming their lives around the notion that someone doesn't exist. I'd hate to be stuck next to Richard Dawkins on a plane. He'd probably always be wiping something off and bothering the stewardess with specifications.
To be fair, what scientific proof have we that guilt exists? Same as for God -- both are invisible and both get the hormones a-sputter. And come ON, evolution at its basic premise is just as unprovable, while this idea too sets the hormones on yellow alert when doubted a little -- particularly over the issue of grant money and career building. Whoa... isn't that what religion became five minutes after Jesus finished saying all those wonderful things, shot up into the air, and disappeared?
I can grok your feeling for the chess game with your blind pal, Rodge. That's natural guilt. One never, ever does it again and I'll believe you if you say you haven't cheated the blind since. Please arrange a chess game between that innocent man and every member of government -- off-camera, so they'll behave as they ordinarily would. It could help.
I'll never, ever throw a kitten down the stairs again, even if just out of a dead sleep. It was doing that because it liked me.
Artificial guilt, in my experience, is fun and challenging to figure out how to break, notably when one's opinion might explode with undue innocence at dinner. Me also ex-Catholic. One of my memory milestones is skipping Sunday mass at age 13 and never returning. You know this meant eternal hellfire death according to church rules. Nevertheless, wheeee!
Will mention it to Mom when I've grown up. Maybe not say "wheeee."
THANK YOU for saying nice things about nuns! I was there too. Kenny Potts deserved worse than what he got. And I've STILL only ever needed Sr. Mary Bart's 5th grade rules of writing despite a fancy schmancy college education at a school known for it. Nobody bitches about how I write. Unless they're being guiltily unfair.
I always thought that the whole purpose of the Touch-Move Rule in chess was so it wouldn't be visually distracting to your opponent. If he saw you put your fingers on a piece, he would assume that that was the piece you were going to move. This would influence the analysis and considerations of strategy of your opponent when dealing with the position on the board. This could be used as a tactic to psychologically disarm your opponent, and could be used to gain an unfair advantage over him.
How could the touch-move rule be of any use to a blind man? He might know that you touched apiece, but surely he wouldn't know which one you touched. I can appreciate your guilt for lying to a blind man, but on the other hand, he shouldn't have held you to the touch-move rule in the first place. Did he move his own pieces?
In retropect, maybe your conversation should have gone like this:
"Did you you touch a piece?"
"I don't know...which one did I touch?"
Ebert: The purpose, I think, is beside the point. A rule is a rule. Anyway, what I did was worse. I picked it up, then replaced it.
Wikipedia: In serious play, if a player having the move touches one of his or her pieces as if having the intention of moving it, then he or she must move it if it can be legally moved. So long as the hand has not left the piece on a new square, the latter can be placed on any accessible square.
To Daniel Ruwe:
On the contrary, they think that they have all the facts and that the rest of the world is deceived. Illogical, perhaps, but far from your depiction of them. Granting their fundamental postulates, even the most extreme fundamentalists are actually quite logical.
Garbage in, Garbage Out
Here's what I've learned so far about moral choices.
1) Decide for yourself what's right and what's wrong. (As Mark Twain said, "You cannot shirk this...") Do not expect this step to be easy; there is no formula that covers all situations, and sometimes the best path is still dirty.
2) If you resolve to do what is right, you must do so without hope that anyone will ever reward you, or even know what you did. (To me, much if the driving force behind religion seems to be the desire to get around this rule.)
3) If you do what is right, you may be punished. Decide how much punishment you're willing to endure, then act or don't act. I'm serious. If you a see a bully beating up a weak person on the street, will you wade into the fray? What if the bully is armed? What if the bully is a police officer?
4) Whatever you do, don't lie to yourself. If you steal from a neighbor, admit it's because you wanted the swag, don't tell yourself your neighbor is plenty rich. If you decline to hide a jew from the nazis, admit it's because you were afraid (or you wanted the swag), don't tell yourself that he was a jew and had it coming. As I once told a friend who was facing a tough choice, an honest thief will say "the jewels are mine if I can get them", but only a grey man will say "stealing is wrong but if I do it then it isn't really stealing."
Ebert: I should have put "conservatism" in quotes. Bush was no more conservative than the Mad Hatter.
Roger, that is something we can wholeheartedly agree upon. Doubling the size of government is not conservative. Thanks to Bush and the Republican congress, the Republicans have lost credibility in one of their traditional tenets: fiscal responsibility. Tax-cut and spend is no better than tax and spend. Conservative radio hosts such as Michael Savage have attacked George W. over this and other matters years before the recession occurred. Rush did not, which is one reason I am not a Rush fan.
You know more about theaters in red-states than I do. Obviously, art-house theaters will not thrive in such places. But people definitely showed up for "The Passion of the Christ". Cecil Demille cynically exploited church-goers by featuring sex and violence under the safe cover of the Bible; where is his modern-day counterpart? A remake of "The Ten Commandments", using the latest CGI technology would probably be a hit; every other hit movie from the past is being remade; why not it?
Mr. Barth, you wrote:
"And the exercise of eminent domain would be the source of your Boy George's wealth (http://www.reason.com/news/show/32180.html), having turned his $600,000 into $15 million after failing at (or not following through on, as with his TANG commitment) everything he ever did. (You can't really believe he was a whiz as the Rangers' general partner, can you. It was theft, plain and simple.)"
I read the link you supplied. The voters of Arlington approved funding of the stadium, then the Arlington government used eminent domain to underpay homeowners. I agree with you that this is unconstitutional and represents theft by the state; the liberal wing of the Supreme Court disagrees with both of us. As you can tell from my comments above, George W. Bush is not and was never "my boy". Later in your comments, you refer to midwesterners as people from "Bum****, Idaho". This is the type of condescension that I was referring to in my original post.
Great post Roger, but I have a couple of historical issues I'd like to address. As one of the above posters mentioned, George Bush is certainly not the first president to subvert the Constitution. In 1798, John Adams signed The Alien and Sedition Acts into law which made it a crime to criticize the U.S. government. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and declared martial law during the Civil War. During WW1, Woodrow Wilson made it illegal to criticize the war or the U.S. government. FDR took similar measures during WW2, and he also ordered Japanese Americans to be imprisoned in camps. And of course we had Richard Nixon and Watergate.
All of these Presidents (with the exception of Nixon) felt that it was necessary to take some extreme action during a crisis in order to win a war, protect the American people, etc. I disagree with what they did. Benjamin Franklin once said "Anyone who would sacrifice freedom for security, deserves neither." I agree with Franklin, but my point is that George Bush made a decision similar to the one many of our past Presidents made-that there was enough of a threat to warrant subverting the constitution. I agree with you that what Bush did was wrong, but let's put it in a historical context instead of just singling him out.
Also, I have one more thing to say. You mentioned that Conservatism has been disastrous every time it has been implemented. I would not go that far. Ronald Reagan was a Conservative and he had a successful presidency-8 years of peace and 6 years of a strong economy. However, I would say that Neo-Conservatism has been disastrous every time it has been implemented. George Bush was our first Neo-Con President and it certainly was a disastrous 8 years.
Roger, a) torture and rendition aren't murder, and b), if he authorized them, he wouldn't be an accessory, would he? And anyhow, Obama has authorized rendition (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html) and his CIA has suggested he would be willing to consider torture.
Are you suggesting George W. Bush is a conservative?
To Roger and anyone who thinks George W. Bush is the worst president in history,
watch these two hilarious video's of comedian/actor Robert Wuhl, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7MqrWHM9MA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNQb3DPpf64&feature=related . Franklin Pierce was a pro-slavery president who hastened the civil war.
I just want more people to see these youtube videos, particularly the second video.
Hello Roger,
I think your comment about banal religious invocations in professional sports is well taken. But I'd be careful about the photo that you used to back up the point.
It's impossible to be certain from what's presented here, but I can almost guarantee that what you're looking at is the 1979 New York Yankees bowing their heads in memory of their teammate Thurman Munson, a 32-year-old father of three who'd been killed days earlier in an airplane crash.
No one there is "praying" for a fastball down the middle or a clean hop on a grounder.
Ebert: Oh, no.I've replaced it.
Speaking of horizontal prayer--in this case: churches--I wonder how many people that go to church ever stopped to ask themselves "why am I going to church"? I always thought it was to learn how to be more like Jesus--the highest of standards. So, to me, if you know your Jesus teachings up and down you have no business going to church as only an attendee--and do if you don't. How many times does it take to go to church to learn the teachings of Jesus?...and also with a little extra studying on your own? But they would reply probably saying that church is a place of worship. Why can't some place private be your place of worship?--I saw somewhere on tv recently that a guy uses his closet as his sacred space to pray.
And I just want to talk about Huckabee and evangelical voters who like him. I remember the CNN republican debates and elsewhere where Huckabee said he was for the death penalty. How can you be "pro-life" and be for the death penalty? I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't teach "thou who shall killeth, shall be murdered by my friend jack".
If there were a God, I'd thank him for you, Mr. Ebert.
Your description of the The Reader, as well as your thoughts on what we would do, in a similar situation, reminded me of Michael Verhoeven's The Nasty Girl, which i would append, to your line of inquiry of "What would you do, if you were in that situation?" also, "What would you do to someone else, who found out what you did or didn't do?"
As for your thoughts on Religion, God and those who do or don't believe in God, I had three thoughts that come to mind. (In no particular order.)
- Joseph Campbell, in one of his many lectures prior to his death, related a story attributed to Sri Ramakrishna, the Indian mystic. Campbell tells the story that an old woman comes up to Ramakrishna and tells him, "Teacher, I can not love God. All the things that have happened in my life, the people that I've loved and lost, I just can't love God. There is nothing you can say to me that would change my mind, that's just how it is! I cannot accept and love God!" Ramakrishna asked her, "Is there anyone in your life that you do love?" The woman said, "Well, yes, there is my grandson." "Well there you are!" Ramakrishna stated. "There is your service to God."
- Attributed to Red Elk (quasi/pseudo Indian medicine man): "For some people, theirs' is the God of No God."
- Attributed to George Carlin: "I've felt that for cynical people, if you scratch just below the surface, you'll find a disappointed idealist."
In closing, and this is not an attempt to incite, but i remember hearing Red Skelton close his show every week with this quote. I don't recall, and couldn't imagine at the time, anyone having a problem with it. Times are certainly different now, and i'm sure it would incite some now, but i will always remember the emotion, sincerity and the seemingly peaceful place from which this intonation emerged from him. When i have to say goodbye to someone that i know i will miss, i try and project the same feelings, emotions and sincerity to that departing person.
"Good night, and may God bless!"
Russ
Ebert: One of my dearest friends, who never attended church once to my knowledge, constantly said, "God love ya!" It's like Red Skelton. It's not theological, it's loving.
First things first: my apologies to friends and family of Art Petacque. My meager defense is that I believed something I read. /*/*/ As to the real subject of this essay, I think of an old saying whose origin is unknown to me: "When you point the finger at someone else, you're pointing three back at yourself." I don't know who said it first, and I can't guarantee the wording, but there it is. True Believers are rampant these days, more than perhaps ever in our lifetimes (including True Unbelievers like our own resident evangelical atheist, Bill Hays)(just kidding, Bill). We can find them in all arenas; political(left and right), social (square, hip, and beyond), moral (anything goes vs. hold everything), religious (we already did that, didn't we?), and on and on and on. The sheer mean-spiritedness of it all is what really gets me down - and I'm old enough to remember the '60s, when Lyndon Johnson was catching hell from both left and right (and not just over Vietnam). To assess someone else's courage from outside takes considerable chutzpah, whether it's the acts of years ago, or of today. "What would we do?" indeed. We can safely agonize over this because it was never our problem to deal with directly. Voltaire (I think): "THe Frenchman rails against injustice, has his dinner, and goes to bed." Just like you, just like me, just like everybody. Of course we tell ourselves that if it came to a head, we would stand up, tall and strong, and be heroic - but at the same time, we know we most likely won't ever have to. This is why we cultivate caution as a positive trait. Is that right or wrong? Most times (like at the dinner table) it's exactly right. I guess it's about knowing how to pick your spots - and you can be just as wrong there ... /*/*/ Running out of time here; won't see any answer until Monday; just hope I didn't make a botch of it.
Apologies for the rambling affair, but this post has inspired a bit of confessional in me. Though it is not why I read your writings, I tend to agree with the views and ideas you express, but then how can I not? They are reasonable and articulate and appeal to my intellect as well as my emotions. This post, in particular, is an excellent example. There is not one point I disagree with. Comments like Joe's "too much knowledge is no always a good thing" make me cringe because I think many of the world's problems stem from a lack of knowledge.
I consider myself bleeding liberal, and I have no problem with that label. From a historical context (and my perspective), it's the progressive/liberal viewpoint that forwards society for the better: Lincoln freeing the slaves, women suffrage, FDR's New Deal, civil rights, etc. I find it curious that Stanley Dancer would identify the eminent domain issue as liberal, as to me it smacks of Republican agenda (note that I did not label it conservative), namely government siding with wealthy, powerful corporate entities over private citizens. This, to me, underscores the problem of labels. Obviously we both agree that it was wrong, but we disagree with which group it should be ascribed to (disregarding that the majority of the Supreme Court consists of Republicans, else Gore might have won in 2000, and you wouldn't have your argument for the worst president - or at least not the same argument). Hearing Stanley's perspective, however, makes me want to modify my own: it's not Republican agenda, but corrupt politician agenda, something neither side has a monopoly on.
You, Mr. Ebert, also suggest that discussing politics has more wiggle room than discussing religion, because you can't argue with what people Know. I wonder how much of that is true anymore. People like Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh have reduced ideas and public discourse to something akin to religious dogma. Everything is black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us, perpetuating the left vs. right mythology and all but eliminating the art of free thinking, debate, or compromise. Listening to Rush's perspectives on feminism (a way for ugly women to get equal payment in the work place) or why Colin Powell endorsed Obama (because they're both black) make me feel like I'm murdering my own brain cells. There is no interest in subtly, depth, or showing even the slightest comprehension of the complexity of the issues. No, the argument is reduced to its most shallow level, looks or skin color.
I do not blame Rush (or Hannity, or O'Reilly) for this, however. People are entitled to their opinions, however wrong, shallow, or misinformed they may be, and people are entitled to listen to them. What is unfortunate, though, is that these shallow, wrong, and misinformed ideas are given weight and consideration in the arena of public discourse. It is a masterful execution of Colbert's theory that it doesn't matter what you say, it's how loud (and often) you say it. Substance need not apply, and dissent need not be tolerated.
Back (or finally) to one of the topics of your post: guilt is a curious thing. Though I am essentially agnostic, I've often said I bear more guilt than a Catholic. Unfortunately for me (or perhaps not), I cannot cease my mind from thinking on the impact of my actions. I cannot help but feel guilt for the animals that are tortured for food, medical products, makeup, etc. I feel guilt for the starving masses, the destitute, the uneducated, and all those who do not have the privileged life that I have. This guilt is why I am vegetarian, why I gave up my car for riding a bike, and why I recycle as much as I can. It has nothing to do with the planet I leave behind for future generations, though that is a consideration, too, but rather what is reasonable and necessary for me to ask of the planet today. And still I think I consume far too much (reading The World Without Us doesn't help, btw). Despite these views, I maintain my silence on them because I do not feel it is my place to force my perspective on others or judge their lifestyles, but to find one that works for me. Lead by example, be the change you wish to see in the world, and all that. Is this a sin of omission? I do not know the answer to that, and, like many other things in this universe, probably never will.
As for my chess match, one of my great guilts, if not my greatest, is for my dear old dog, Sheba, who was my best friend and companion growing up, and loyal to the end as all good dogs are, even though I was too young and foolish to recognize that. In her waning years I neglected her when she needed companionship the most, and it has haunted me ever since. Just as your chess match may sound silly to some, few can understand the echoes that sort of circumstance creates. I have vowed to never let that happen with another pet, friend, or family member (aren't they all the same anyway?) ever again.
Ebert: You made me think of my first dog, Blackie. I brought him home without my father's permission, and because we had just Installed New Wall-to-Wall Carpeting (it was always said like that), Blackie had to live tied up in a dog house inside a playhouse in the back yard. In the winter it was cold. I would get off the school bus and hear him barking for me, knowing the sound of the bus. I would run out back and pet him and then run inside to stuff the papers for my route. Then I would deliver the papers, come home, and feed him. Then it was back in the house again. Blackie was in the cold and dark, alone, all night until he got breakfast.
I went to visit my cousin Bernardine in Stonington. When I came back home, my parents told me Blackie had run away and been hit by a car driven by Enos Renner, the husband of my mom's best friend. They lived 12 blocks away. Even then I knew it was a lie, and that Enos had been enlisted so he could bear witness. I never confronted them. I never found out what really happened to Blackie. I hope he found a better home. I've had another dog and three cats since then, and treated them kindly. I still ache about Blackie.
Roger,
One time, when I was eight years old, I was walking with my uncle. He is blind and had his arm around mine so I could lead him as we walked. We always had insightful conversations, even at that early age, and were talking as we went. There was no one around and I saw a small mound on our path. I led him straight to it, and just as he was about to trip over it I pulled away so that he wouldn't have me to steady himself. He didn't fall, but was able to balance himself, and then just stood there and waited until I took him home. He never said a word about it, not to this day. I don't know why I did it, it was out of character, but I did it and if I could take it back I would. What bothers me is not the actual tripping, (or in your case, the seemingly harmless cheating). What bothers me is that this was a betrayal of trust. These are individuals that fate has dealt a harsh hand. By establishing a friendship with us, it is implied that we should act in good faith but instead we attacked their most vulnerable points. This brings into question our friendship, our intentions, and ultimately our character. I think that is why after so many years these types of incidents are so vivid in our memories, it is because we ask if that was a lapse of judgment or a true representation of who we are? This can be put into a larger context, and as humans we are supposed to care for each other. When we see bad things, and do or say nothing, is that not a betrayal to the victims? We are then left to question what does that say about us, which can weigh very heavily on a man's/woman's conscience. Just my two cents... Best Regards! ~OM
There is a sublime bit of dialog in Arthur Miller's autobiographical play, AFTER THE FALL, in which the central character, on a visit to Dachau says something to this effect, "Yes, the Germans committed atrocities, but how many atrocities do we commit in our own lives by uttering a mean word or by not giving a word of kindness."
Regarding Tony Scott's comment that he is tired of movies about the
Holocaust; there are not many effective dramatizations of the Holocaust in general (it is a subject that requires a personal engagement that film dramas cannot provide)but there are films that should be required viewing by every man, woman and child in the world; the films made by the US Army liberating forces and the captured films made by the Germans themselves. One cannot watch these films and not be intellectually and viscerally engaged.
Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and Life is Beautiful are all wonderful film entertainments. But, they do not capture the horror and the shame of the Holocaust. I believe George Stevens, after filming the liberated Concentration Camps, came back to America a changed artist...no more Gunga Dins, no more Swing Times...but Shane and A Place in the Sun.
Reply to: Ebert: I wonder how far a candidate would get replying, "My religious beliefs are none of your business."
In order to be elected to a National office (such as President) you need to collect Power Groups. Joe Biden had the Catholic vote, and without it, he couldn't have been re-elected.
An atheist might get support from 5% of the country. But if you refuse to reveal your religious beliefs, you get support from 0%.
OK, maybe from the 1,000 or so professors who teach Constitutional Law. But that would be it. You would still get zero votes in the Electoral College.
Sarah Palin was chosen because her name was at the top of a short list submitted by an Evangelical group, and McCain realized he wasn't going to win without their support. In other words, he sold out, naming an unqualified VP in order to win votes from a special interest group, even before he was elected.
Obama had a long list of support groups. People who wanted federal funding of stem cell research. People who wanted liberal Supreme Court justices appointed to uphold Roe Vs. Wade.
Reply to: Ebert:. However, there are certain areas in which I consider myself an authority, like the movies. I have devoted years to learning about the Theory of Evolution. I think Creationism is superstitious poppycock. I believe the problem with the literal interpretation of the Bible is that anyone can easily discover its support for the opinions they already hold.
I don't understand your comment about "the literal interpretation of the Bible." Maybe we're looking at different parts of the Bible.
Luke 18:19 Jesus said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, God. Do not commit adultery. Do not bear false witness. But you still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute the proceeds to the poor..."
Maybe I see your point. How could the Catholic Church survive if they sold all of their art treasures and gave the money to the poor?
Oh, wait. There's another way to look at this. The people who wrote this story - after Jesus died - were running a cult, and they wanted their victims to sell any property they owned and give THEM the proceeds.
Where did the Gospels come from? WHY are they confusing? Why does a simple discussion always start an argument and create bad feelings?
The answer is simple. The Gospel was written as a tool to recruit new victims, and they stole concepts from other religions. If the Roman Emperor cult said Julius Caesar had been declared a divus by the Senate, then Paul countered that Jesus had been declared a son of god by his resurrection.
You can't talk about Christianity without running head-on into the Truth... it's a Scam. It's a con game. It looks for gullible victims. 95% of Christianity is recruitment, and all they want is to tell ridiculous stories that will fool new victims into joining.
What I know is, IF there is ever a proper book written about the subject that you are reluctant to discuss, it will make the authors very wealthy.
"By Chad on February 5, 2009 10:15 PM
A few years ago when the Iraq war began, Bush(or someone in high office) declared "We must fight this war to preserve the peace." I always wondered why I never read in newspapers how similar that sounded to George Orwell's "1984."
To Chad and all
Well, the Iraq war was a moral enterprise aside from the other false reason for invasion: the WMD's. Could the war in Iraq have been young Bush trying to clean-up daddy's mess of the Shiite Massacre or another case of the Saudi's buying massive influence from oil revenue? Senior president Bush in the invasion of Kuwait suddenly decided to stand down all US and coalition forces, thereby allowing the dictator (Hussein) to massacre some three hundred thousand Shiites and tens of thousands of Kurds who had risen up to fight by our side at the president's call and places their trust in the United States. This is worst than rendition and comparable to Stalin when he allowed nazi's to massacre the Red Army, and the death toll is higher. It was left to recent president Bush to finish the job of deposing Saddam Hussein. But to what nation was Saddam Hussein the greatest threat? Answer: Saudi Arabia, who have massive influence in Washington. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia, and we still can tax their oil without invasion because of their using money to fund attacks on America and oil price hikes which breaks international antitrust law as part of the WTO. But that wouldn't do much as long as we still use only oil for our cars. A flex-fuel mandate for all new cars sold here is the way to get alcohol fuels on the map worldwide, plus the taxing of Saudi Arabian oil is the way to go--make them charge us 10 dollars for a barrel of oil and then we chage the world somewhere around where it is today--about 40 dollars where alcohol fuels are competitive--and keep the rest of the money to fund development of alcohol fuels as well as counter-embargos, punitive tariffs and destruction of their oil fields if we need to, such as if they wanted to start a war--no oil, no modern warfare--jets, boats, tanks--and no nuclear weapons...Iran, who controls Moscow with oil, a superpower. We could bomb Iran's oil fields and stop the funding of nuclear program once oil loses its power. The invasion of Iraq has empowered Saudi Arabia, who really controls Washington, of keeping Iraq oil off the market to allow OPEC price hikes--keeping a low production quota. This oil price hike is the reason for our recession and soon to be depression if nothing is done.
Its seems most likely that the Iraq war was the Saudi's controlling Washington to keep Iraq oil off the market so they could jack up the price of oil, which hurts the entire world--just look at the recessions all around you--we were paying nearly 5 dollars a gallon of gas, Europe 10 dollars a gallon, bringing up the price of everything and people not wanting to drive to stores or buy houses, which started this collapse.
Thanks for the thought provoking and meaningful depth! No replies seem to consider what it may have been like to be an illiterate German under those circumstances. What kind of understanding, especially of a moral nature, can a person have if unread, uninformed and unthoughtful? The resulting frame of mind would be similar to most very young children: amoral and without a perspective on life and consequences.
The "christian" reaction is always surprising. The teachings of the man called Jesus are so at odds with the contemporary acceptance and tolerance of "righteous" killing of muslims, turning a blind eye to lying, theft of taxpayers money and acceptance of torture and the delight in excessive violence that is euphemistically called "the passion!".
Jason Lau wrote:
"I find it curious that Stanley Dancer would identify the eminent domain issue as liberal, as to me it smacks of Republican agenda (note that I did not label it conservative), namely government siding with wealthy, powerful corporate entities over private citizens. This, to me, underscores the problem of labels. Obviously we both agree that it was wrong, but we disagree with which group it should be ascribed to (disregarding that the majority of the Supreme Court consists of Republicans, else Gore might have won in 2000, and you wouldn't have your argument for the worst president - or at least not the same argument). Hearing Stanley's perspective, however, makes me want to modify my own: it's not Republican agenda, but corrupt politician agenda, something neither side has a monopoly on."
I agree with your last sentence, but I firmly believe that the ruling is properly identified with liberalism. Kelo was a 5-4 decision. John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer. Kennedy is the swing vote, and in this case voted with the liberal wing. Both Kennedy and Souter are Republican picks, but Souter can not be justly described as a conservative justice.
Clarence Thomas wrote one dissent, from which I quote: "This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a “public use.”"
Liberals have historically supported eminent domain and extended its grasp, mostly out of a desire to eliminate slums (see 1954 Berman vs. Parker). The New York Times used eminent domain to seize land for their new headquarters. In doing so, they used the power of government to forcibly seize land from, among others, a student housing unit, a trade school, and several mom-and-pop stores. http://www.reason.com/news/show/32227.html
Stanley Dancer wrote:
"I agree with your last sentence, but I firmly believe that the ruling is properly identified with liberalism. Kelo was a 5-4 decision. John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer. Kennedy is the swing vote, and in this case voted with the liberal wing. Both Kennedy and Souter are Republican picks, but Souter can not be justly described as a conservative justice.
Clarence Thomas wrote one dissent, from which I quote: "This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a “public use.”"
Liberals have historically supported eminent domain and extended its grasp, mostly out of a desire to eliminate slums (see 1954 Berman vs. Parker). The New York Times used eminent domain to seize land for their new headquarters. In doing so, they used the power of government to forcibly seize land from, among others, a student housing unit, a trade school, and several mom-and-pop stores. http://www.reason.com/news/show/32227.html"
Again, we are stuck on labels. I fail to see how this particular decision, or any regarding eminent domain, is liberalism. The majority of Supreme Court appointees are Republican (7 out of 9), which suggests they adhere to some form of conservatism, and that means even a 5-4 majority would have 3 conservatives signing off on it. But I don't think this decision represents the conservative viewpoint, either. Perhaps it's my perception of liberalism (and conservatism), because I limit it to progressive thinking, liberty, and equality (and conservatism I think of as being focused on stability, status quo, reluctant to change). Which, in fact, happens to be Wikipedia's definition of liberalism: Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.
Since many (including myself) are wary of Wikipedia, I looked up Merriam Webster's definition (i added emphasis to the part that applies to my thinking):
a: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
So I submit that the Supreme Court decision cited above, and any regarding eminent domain, isn't based on liberalism or conservatism. I think perhaps the term you are looking for is federalism, which some liberals (and conservatives) may espouse but certainly doesn't fall under liberal (or conservative) thinking, neither my perception nor the definition of it.
Of course, this may make me revisit my thoughts on property rights, something I admittedly know little about, but then I might have to identify myself with something other than (or in addition to) the narrowly-defined label I choose to subscribe to.
As a practicing Catholic and conservative, I'm amazed to read your blog and see someone with completely different ideas to mine, yet with an unquestionably noble heart.
My disagreement with you has to do more than anything by refering, in this blog and past ones, to Limbaugh, Bush and other conservatives as "they" (on the evil side) while refering to Bruce Springsteen and other (obviously better people) liberals as "us". Frankly, from day one I never bought Bush's convictions such as his stand on abortion (something very important to me) as anything but a way to please a group of people whose vote he needed to win an election, after all, his mother belonged to the opposite side of the argument and I have to think she must have had some kind of influence on him. I also don't see how allowing torture, starting a war without a good reason an running absurd deficits can be deemed as "conservative thinking" but unfortunately that was George Bush's true inheritance to the conservative side. Shame on Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter for continue to defend him, the unquestionable worst president in US history. By doing so they are only damaging those ideas which they are supposed to be representing but which apparently only seem to matter to them as a way to make a quick buck.
Ebert: "They" refer to "us" as "they," so what goes around, comes around. An agreement seems to be forming among conservatives on this thread that Bush was not conservative. I agree. Barry Goldwater and Robert Taft would agree, I think. "Conservative" used to mean something more than a knee-jerk evocation of patriotism.
Congrats on your DGA award. I tell you plain that as directors have informed your analysis, your reviews have informed my approach to storytelling. When I need inspiration, I'll read your articles to provoke my thoughts about the artistic choices of the filmmakers and the moral choices of the characters. So thank you.
As for the article on this page, I pray to God for another Clarence Darrow.
Best,
Steve
Attaboy, Mister Ebert, a lifetime of searching for the Truth for yourself. How old are you now, again? No matter, but I quit a long time ago.
When the blaze of every Truth I met kept turning about penlight size after all, I got the picture. I was wrong. I'm not big enough for Truth. But me-size truths are all over the place and they work better anyhow. Is that the phone? Yes, that's true. Do I need gas? Yes! That too is a truth. Nothing seems random, despite Darwin's Truth, and nothing seems clogged with little minefields of guilt, despite the Truths of the various religions, but it's still a life of sufficient surprises. That's true, too.
Nowadays somebody seriously seeking Truth seems like they're trying to swallow the Washington Monument, digest it, and poop out an even bigger monumental statement. Socrates was wiser than that -- Paul, above, is right about reading The Apology. "I have learned that I know nothing," Socrates said. How he found this out OUGHT TO BE CHISELED INTO COURTHOUSE FACADES AND STUFFED DOWN EVERYBODY'S THROATS. BECAUSE IT'S THE TRUTH. RIGHT? (dinnerware clinking through nervous silence; can't even signal the rolled eyes to the wife).
The lady above, suggesting Christians are going to be persecuted. As though this hasn't already been going on for centuries among them. How does she suppose this country got populated with Europeans? By squabbling gangs vehemently preaching a set of Truths best suited for their neighbors, is how. If not for Jefferson they'd still be tar and feathering each other instead of scrambling for the government bribe money even Obama sees as a means to control them all with. Fat chance. Seeker of Truth, persecute thyself, okay?
Seriously, I'd like to see how years of studying evolutionary theory have convinced you of the Truth of it. Maybe an essay?
Years of studying anything at all generally tend to mean the scholar intends to believe it, little truths be damned.
Ebert: I think I've made it pretty clear that science is wary of declaring anything Truth. Truth is always a work in progress.
I just finished watching The Reader and so many conflicting thoughts and emotions impaled my brain that I had to search online for someone who could verbalize what I felt on a gut level...that human beings are too complex to dichotomize into only good and evil.
After coming across many shallow reviews that all seemed to have fundamentally missed the point of the film, I found your blog through IMDB. Your analysis is nothing short of brilliant! Thank you for saying the words I could not say. This must be how Hannah felt...
One thing in the film made me smile. It was when Hannah picked up War and Peace because the same ideas about morality and human nature that permeate The Reader smacks of War and Peace. It is nice to see them in a modern context. The truth never gets worn and weary, when its taken out so rarely.
My grandmother was a survivor of the Holocaust. I have watched many films about the Holocaust and read many books too. Then I read about Stalin. India-Pakistan. Cambodia. Bosnia. Sudan. Vietnam. Ancient Rome. Even the Bible and the extermination by my own ancestors of the Canaanites. Man. Woman. And Child.
I became desensitized. It seemed every day I was being bombarded by the media with images of humans acting as base savages. I turned the TV off and closed the books and just accepted that things simply are.
Then I read War and Peace and felt an answer on a gut level. I recognized the same gut level feeling when I saw The Reader.
speaking of limbaugh, thought i'd share this letter Ralph Nader recently posted on his blog:
http://nader.org/index.php?/archives/2100-Letter-to-Rush-Limbaugh.html
I've long believed that, most of the time, the purpose of the act is the act itself. Like, if a drunk comes home and beats up his wife. His goal was to beat up his wife. He can rationalize it every way he wants, but in the end he wanted to take revenge for frustrations he felt during the day on someone who wouldn't fight back, and he did.
Does shame move us to do things we wouldn't normally? Yes, but the ability to lie to ourselves and rationalize our behavior is what's key here. You'll notice that no matter how horrible the act, everyone always has an excuse and sometimes it's appalling to see that even the person who's lying doesn't believe what they're saying, but say it anyway because that's how they've mentally trained themselves to deal with any problem.
Be honest Roger, when you told your blind friend that you didn't touch the chess piece, there was a part of you that was rewriting history in your head wasn't there? You could see yourself not touching the piece, almost as if it was real. Everyone does it, but some people believe it much much more completely than others. You never convinced yourself, and have purged your guilt (mostly) over time. However, not everyone is that honest and the people who lie to themselves often are the ones who become crippled by the weight of what they've done over a lifetime. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of mental illness stems from this sort of schizoid behavior. Not because of whatever wrong was committed, but because of that constant rewriting of reality in their mind whenever confronted with something unpleasant. Such behavior is bound to give people a completely skewed perspective of the world they inhabit because it gets easier and easier every time they do it. How many memories do they have that are lies or exagerations? How many events never happened the way they remember it? And most disturbing of all, have they begun lying to themselves simply when they want to be right or when they don't want to face reality?
When listening to people who often twist the truth to fit their ideology, like Michael Moore or Ann Coulter or every single politician who was ever born, I wonder.
Roger, do you ever watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart? Last night's episode was Randall Balmer pitching his book on the religiousness of various US Presidents since the Kennedys.
Balmer led off with a story about Jackie Kennedy during her husband's campaign, where she said "I don't understand the big deal about Jack being Catholic. He's such a terrible Catholic!" He also mentioned George Romney (Mormon Mitt's father) running for the nomination in 1968, with no talk whatsoever about his Mormonism, and suggests that the "conversations with Jesus" talk of Bush and the like would have scared people in the pre-Nixon days.
I haven't read the book (still working on a bio of FDR that makes a non-point of his religion other than his rivalry with the frustrated Catholic candidate Al Smith) but it was a pretty fun interview.
(I'm sorry to be one of those obnoxious Generations Y-ers who gets most of their news from The Daily Show, but he is really good in interviews.)
Ebert: I think you could say I've been known to watch "The Daily Show..."
I have only two footnotes: (1) We still sing "God Save the Queen," only here it's titled "My Country 'tis of Thee." (2) Say what you will, "God Bless America" is a great song. – Roger Ebert
You do? Really? I thought it was just a Commonwealth thing; chuckle!
As for “God Bless America” being a great song, I agree! Albeit maybe for different reasons? Ie: Irving Berlin wrote the song and also composed one of my all-time favorites “What’ll I do” - which I discovered after watching the film version of “The Great Gatsby” from 1974. And I adore Irving Berlin; so too George Gershwin and Duke Ellington! Side note: remember the opening sequence to Woody Allen’s “Manhattan?” The fireworks display in B/W to the sounds of Rhapsody in Blue by Gershwin? I hope heaven’s that good, Roger. Just in case anyone thinks I couldn’t appreciate “God Bless America”; smile. Nope, it’s very heart-felt stuff and why I also like “God Save the Queen” and the French “La Marseillaise”. My mom was French Canadian so I get it.
But I digress…
Like the British, you guys stuck God in there too; combined it with patriotism. And like the British at their worst, as they used to be that is, I see elements of Calvinism or Puritanism at work in the Christianity as practiced by some in the United States. I mean, it had to come from somewhere, right? All that fire and brimstone, all the absolute certainty and thus abhorrence of Atheism, all the repressive bits and pieces of backward-minded thinking so typical of Rush Limbaugh and Evangelicals. And if not with some on the boat when it landed, then how else? And I was struck by the irony of it; of people leaving a place to find a better life and at no small risk to themselves, only for their descendants to end up living in a country where it’s not as safe to speak their thoughts aloud. While back across the pond where the Tower of London is now a tourist attraction, you can show someone blowing-up the Houses of Parliament for political reasons and no one pickets the movie. So that’s how I arrived where I did, in case it was muddy?
I’m also struck by the sadness of it, too. I’ve been inside the Statue of Liberty and climbed it to the top, and seen it lit up at night from a helicopter as we swung round her light. And can’t help but feel now in the wake of all that’s come to pass, that too many have replaced what she stood for with beliefs that undermine what she was supposed to represent. Which wasn’t supposed to be the freedom to use Religion to strip freedom from another, but rather, to be free from those would, yes? America wasn’t supposed to be first and foremost, a club for white Anglo-Saxon Christians. Unless I’ve missed some fine print somewhere in the Constitution?
All I personally ask from anyone is that they practice the golden rule; do unto others as you’d have done to yourself. Live and let live. And that’s what I think is missing these days in America. The spirit of America. And in great part because Religion at heart, is not a democracy. At least not when it takes direct issue with freedom of speech or the right to dissident, the right not to believe in a God, the right to have consentual sex with the partner of your choice or marry them, the right not to give birth, etc. I mean, if you don’t want to watch Dexter TURN THE DAMN channel. That’s what I do whenever I see stuff I don’t want to watch. I can’t stand Wrestling but I’d never try and get it taken of the air. It wouldn’t be fair.
For me, part of the price I pay for living in a democracy is that sometimes, I’ll be offended by something. But as long as I’m not forced to endure it 24-7, I’ll let it go and move on. To me, that’s the essence of tolerance; being able to put up with “a certain amount” for knowing others are putting up with stuff I do, too. And bible-thumping Christians don’t seem to want to live in a country where they have to tolerate anything “different” for any longer than it takes to choke it – begging the question, just what sort of place did you think America was supposed to be?
I’m not a liberal or conservative so much as a thinker. I’ll look at something and ask myself, what do I think about it and why? What was the context of it? But in order to do that you have to be willing to examine stuff, which means getting past its initial surface. And you’re not born knowing how do that - you have to learn how to learn and how to think for yourself. At least, that’s what a teacher told me once. And one of the ways people acquire that ability is by exposing themselves to things they need to ponder and consider. And why I see the bible-thumpers as so dangerous. For noting how much they’ve already managed to sanitize – the very stuff that would have otherwise been in place to help you learn.
Which isn’t to say that I think every American is ignorant or clueless or a victim of the religious right’s effort to turn your country into something else. Gosh no! The people who post in here are evidence of just how thoughtful, intelligent, tolerant, informed and genuinely nice so many of you are. You make me glad to have you as my neighbors, all those people who shared their favorite films inside the “I Feel Good, I Knew that I would” thread are a testament to just how wonderful you guys can be! No; it’s people who think Roger is the enemy for having a thought in his head and sharing it out loud who inspire my comments in here.
I’ve been sharing my posts with a girl friend named Cheryl; whom I thank now for the following true story:
“Many years ago I attended a film, and afterwards there was a talk and Q & A with Werner Herzog. He regaled us with amusing yet horrifying tales of working with Klaus Kinski. During the question part of the evening, I had to ask him: why after Kinski had made his life so miserable during filming, did he continue to work with him?! His response: "Klaus was a horrible, despicable person, and I did hate him...but I also loved him. It's a German thing."
Tolerance has many forms and I dare say that’s an example of one of them. The fact that he didn’t kill the guy.
P.S. Cheryl and I plan to see “Coraline” next week – I can’t wait! For based on how you described it Roger, it sounds like a disturbing good time. Ie: Tim Burton meets Pan’s Labyrinth.
Ebert: Did you ever see Herzog's doc about Kinski, "My Best Fiend?"
Bush is not the worst President of Ebert's (nor mine, nor my Dad's, nor my 99 yr. old grandmother's)lifetime(s). He is the worst President in the history of our country. Please see the links below, in which historians roundly label GW Bush the worst:
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
Someone wrote "Bush never had a chance." This is simply wrong, as Bush had enough capital after 9/11 to do almost anything he wanted to do. (And he did so by declared war on Iraq, a country that didn't have WMD and had nothing to do with 9/11.)
This isn't partisan at all. Consider the McIvers poll places Hoover relatively high on the list, and Eisenhower in the top ten. Historians place Carter, Bush I, and Clinton right next to each other. In addition to the dozen other screw-ups:
Bush MADE THE DECISION to get us into a war we didn't need to fight. Bush MADE THE DECISION to cut federally funding for embryonic stem cell research. Bush MADE THE DECISION to replace James Lee Witt with Michael Brown, resulting in the Katrina debacle. Bush MADE THE DECISION to try to get Congress the pass a Defense of Marraige Ammendment to the US Constitution.
This is a hell of a lot worse than the mismanagement and indecisiveness of Harding (a weak man whose death kept him from impeachment), Pierce (who was devastated by the loss of his son from the start of his Presidency) or Buchanan (who adhered to the letter of the law but was condemned by the greatness of the man who followed him).
History will judge Bush very harshly. There are two silver linings to his disastrous Presidency, though:
1) It took a George W. Bush Presidency to elect a leader who has the potential to be one of the greatest Presidents we have ever had.
2) George W. Bush is healthy enough to live another 20 years or so, making him a national pariah.
People have noted the bad form of those who booed Bush during the inauguration. Its nothing new. Bush was booed as he threw out the first pitch at a Nationals game last April. If the worst thing that ever happens to GW Bush is he is booed when he walks into a room, it pales in comparison to the millions of people whose lives he destroyed because he didn't take his job seriously. We are all gonna pay for the last eight years, my friends. We're gonna pay big time.
Although I have lived a life of seclusion and avoidance, there was one time when I was forced into making the right choice. I was sitting on a jury. Most of the jurors were willing to convict based on their preconceived notions and prejudices. I chose to look at the evidence.
I wasn't making any friends and I extended an olive branch by declaring, "I think we can all agree that none of us can read minds." I was quickly shot down by the foreman because he had once taken a body language course in college and he knew that the very young and skinny defendant was guilty because he was fidgety.
My judgment, right or wrong, became cemented after that and the jury was hung.
Sorry, I posted too soon. One more off-topic question:
Is Clint Eastwood Catholic? I saw Gran Torino last night and I realized he is the only director whose movies feature priests that
A. Don't molest kids.
B. Don't use the confessional as a plot device.
Ebert: Eastwood was raised in a Protestant home. His father stopped attending services when Clint was 12, and since then he has been affiliated with no denomination.
The difficulty arises when other people in the group are so full of their convictions that they assume (a) all sane people must agree, or (b) they possess the Truth, and you must learn it for your own good.
This line implies that there are other people that are truly open minded when they encounter those with whom that disagree. I try to be that open minded. But as I was talking to a friend last night, I was reminded how difficult it is to be open minded. We were discussing frustration with the view points of our peers and how certain individuals seem to think their perspective was the enlightened truth and that you had to be stupid not to agree. As we were discussing our views on that issue, I thought about my perspective on the issue and wondered how strongly to do I hold to my viewpoint. I also thought about how those with whom I might disagree view me. Do they think of me in the same terms that I think of them? It is very easy to see others as close minded when they disagree with you. It is very hard to strike a balance between presenting a convincing viewpoint and remaining open to new ideas. I hope to remember these thoughts as I engage in future discussions despite the challenge that they present to me.
Roger,
I have to admit that I am at a loss as to why everyone seems to be in a hurry to pigeon-hole themselves into one or two ideological categories. I've wondered for years why people are so quick to say:
"I'm a liberal" or "I'm a Republican"... doesn't that limit one's own personal growth and development? I've always tried to reject those attempts to label me.
In conversation, I do usually avoid the taboo topics of politics and religion; not because they aren't ripe for deep, interesting discussion (outside of film, no other topics are nearly as fascinating). Rather, talking about them has a tendency to divide more than unify; to throw stones at another's view rather than a healthy discourse. When did disagreeing with someone turn into shouting and closed-mindedness? I often argue an opinion outside of my own just to enjoy the argument that ensues (when did "argument" become a negative word?).
You reply to a poster saying that "MSNBC and Fox would be more fun if they shared the same studio". I couldn't agree with you more. People aren't looking for differing opinions anymore. Liberals turn to MSNBC to nod along with Keith Olberman's rants about how evil Sarah Palin is (he's still talking about her?!?). While Conservatives tune into both Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to get further support for their views about how Democrats are creating a socialist gov't (or some such nonsense). Why aren't we seeking out other people's contrarian views to round out our own? I think this kind of rank and file, closed-minded attitude and approach is going to further divide our country in the years to follow... and I find that frightening.
As for me, I will continue to resist labeling my viewpoints, seeking out other's contrarian opinions on ALL topics and get my news from Fox and MSNBC, with a healthy dose of CNN for good measure.
All the best,
Chris Ortman
I relate so much to the beginning of this entry, when you discuss the things you have to endure about dinner parties! It is not immodesty, it is not vanity, choosing not to hide the fact that you know a good deal about one subject (in a related thought: being able to pretend you know something you do not is important, but not NEARLY as much as being able to pretend NOT to know something you do; but that's for another discussion).
It happened to me in a celebration dinner recently that one of the organisers began talking about "the English language". Now this is a table with ten or twelve people, all of us Spaniards, in Spain, so English is here being discussed from a completely foreign perspective. And yet, everybody at the table knew that I am a translator of English and a linguist, and yet nobody thought to seek confirmation for their uninformed misconceptions for or against a language they do not speak.
The same goes for the movies, as you mention; how to even begin to respond to the perpetual "they don't make good movies anymore"? That's what people say when they don't go to the movies anymore. Roger, you should feel proud that you have an impressive career and countless achievements in the field and therefore every right to happily ignore said claims.
Sitting at the very beginning of my career, I can see a long road of polite nods and "Oh really"s ahead of me. I'm not as provocative as your friend Siskel, but I am all for a sudden and cheery change of subject. I firmly believe in going off on a less conflictive tangent :)
Ebert: Oh, do I know what you mean about being the non-consulted expert. When the extended family gets together and we decide to watch a movie om DVD, the choice is invariably a recent overhyped blockbuster. My recommendations are not interesting because I am an "expert." I spent ten years trying to get the grandkids to watch "A Hard Day's Night." Some old black and white film? Finally one day I just put it on to watch by myself, and soon I had two fellow watchers who loved it. What do you know.
Great entry! I love how all of the themes are tied together, and coincidentally by many of the things I believe myself.
About all I can contribute to this conversation is that I believe it helped a ton in my own life that I was interested in history and philosophy from a young age, and read a lot about it, and I think that absorbing the lessons of history and the great philosophers of the world, especially the original: Socrates, has really really helped me avoid doing things that I would regret morally for my entire life. I can't say I've done anything I consider morally wrong enough that it keeps my up at night or that I can even remember at a moment's notice. All of the regrets of my life mostly involve chances not taken; for example I wish I had wrestled more in high school rather than choosing to play soccer, because now I realise I was a much better wrestler than soccer player. But that's small beans compared to committing a moral atrocity in order to cover up your shame.
Unfortunately, I think that most people are unequipped to face these kinds of moral dilemmas because they lack the perspective of enough knowledge of history or philosophy. Most people only know the basic philosophical tenets of their family's religion, yet with nothing to compare that too they have no perspective on their own beliefs, thus they are worthless. And without a sound grasp of historical trends, they have no way to judge the relative merits of different systems of thinking, of organisation of society, or economics, or anything.
Literature I think may help, but the problem with literature is that one of the main goals of literature is to obscure its primary themes and morals and lessons in order to be more interesting, whereas the main goal of philosophical writings is to be as clear, straightforward, and easily understood as possible. Melville is a wonderful mind for example, but compare him to Elliot Sober, whose work is so easy to understand a ten year old could grasp it. That's the kind of thing children need in order to be able to truly understand themselves, their place in the world, right and wrong, and how important it all is.
I like your article. This subject is very close to the bone, but it does shed light on human nature; however unflattering the portrayal. I think you would enjoy reading The Exception by Danish writer Christian Jungersen. It tackles the subjects brought up in The Reader with such clarity and understanding.
But Mr. Ebert, (and others..) I must interject here - it seems your entire view in the article, setting aside the core subject of not saying anything when we should, is that the conservative viewpoint is wrong, abnormal, false, etc. Like, if you're a conservative, there's something wrong with you, you may as well believe cows can fly, or the Holocaust never happened.
Not all conservatives believe EVERYTHING the wackos believe.
Here's some challenging questions for all to consider:
-Is it possible to listen to both sides, and then pick a set of ideas you believe are correct, and not just take the liberal side?
-Is is possible to agree with many points a person makes, yet not like them personally?
(I agree with about 60% of what Dr. Laura says...yet I think she's profoundly unlikable and mean, and personally never wish to meet her, EVER.....)
-Is is possible to only agree with SOME points a person makes, yet disagree with them totally on others?
(I agree with Rush Limbaugh that tax hikes do not stimulate the economy, more regulation hurts business, less freedom hampers human achievement, yet disagree with him on his objections to gay marriage and the government legislating morality.)
-In those dinner conversations....aren't you even curious to listen to views other people hold, even if you disagree with them?
I believe in God. But I know others don't and I'm genuinely curious what they're reasons are. I may humbly offer my opinion of why I disagree with them, and unless they're a jerk, most of those conversations end on a friendly note. (For full disclosure - I'm a laid back, humble guy, who isn't full of his own...poo. I can listen to other view points and not get all riled up.)
You look at global warming, for example. The liberals constantly say "The debate is over with." I always want to ask "When did the debate start, much less end?! I never heard the other side speak, or even be mentioned in the media or public setting, unless you include the news stories that basically asked 'What's the matter with these weirdos who don't believe in global warming, who's paying THEM off' kind of stuff." Is global warming happening, or we even responsible for it? Maybe, maybe not - but this is just an example of the public only getting one side. I believe that whatever side is right, when there is full debate, will win.
I also ACTUALLY listen to each side. I actually listen to Rush, actually read Ann Coulter, along with Al Franken and Keith Olberman.
Liberals want to write them off, and I sometimes think that they are afraid to actually engage them on facts, because they fear they will be proven wrong, so just attack them totally - "That Rush doesn't know what the hell's he's talking about!" and that's supposed to destroy all his arguments.
Another example - I've researched both sides on Darwinism....and the scientists easily win. The Creationist's arguments are really bad, ignore basic facts and science and reasoning, are so silly they can't be taken seriously. Yes, Mr. Ebert, I have heard too, many, MANY times the "My daddy wasn't a monkey" argument......
But this is why many conservatives don't like "the elites." They view elites as people who are just arrogant, who believe that their liberal viewpoint is superior, because THEY are superior, and refuse to even consider the other side, those they consider "lower class," and uneducated.
Ebert: Yours is a very sane and reasonable message.
I do agree with many principles the conservatives hold sacred,among them upholding the Constitution, individual freedom, fiscal prudence and limiting government interference. Since those were not Bush's principles, my disagreements are more partisan, or even personal, than ideological.
My point was more about the problems, sometimes social, of expressing disagreement. There have probably been times when you have experienced similar problems from your POV. It can be tricky to speak out, especially in the area of religion, which cuts through ideological lines. Most liberals apparently believe in God, but often "liberal" equals "atheist/agnostic" in public discourse.
I do not think all of those who disagree with me are uneducated. In my view, education is not related to the number of years one has gone to school. It involves trying to find out for yourself. In my (biased?) view, I believe you cannot listen for long to Ann Coulter without gasping at her self-evident, blatant falsehoods. They are part of her act. She is an entertainer.
The case against Global Warming was upheld by Bush for eight years. I know there is disagreement. I think a good position might be: "We may not know for sure. But i any event, let's agree to reduce air pollution and greenhouses gases, and develop new energy sources to free us from dependence on foreign oil. And increase auto mileage if only to save consumers money."
Jason Lau wrote:
"Again, we are stuck on labels. I fail to see how this particular decision, or any regarding eminent domain, is liberalism. The majority of Supreme Court appointees are Republican (7 out of 9), which suggests they adhere to some form of conservatism, and that means even a 5-4 majority would have 3 conservatives signing off on it."
The philosophical views of a judge often have little in common with what their appointer envisioned. Justice John Paul Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford, but is now considered the leader of the liberals on the Supreme Court. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/weekinreview/01liptak.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
There is overwhelming consensus among those who follow the Supreme Court that it is divided into 4 conservatives (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia) and 4 liberals (Souter, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg), with one swing voter (Kennedy). See following links: http://www.slate.com/id/2210361/pagenum/all/ http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/11/11/obama-victory-ends-gop-hopes-for-a-much-more-conservative-supreme-court.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/13/opinion/main3056257.shtml
Conservatives in particular have had their hopes dashed by Republican appointments to the Supreme Court. This is why there was such a furor over Bush's initial appointment of Harriet Miers; the conservative battle cry was: "Not another Souter". David Souter was appointed by Bush Sr., but has gone on to vote as a liberal. I would love for Obama to appoint a stealth conservative to the Supreme Court, but I don't have high hopes. I wholeheartedly approve of Bush's two appointments (Alito and Roberts); like many voters, my vote is based heavily on what type of Supreme and federal court judges a presidential candidate is likely to appoint, and Bush's picks represent probably the only area where I did not feel let down.
The classical definition of liberalism has nothing to do with its current meaning. Many (myself included) would argue that today's liberalism in many cases is actively opposed to the autonomy of the individual. Examples would include: affirmative action quotas favoring one group over another; forced busing to achieve a desired result of integration (see Lukas' "Common Ground"); gun control; opposition to home schooling; eminent domain; "Employee Free Choice Act", which eliminates the use of the secret ballot when voting to unionize a workplace; banning certain food items for the good of the public health (see my links referring to NYC; Chicago passed (and later rescinded) a ban on foie gras); etc. If the right of the individual is paramount to you, you might investigate whether Libertarianism is a better label for your beliefs than liberalism.
I have had the exact opposite experience with religion in my life. I'm an agnostic now but was previously a Catholic in a mostly secular environment. This made me an oddity among my peers in high school (I decided I was an agnostic at 16 and had all lingering belief in God pretty much vanish at about 17) and, because I wouldn't shut up about it, hide it or apologize for it, lead to some pretty uncomfortable moments in class. Not that anyone ever really said anything to me about it- but you could feel the whole room freeze at times.
I felt like the "Resident Jesus Freak" whenever religion came up. Like I had a big flashing neon sign over my head that read "Christian Girl!". Not so much because of my faith but because I actually had the courage to express what I felt and thought.
You know the most infuriating thing? The other Christians in class (there were 4 or 5 of them) were as silent as the hills. There were times I wanted to scream "You hypocrite! I know you go to church! You're more devout than I am!" I guess they saw me being The Odd One Out and that was enough for them. And they let me take the hits by myself- very Christian.
Not that I expected them to rush to my defense and fight my battles for me but a little back-up would have been nice. Someone once expressed to me that she agreed with me privately but I got no help from her in front of the others.
There's a psychological effect called the Spiral of Silence- a unpopular and minority opinion isn't expressed because it's perceived to be in the vast minority and so it's suppressed even further. When someone does speak up, his or her treatment convinces others who might share the opinion to keep quiet. You should look it up.
This works with conservatism in a liberal status quo and religion in a secular environment, just as much as it does with liberalism in a conservative environment and atheism/agnosticism in a religious environment.
Ebert: I think we've all known such experiences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence
You know, Wikipedia has its limitations, but it's an amazingly helpful resource.
I'm 39 and only recently came to a study of the Theory of Evolution via a philosophical route instead of the biological. For what it is worth, the best account of the TOE from an "un-intelligent design" perspective is Dennett's book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". Not a biology book, but half information theory and half analytic philosophy, it shows the brute-force algorithmic nature of Darwin's idea which applies to any self-replicating entity (not just monkeys, or genes, or people). Fascinating.
Ebert: I agree. Takes the rug right out from under Sky Hooks.
Well, Roger Ebert, congratulations, you did it. Your column had my wife and me awake in bed talking about it last night. Your thoughtful contributors must also take a bow.
The movie discussed, and your thoughts, are the theme sized up in "Those who sin by silence when they should speak out make cowards of men." (Lincoln didn't say that, it was a lady whose name I can't recall).
We counted up our own whistleblowings over the years; nothing but innocent honesty, really, sometimes meeting an uproar and calumnies that just might "make cowards of men." I thought too of the most valiant and honest individual I've yet met: Pennsylvania's first female Chief of Police. Semi-retired in Tucson, she encountered a situation that by the sound of it was a terrorist drug ring. I took it as any citizen's duty to help her out -- spoke to the FBI at very long lengths, the State department, local cops, her own witnesses. This lady met with nothing but scorn and slander; the FBI man threatened to arrest her and ignored the valise of evidence she'd gathered. I came away with the firm conviction that FBI people are the most arrogant and hypocritical politickers in a country of frequently arrogant and hypocritical politickers.
It seemed to us that by too far, the unqualifiable human honesty that creates a free people is unpopular. I won't philosophize that "that's because people are sheep." It's unnatural to live in a daily state of personal fear. I've also seen the opposite too often, first hand, and am still very proud of those involved. Not everyone who wants to be left alone is "a sheep."
The most succinct thought I have on it is from a friend in India, who quipped "It is very difficult to convince a man of the truth whose job depends on not knowing it."
Missus Better Half fell asleep and I lay awake thinking about this evolution thing. I agree with the guy above, I'd like to see you open this can of worms wider. I also agree, evolutionary theory isn't just flawed, it's nonsensical by design.
I take it you didn't grow up with scientists. Capital "T" Truth is alive, well, and virulent in those circles, despite the lip service to skepticism -- speaking of unqualifiable human honesty.
"Truth" in religion is that "there is a God, Creator of All Things." Darwin sermonized (he was the oppressed son of a popular preacher and had guilt-migraines all his life) that All Creation was -- and so, is -- formed at random, period. There's your Truth, or root assumption on which is founded the currently official institution of scientific teleology. It is the core of the trouble between not only fanatical and frightened Christians, but for others not so interesting to our blurry newsmedia.
I've got a scientific ms by a genuine physicist, reconciling the idea of random creation with God. He believes in God, capital "G" (which I "am hot neither to confirm nor deny"). It's a wonderland of all sorts of current facts from microbiological to astronomical. He says God Created Random Events, He's just that smart. Ta da. Case closed. But he makes no detailed connection between how mitochondria or a nebula got there and the conclusion random selection implies, that all we perceive of reality is the result of nonsensical accidents, jerry-rigged by another Truth about "survival of the fittest."
Therefore, the "Natural Laws" that keep our feet on the ground and stars in the sky just happened by accident one moment "bullions and bullions" of years ago, are accidentally still working, and we snarled our way to the top of the food chain because somebody inadvertently grew opposable thumbs, unthinkingly picked up a rock, threw it at a sabertooth tiger! So here we are, dominating the world coincidentally like God told us to in bible tales.
In this way the world ends, not with a bang, nor a whimper, but a woops. Sorry TS. Never liked your stuff anyhow.
I've got another ms, by a microbiologist who demonstrates and supports with tons of academic studies that consciousness is independent of matter. He's got supporting essays contributed by some very heavy honchoes, like a Nobel Laureate. If he is right -- or rather, if his root assumption were instituted, science would change overnight. This guy really IS the skeptic those cranks at Amherst crow that they are at the dinner table. Unlike too many accepted theoretical procedures, he does not merely discard what doesn't fit.
If consciousness is independent of matter, there can not be anything like randomness in the creation of all things from atoms to universes. Randomness would be only an effect of a limited ability to perceive. Consciousness is simply "perception," aka "feeling." It has been a side-question since Schroedinger's Cat (nobody thought to smell the box!). Atoms may perceive. The ancient Greeks thought so. "Elf" is the ancient Druid word for "atom." They didn't start out as pointy little men dressed in green.
As you know, the attempted extinction of Jews, as well as at least three times as many gypsies, homosexuals, disabled, politically incorrect and plain old slave labor by the Nazis was based on Darwinism, not just some vague thingy called "hatred" (lately re-named "the terrorists.") Hatred was handy, but those who worked the many millions of innocents to death or performed horrendous torture experiments on them required the blandness of rationale for day-to-day operations, not impossibly constant huffs of rage. Himmler advised his mass murderers to steel themselves in the name of the latest science. Thus Eichmann's calm bureaucratic sense of normalcy, even at his trial. The "rightness" of modern evolutionary theory of the day supplied it. Another Truth of Science is that emotion is unscientific.
Social Darwinism is still a Truth in many minds: get rid of the "inferior" people, like weeding a garden, and we'll have a superpeople heaven on earth -- if floating randomly according to gravitational "rules" that coincidentally keep the planet steady.
The Truth behind the Truth of a randomly arranged universe with random changes inadvertantly giving one species something called "dominance" over another is that the universe and all in it is meaningless. Carl Sagan, who finally admitted what a stoner he was, was probably stoned when he pontificated "all the ancient Greek works of art are meaningless," and that the main characteristic of the human mind is to delude itself.
A few years ago, PBS radio news announced that Science had been coming close to the discovery that animals may feel things. This isn't a joke. After generations of torturing lab rats, someone postulated that rats feel it and wired them up to look for that.
Rats may be conscious! Next, someone besides my microbiologist friend and his supporters may discover that consciousness is independent and mobile, not some accident of rocks banging around in a boiled mud soup.
And none too soon. The weight of the idea of a meaningless universe formed at random, where emotion has no basic place, has surely served the increased suicide rate among the young and idealistic. It has stirred the raging fears of those still cozy not asking questions of their sacerdotes. In the way that slavery was the emotional trigger Lincoln pulled to set up the War of Secession, abortion may serve as the next one -- while those who profit tremendously from it go slickly unblamed, whistleblowers kicked out of the political enforcement offices, or worse.
I'd rather see your essaying on it than pose you a trite little question. I hope you do. You're keeping couples awake at night talking about your blog.
PS Those still playing games about who set up the War of Secession haven't read much of Lincoln's speeches, nor his actual interest in starting it, which he did deliberately. Catch up. Quite a few banking interests, foreign too, were involved. The question between Pierce and Dubya is "who was the more dishonest drunk?" Any longtime bar musician can tell you also that President Dubya was on pills Pierce didn't have.
Ebert: Isn't it inconsistent to postulate an omnipotent and omniscient God and then argue how he "couldn't" or "didn't" do something?
The Nazis may have put their twisted understanding of Darwin to evil means, but that doesn't affect Darwinism itself. The Nazis were led by madmen and messianic craziness. They enforced their rule with death. See Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.
Well, I must admit it. I don't want to watch another holocaust movie. In High School I read this five volume set of primary sources: first hand accounts from survivors, liberators, near neighbors; letters of SS officers; memos, ect. It has shaped in a significant way how I understand the world. It has drawn me pretty close to believing in universal depravity; it has instilled in me the depth of the truth of the statement: "there but by the grace of God go I;" and it has made me deeply suspicious of nationalism (even in the insipid Canadian form,) and suspicious of power. It also has made me re-think seriously the moral ground on which Christianity stands as a suprasession of Judaism, and it has forced me to consider the myriad of ways this law and grace distinction as coloured the way we see the world.
But, I don't want to watch another Holocaust movie, ever. Nor, do I want to watch a movie in which the Shoah is the backdrop for some sort of morality play. This doesn't mean I think that these movies shouldn't be made. Nor, does it mean that I won't lace up my corset and sit through one for the benefit of my children.
But, i do have to confess a withering inside of me at the thought of returning to those images. They have left their mark!
I wonder if other people feel the same way?
Ebert: When I think about the Holocaust, I think: I could have been one of those people, whether I wanted to be or not. Meaning either a Jew or a Nazi. What could I or would I have done about it? In the immediate situation, on the spot, as an individual, I could have resisted and be killed, or not resisted and be killed. Or I could have killed myself. To be, or not to be. Some people resisted. Almost all did not.
I've never been in a situation where my courage was put to an ultimate challenge, so it isn't my right to speak for those who found themselves in such a place. I don't know how brave I would be. In fact, in my case, bravery might not have been the response. I was such a hothead when younger that I probably would have succeeded in getting myself shot. I might have been remembered as a hero, but in fact it would have been not courage but behavior.
Loved The Reader. Somethings definitely need to be said, by someone ... anyone.
"Faith is one of the world's great evils."
-- Richard Dawkins
These kinds of statements make Dawkins more than just a shrill voice. They make him appear theologically infantile. Faith itself is neutral. Father Thomas Keating used to hold a yearly conference where many of the world's great wisdom traditions were represented. I think they were called the Snow Mass Conferences. The point of these conferences were to to get everyone to settle on certain theological concepts. One of the concepts they agreed on was that faith precedes belief systems. In other words, faith is the consent, the human surrender to the divine mystery -- before consciousness was sufficient enough to experience this divine mystery firsthand, and then call it God or whatever word you like. From there, belief systems were formed and huge divergencies occurred due to cultural factors of course. But anyway, faith is neither good nor evil.
Ebert: I sometimes think Dawkins would have done Darwin a huge favor by writing The God Delusion under er a pseudonym.
Many times back in high school, fellow students, or sometimes a teacher, would say something homophobic. Even though I knew that kind of casual language was wrong and dehumanizing, I said nothing in protest. And I know several people from that high school who have since come out of the closet. I could have spoken up for them back in high school, but I didn't in my cowardice. And that has haunted me ever since.
This post brought back memories of two silences/confessions. I don't know if my stories have any connection to the film. Almost ten-years ago I asked my mother, in a 900 mile long distance telephone conversation, if she knew why I was sick after Thanksgiving in Milwaukee. No, she never knew what had made me sick (and we were in Racine not Milwaukee). I told her what I had done. She of course was stunned. "We were up all night with you! Your Daddy had to go to work the next day!" A few months later I attended a Thanksgiving family reunion. The Racine host was there. My mother pointed us out to each other, "That's the cousin whose house we were at when you got sick. This is my baby, the one who was sick at your house. Now, tell her what you did." I told my story. My uncle who was sitting across the table from me nearly fell off his chair laughing. The cousin/host did not laugh. She looked appalled. My uncle asked what I was thinking (to do the thing that made me sick). I replied that I was four-years old at the time and did not think at all I just did.
I was much older the next time I was silent. In graduate school and house sitting for a couple I knew from church. The day before they returned I checked the house to make sure everything was in place. I overwatered one of the plants. Water poured out of the pot and basket to the carpet. I put the plant out on the deck and blotted the floor with paper towels. I returned early and put the plant back inside but it had burned in the sun. The husband and wife noticed the plant was burnt. One thought the sun beam through the windows burned the plant. The other disagreed. They argued. I withdrew. Three days later I called the wife and explained what happened. She asked if I felt better. Yes, like a heavy pall had been lifted. She told me they were not concerned about the plant, really had not discussed it more, but was glad I was relieved.
I suppose the link between the two stories is maturity. I reacted differently when I knew better. At age four I did not comprehend the impact of my actions on the rest of the family. And everyone survived the night and Daddy made it to work safely. At age thirty I did not feel relief until I stepped forward.
Ebert: I have a memory that your first story reminds me of. I was at my little toy workbench in my room. I had a glass and filled it with water. I took a hard look at that glass. It looked to me as if the water had gone into the bottom of the glass. So I got another glass of water and poured it in, expecting it to go to the bottom, too. Of course it overflowed all over the floor.
My mother came in and scolded me for "playing with water." I said, "I wasn't playing! I was trying to see something!" She said, "See what? That if you put too much water in a glass it will spill?"
So now I saw.
Phrases such as "Bumf**k, ID" are simply a colloquialism referring to sparsely populated areas, and in no way does it demean midwesterners. And I'm a midwesterner, from Chicago. Do try to read what I write, not what you think I think.
It is rather strange how all Bush's most vocal, staunchly conservative champions during, let's say, the first six years of his reign, are so vocally decrying his lack of true conservative ideology now that he's gone and left the disaster of his pretzeldency (and the collapse of his "permanent majority" party, both in its leadership and its appeal to any significant national constituency -- Sarah Palin, for chrissakes?) for others (aka, "liberals") to clean up, isn't it, Roger?
Ebert: There apparently was a great shortage of GOP candidates in the last election who wanted Bush to campaign for them.
A very well-written piece, as usual, except when you take all the window dressing away, it still sounds like, "I'm right and you're wrong, so shut up."
Mr. Ebert,
I'm deeply moved by everything you've written here. One of the most compelling aspects of "The Reader," in my opinion, was its examination of how feelings of guilt and shame are capable of consuming people and utterly transforming them. The pain that other people inflict upon us never seems to equal the pain we inflict upon ourselves, does it? I've only been alive for 24 years, but my experiences have led me to believe that truly bitter people are not created by others; they create themselves. It's much easier to let go of pain caused by circumstances or the actions of others than it is to let go of pain caused by our own misguided and cowardly actions. Ironically, however, it seems rare for people to come clean about the misgivings they have about themselves. Why do human beings dig deeper and deeper holes of shame, rather than having the courage to come clean and set themselves free? That's the central question of this movie, and I agree with you--it pertains to everyone.
Ebert: I sure don't know. On the other hand, you can always run away and join the circus.
To Brad
I found this article written by Richard Dawkins http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html and you took his quote--well, not even full quote--out of context, of course. As you will plainly see in that article, it was about Faith As Opposed To Science As A Religion as a refutation of science being a religion and then exploring that avenue of "okay, let's say science even Is a religion, let's compare it to other dangerous ones".
However, the Taliban was created by the founders of Saudi Arabia who (Muhammed ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab) took the writings of Ibn Taydiyyah further by reclassifying--insufficiently-- modern, softer orthodox Muslims (non-Salafist)as infidels and polytheist for engaging in veneration of saints as well as not conforming to his teachings, which caused him to flee Arab chieftans repeatedly where Muhammed ibn Saud gave him refuge (Saudi Arabia was names after Saud name). Saudi Arabia has been going on rampages since, and thanks to Saudi Arabias looting of oil revenue through price fixing, it has grown whereas it would have become a "lunatic fringe". But yes, it did start out as irrational, but became more rational, through modern Muslims.
I'm usually pretty laid back, but sometimes if something is important to me I can go off and be pretty insistent against uniformed ignorant people. This happens to me in fiction workshops. I had to explain to people how a woman could write a misogynist story, how you couldn't use things like child abuse as spice for a story without responsibly dealing with the subject matter, the importance of language and how a rape scene can become unintended erotica, and so on.
I don't even try to argue about religion or politics. People treat you like a child if you don't agree with them. Around election time, my roommate insisted that Democrats were entirely composed of children and naive child-like people. I told them that couldn't possibly true, and I asked them how they explain the democrats having any power at all if they're all naive children. They completely didn't listen, and they mistook what a said for a confirmation of their own beliefs.
Anyway, my father conditioned me from an early age in the way I deal with such people. He's always been unreasonable, the type of person who, if you correct him on a matter of fact such as the year the Hindenburg crashed, he will accuse you of calling him a liar. (By the way, is it just me or is English lacking an object pronoun that corresponds to the subject pronoun 'one'?) So I've learned to just let people go on believing whatever.
Ebert: Someone once told me this strategy to have a happier life: When you're going to sleep, let your thoughts ask, "Where was I wrong today? When could I have behaved better?"
Ebert: Isn't it inconsistent to postulate an omnipotent and omniscient God and then argue how he "couldn't" or "didn't" do something?
---What, you mean "can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?" Or better, "If God is so good, why is there so much evil in the world?" I reckon the prudent aren't hot to confirm nor deny those things either. Was it Genet who said "man must have the right to contradict himself"? I don't see why "God" should be the only combatant vs. "Evolution," though. That's like the airhe- sorry, dittohead game of "Conservatives vs. Liberals."
"The Nazis may have put their twisted understanding of Darwin to evil means, but that doesn't affect Darwinism itself. The Nazis were led by madmen and messianic craziness. They enforced their rule with death. See Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds."
---Yeah, I read that. There is no doctrine of what is evil or good in basic evolutionary theory. The Nazis followed the "doctrine of expediency," and this fits "survival of the fittest" exactly. It's where that "doctrine" came from, if I remember philosophy 101 right. Somebody correct me.
---We're still following it. The U.S. gov't continues killing noncombatants - women, children, elderly -- by the thousands with "collateral damage"; also the sanctions that killed what, a million Iraqi kids over the years? Cheney thinks that's fine. Does Obama? Do you? Does everybody? Then is everybody as crazy as the Nazis? It doesn't mean the bombs are faulty, does it? Anyway, people going around murdering in the name o' JESUS have the same case. But the kicker is, does evolution work when you use it? Can we tell, when by definition Natural Selection occurs in minute specks over periods of millions or billions of years?
Ebert: We have the gift of logic, and can devise experiments to explore that hypothesis. The proof of it is that the earth is here, and Intelligent Design has yet to come up with a better theory of why that is so.
Evolution is not in conflict with God. Science has no opinion on the supernatural.
If the killing you describe has been going on since the dawn of history, why should it be blamed on Darwin? Perhaps the TOE doesn't generate it or inspire it, but simply suggests one way to understand it.
It is a wonderful review, Mr. Ebert, and I'm grateful that there is a reviewer like yourself who looks beyond the surface level to elevate the true message of the film.
That said, I'd like to say in reference to Tony Scott's statement about there being too many holocaust films, that I think there aren't enough films that focus on how that atrocity came about, and how average people were swept up in it. Given what we are going through today, I feel that we'd benefit more from people being exposed to how fascistic movements take hold. I too am a liberal, but I'm all too aware that the movement that swept Hitler to power, was overwhelmingly leftist, and in fact was comprised of the same groups that make up our own left side of the equation.
Growing up as I did in the '60s and '70s, I feel most let down by the film and television industry not paying attention to the dire poverty and suffering faced by American citizens, which has been getting worse since the '80s. The long term un/underemployment, homelessness, the lies promulgated by the corporate elite are actually given credence by Hollywood. They never care to skim beneath the surface, unless it's one of the two issues they consider fashionable.
Ebert: A heck of a lot of leftists died in fighting Hitler's puppets in the Spanish Civil War. I don't believe they thought of him as a leftist.
Hitler and the fascists were definitely not leftists and did indeed fight against leftists in Spain. Fascism is pretty much accepted as the furthest right one can go, ideologically.
Also Mr Ebert I'm finally reading Awake in the Dark which I got for Christmas, and I'm loving the interviews. And missing the way things were then, the accessibility, the (relative) lack of self-importance, the good senses of humor. And not just among stars, but among directors. To hear Jimmy Stewart talk about John Ford, and then to think about a great 'new' director - Aronofsky - and how he sounded in defending Christian Bale (self-important + oblivious to his seeming self-important), it's disheartening. I hope Hollywood and the movies are cyclical, and that this cycle is almost over - but I fear it's tied in too much with how the culture's going at a given time, and that in our decadence we've elevated movies and movie stars to such a place that there can never be Mitchums, Fords, Lee Marvins, or any of that ever again. I mean even Orson Welles, the most brilliant director of them all, or Bergman, one of the most profound, look how unpretentious the men were in discussing themselves and their movies. I really do miss it. Loving your book, though.
To Brad
I forgot to comment on the "faith precedes belief", which doesn't make sense to me because faith is a positive. When you put faith in something, you are associating that thing with a positive, or good, feeling. Therefore, faith itself is a positive act, and when assigned to a belief, that belief is assumed to be positive...or good. I can't imagine one would associate the phrase "leap of faith" as leap of neutrality. You take a leap because you believe you won't fall.
Great post!
I totally agree with you on this:
"I believe this: If we really mean it when we say Thy will be done, then isn't it cheating to pray for a reversal? Que, sera, sera.;"
If anything -- and if you're the praying type, one should pray for the grace to handle whatever "Thy will" throws at them! But to do this one must give up something that the type that pray for a reversal treasure -- the illusion of control.
Hi - This was an interesting piece that you wrote. I am of German descent and I tend to shy away from Holocaust movies. I believe it is because I always had the view that the German people were looking for a way out of a recession when Hitler starting moving up in power. When his hatred of people became apparant, there wasn't anyone in Germany with enough influence or control to stop his policies before the crimes were committed. I always look at these films as if they are condemming the country - perhaps I don't give them a chance to change my mind. I also don't want to actually talk about this issue and movies enlighten me and make me think of ways I can be better.
I did see Reader last weekend and loved it. I believe that Michael should have spoken up and was actually not following his path of a lawyer by using his moral judgement (or public opionion) instead of the law. The character reminds me of a person in modern times that witnesses a crime and doesn't speak up to the police to report what they have seen.
The movies that are out and nominated (in most part) are very good this year. There are a number that made me cry, think and also inspired me to try and do something (Milk for example).
Thank you for following your passion in whatever format you can participate in. Your readers are very proud of you and your family.
By Jenny on February 7, 2009 10:22 PM: "I'm all too aware that the movement that swept Hitler to power, was overwhelmingly leftist, and in fact was comprised of the same groups that make up our own left side of the equation."
That's a factually innaccurate statement. The leftists were the communists, and the fascists were a reaction against the communists. They were swept to power because centrists decided with the world crisis that extremists were inevitably going to take over, and they had to choose between evils. They decided the far right fascists were a safer choice than the far left centrists. That and Hindenburg foolishly thought that Hitler was a rube and could be easily controlled; he evidently had more respect for the political acumen of the communists. The rest is history.
“Did you ever see Herzog's doc about Kinski, "My Best Fiend?" – Roger Ebert
No I haven’t - and why your question had me reaching for the phone! Wondering if that was “ironically” the very film Cheryl had gone to see, and thus where she’d posed her own question to Herzog! I’ve since heard back now…
Nope. It was called “Scream of Stone” about these two mountain climbers in Patagonia trying to reach the summit of Cerro Torre. She did add this however:
“Herzog made a great documentary about this fruit loop who thought he had a special relationship with Grizzly bears. More like he became the 'special' on the bear's menu.”
Is it wrong to laugh at someone’s horrific demise? For I must confess when she explained the film to me, what happened and why, I promptly burst out laughing! But then I often laugh at Dexter, so there you go. As for “My Best Fiend” I’ve got it reserved now at the library who have it on DVD!
I knew a bit about Herzog’s tempestuous relationship with Kinski for having seen “Fitzcarraldo” after looking up online over at Wikipedia to read more about how they’d managed to film it etc. That’s where I read “In his documentary My Best Fiend, Herzog says that one of the native chiefs offered to murder Kinski for him, but that he declined because he needed Kinski to complete filming.”
It’s interesting how one thing can lead to another, eh? You watch a movie and see someone in it, which leads you to check out more of their work, which exposes you to something else, and leads to yet another thing until finally, you end up back where you started; which is what’s happened here. For I found Fitzcarraldo after watching the 1921 silent film “The Phantom of the Opera” with Lon Chaney Sr. – although it took a while.
“The Phantom of the Opera” led to “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” as it also stars Lon Chaney Sr, and had me exploring similar themes involving ugliness and beauty, which led me to Jean Cocteau’s “Beauty and the Beast”. Note: in the end when the curse is lifted and he changes into the handsome Jean Marais, I found myself wishing he hadn’t, for liking him much better as the beast. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; and that’s no less true just because so many give lip service to it. Needless to say, I loved the look of the film, captured by the great cinematographer Henri Alekan. I never forgot his name and thus took note when a German film called “Wings of Desire” hit the screens. He was the cinematographer for that one, too. In it, one of the two angels “Damiel” begins to fall in love and longs to be human. He’s played by Bruno Ganz and the plight of his character endeared him to me as I thought it was all so terribly romantic; smile. What else has he done? Bruno Ganz plays Jonathan Harker in “Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht” which stars Klaus Kinski! And once I saw THAT – as holy crap dude, it led me to checking him out in “Fitzcarraldo”.
I remembered the quote from Herzog, and stuck it into my post for it seeming to fit. At the very least, it was funny. And as often happens in cases of irony they lead to yet more: Bruno Ganz is also in “The Reader”.
How’s that for trippy? :)
Ebert: Not bad. And a good Netflix queue, too.
A search of the word "mom" in your movie-review data base reveals that all movies with that word in the title (including "mamma" or "mommie") have no higher than a two-star rating. So too with "Monster-In-Law", starring Jennifer Lopez, a movie about fueding with a mother-in-law.
HERE'S WHAT I THINK: You have repressed, scathing resentment toward your mother, because deep inside, you blame her for the tragic disapearance of your beloved dog, Blackie. This manifests as an unconscience need to vindicate yourself for the matronly evil committed against your still hurting inner child, by robbing the Mommie Movies of their stars, for lo; the star of your childhood was unfairly robbed from you.
IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!
I am a Gay Born Again Christian, which makes me feel like a real outcast. Both parts very much define who I am, and I am unable to talk about them in depth with either "side." This is tormenting. Tonight, just before I got home to look at this website, I ended a one and a half week friendship which could have bordered on a possible relationship. Or, perhaps it ended itself. And in a really unpleasant manner. It was the first time in 5 years that my heart had nudged just a bit, and I remembered that I'm still capable of using it. The affair ended because I saw it headed in the direction of "Revolutionary Road," and when you can see a future so dark at the onset, why grasp for goodness and excuses? I have to accept that loneliness is healthier than mismatched togetherness. I met the UCLA Political Science student at a coffee shop. He used big words, some of which I needed to look up. I liked that. He reads books for school, and for pleasure. I saw "Plato" and "Ghandi" books scattered around his apartment. When it came time for a movie night, we headed to a little art film shop on Santa Monica Blvd. I said, "You pick out two, and I'll pick out two." He went directly to "Illegal Aliens" starring Anna Nicole Smith. I asked him if he was joking. He wasn't. Then, he said "I'm going to the restricted section," and it turned out that he was searching for a porn. When he came back, I had "Z" "Wall-E" and "L'Enfant" in my hand, all by my choice. I guess I subconsciously, or consciously, took away his second choice. "What's wrong?" he asked me. I said, "I feel very uncomfortable right now. I feel weird." "Why?" "I just... I feel like I'm in that scene in Taxi Driver, where Robert DeNiro takes Cybil Shepherd on a date." He hadn't seen it, and therefore didn't know what I was talking about. When we got to his apartment, he closed his eyes and picked one out of the four. It was "Z." The dvd went in, and there was Russian music playing (I think it was Russian.) He began moving his hands around to the music, thinking that I would find that entertaining. The subtitles came up, and he was talking and goofing around. We got through 20 minutes of it. He was bored and didn't want to watch it. I told him that it was Siskel and Ebert's number one film that year, and that it won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. He said that "Illegal Aliens" was probably better. I told him that he could take that opinion to a court and quickly get his due answer. He then accused me of bowing to public opinion, and jumping on a bandwagon without thinking for myself. He used some big words to psychoanalyze my belief that Roger Ebert knows better than he does. He called me a self hating gay as well. I know that somewhere, there must be a moral gay person, who loves cinema- and not just drag presentations of, I don't know, "Liquid Sky." What does this have to do with your blog here? Well, more than I can articulate in my current frame of mind. I just feel so disillusioned with my surroundings. I can only spend so many nights watching films alone. In order to make a gay friend, I feel that I have to suppress my spirituality. In order to have a Christian friend, I feel that I have to suppress my sexuality. All I want is someone to spend my life with, someone who "gets" it. I guess it is besides the point to ask why a guy who is seemingly intelligent in a lot of ways, has no clue how to watch a film, and seemingly has no taste in cinema? Is it because all of those big words and big thoughts are regurgitations from college courses? Would you so kindly benefit mankind, Roger, by starting up a new section on your site called "Roger's Dating Service For Artists and Intellectuals Who Cut The Crap, And Get To The Good Stuff" ? I will spare the gritty details, but the final blow to the "friendship" was based on the meaning of the word "Somnambulist". It resulted in a collision of other words, such as "pompous" "ass" and "arrogant"... words that must have been held in for dear life during those 9 days. I guess, at least, that "Somnambulist" is a fitting word for a finale.
Ebert: This is not a dating service, but your comment was so poignant that I asked you for an email address, and you supplied one. Somewhere in the UCLA area there must be a gay guy with great taste in movies. If he's Born Again, so much the better. If he's not, let him stay home on Sundays. Your email:
IllegalAliensReturn@yahoo.com
"Loved this piece, if not only because, politically, I am in alignment."
Even when I also am in alignment, comments like the above raise the fear in me of alignment gone wild and similar "I agree" posts are everywhere on the internet. It is satisfying to hear one's own thoughts echoed, but it carries power and responsibility attaches.
I saw that particular Charlie Rose program. A.O. Scott made a valid point about the need for careful precision when addressing the Holocaust, a modern manifestation of man's work. David Denby said that the book, "The Reader", dealt with the subject better. I don't know.
If the film, "The Reader", was about the perpetual, commonplace human failing of not speaking when one should because of shame and fear of social opinion, then it was also, most definitely, about the Holocaust.
As you point out, this fear and shame controls behavior from the home to the school yard to the board room to the president's office. This common failing made the Holocaust possible and it is also what made the knowledge of the Holocaust so frightening to me at the age of 13, this blind bowing to consensus. Anything seemed and was possible, if you can create a social consensus.
Internet communication seems to specialize in boards creating an alignment of ideas. If you don't agree you're not welcome and the attack is swift and vicious. We were in the U.S. for 8 months in 2002 and the consensus building machines of CNN and Fox News were in high gear. They seemed to be talking from the same script. Fear was in the air. The decision to invade Iraq seemed to have been prematurely made. Fait accompli, Bush and his generals were just waiting on public opinion to reach the desired level.
A good friend of mine was between the ages of 3 and 9 during World War II. Her father was employed by the railroad company in Switzerland. He switched the tracks at a barrier. They lived next door. She remembers hearing the cries of the children in the freight cars, especially at night, who were being transported through Switzerland to their death. What should her Swiss parents have done? What should the railroad company have done, the government officials?
Hi Mr. Ebert
I don't understand why you wrote that Hannah "refused a job promotion that would have spared her duty as a concentration camp guard", as long as, she refuses the promotion in 1958, i.e. after the war.
Regarding to Michael's decision, I think that he doesn't have the right to decide instead of Hannah. It's her life and the decision how to deal with it must be absolutely hers.
And one last thing - after all she was guilty about the deaths of those people, so she had to be punished in some way. I think that her actions have something to do with the "german mentality" and their "love" of order. Being told that she must guard the prisoners, she couldn't do anything else but fulfill her duty.
Ebert: The "German mentality." Would that be anything like Hitler's evocation of the "Jewish mentality?" ˜
I find it ironic that people can complain about Republicans siding with business interests at the expense of regular people while ignoring how Democrats enable trial lawyers and public sector unions in exactly the same way....when obstetricians refuse to practice medicine in a state because their malpractice premiums are so high, how does that benefit regular people again?
The Foundation of 'Conservatism' is 'Creationism' - in the respect that conservatives appear to create their own reality these days. Their world is one where the greatest Icon of their movement is a former President who sold weapons illegally to Iran and laid a wreath on the graves of SS soldiers to commemorate the 40th anniversary of V-E day. As far as our 43rd President is concerned, well, what more can be said that hasn't already. The man was a complete failure in every respect, with the exception of winning elections for himself (by whatever means necessary).
What I have found most disturbing about the 'dittohead' movement of late is the intense hatred they have displayed towards their opposition. I personally disliked George W. Bush with a
passion from day one, but never did I go out in public and make "jokes" about a violent and perhaps fatal act of violence being inflicted upon him. The fact that such hateful and ugly rhetoric is on display by the minority of fellow "Americans" represents
everything that is wrong with the conservative movement. How Ironic that for years after 9/11, they succeeded in branding their political opponents as "America Haters".
November 4th, 2008 was a great day for this country. The superior candidate's landslide win indicated that people have the ability to turn off the radio and think for themselves. The vile and offensive commentary used by the mouthpieces who represent Conservatives in today's media indicates who the real "America haters" are.
The separation of church and state was invoked by our forefathers for a reason. The current identity of the GOP appears to be a case-in-point. It appears their attempts to change that may have proven to be their undoing.
We can only pray that it stays that way.
The right has successfully bullied the left for the majority of this decade. The only way to stop this is to give it to them right back.
Thanks for having the courage to share your feelings in regards to this matter. You are known primarily as a film critic, but you are first and foremost a great writer.
Keith,
Dawkins should distinguish between good faith and bad faith. By doing so he can keep the baby and lose the bathwater. In my opinion, it's kinda important to understand that faith is neutral. Did you read Roger's recent blog on elevation? Somewhere in there Roger stated that elevation is neutral, which it is of course. But it's source and destination may not be. Same with faith. Let's say that a fair percentage of Nazi's felt a certain kind of elevation carrying out Hitler's orders. Does this make the elevation itself bad? How could it? The elevation is just the vibrating wire between the two poles. What makes the wire buzz means everything.
Excuse me if I'm the umpteenth person to point this out, but, slight type-o: ***He pointed out that segregationists had (to) problem at all with black people while they were standing:
Now a question which you or may not have a handle on yet: Has your inability to speak done anything to your need to, or execution of, your writing?
Ebert: See my blog, "I think I'm musing my mind."
My two cents on silence/speaking out, and the consequences thereof:
When in Catholic grade school, perhaps 5th or 6th grade, a boy fresh from Poland joined our class. He was an immediate target of many of my classmates, some of whom I numbered as friends, or at least they were the people I hung out with. They were the more fun jock types, while I was the small, smart (but very athletic) kid who was something of a class clown, out of boredom, I suppose. As someone who was small and smart, I was naturally the target of some abuse, but it seemed mostly friendly, and I gave as good as I got. Well, watching the shit this poor friendless kid, who knew almost no English and was a complete fish out of water, had to take, I really empathized with him, and I wound up standing up to my "friends" and told them to leave him alone...and for the most part, they did. Did I suffer some ostracism as a result? Sure, but I never regretted it, and as I grew older, I was always willing to intercede on behalf of the bullied, as an adult getting kicked out of a biker bar (at Wellington & Cicero) for beating the crap out of a guy who'd picked on 1) a 20-something kid who was about 5' 2", and 2) the 60-something homeless handyman who slept in the bar in return for his services as janitor/"bouncer" to the owner.
Usually, bullies back down, but sometimes they don't. I eventually realized that despite my smaller size, I'm almost certainly faster, smarter and meaner than most, and when they don't back down, I can deal with it and accept the consequences of doing what I know to be right. I generally abhor violence, having been subjected to and witnessing much of it, but with some people, there is no other choice.
Life has not been as financially remunerative as I'd have preferred, especially when one considers the unhappy four years I spent at Wharton, but I've never shied away -- and I never will -- from calling people on their dishonesty and/or bullying, and in the business office world, that's how many, if not most, seem to get ahead. I'm reasonably content, though, with my choices.
I'm generally in accord with Marie Haws on the primacy of the Golden Rule as a yardstick by which one can lead his or her life. Religion, with its arbitrary rules, authority, and rampant hypocrisy? Not so much...
...which leads me to...
Your first factoid used to rebut Roger's facts on Bush shows you to be something less of a history scholar than you suppose, Mr. Ruwe. To wit, the Constitution (Article 1, Section 9) states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Would you not consider the outbreak of the Civil War in April, 1861, a case of rebellion? Also, keep in mind that the author of the ruling finding Lincoln's suspension unlawful (Ex parte Merryman) was none other than that great Roman Catholic jurist Roger Taney, notorious for his ruling in Dred Scott that the framers of the Constitution had viewed all African-Americans as "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect," thereby justifying their status as chattel.
"Faith is one of the world's great evils."
-Richard Dawkins
Brad, you accuse Dawkins of being "theologically infantile" because he sees faith as harmful. But your counter-argument against him is based upon a definition of faith provided by a group of theologians all already convinced that faith, at the very least, was not an evil. You do not seem to understand why Dawkins hates the notion of faith.
Dawkins acknowledges that not all believers are bad people or hurt others in the name of their faiths. He argues that faith is an evil because it is by definition belief without evidence, and it can therefore be used to justify any cause. In that the assertions made by faith are untestable, unchallengeable, and unproven, and that there always remains the potential that such inarguable, personal conclusions might lead people to violence.
I should also note that Dawkins also has a distaste for faith because of his training as a scientist. He values most highly the pursuit of truth by means of evidence and reason; it is the only the means to truth he recognizes as valid. Faith, defined as belief without evidence, and science are ideological opposites.
There is a point at which decent people will not sit idly by. I think a point that we can all be proud of in this country is the response of common people to Hurricane Katrina.
The number of people who simply grew disgusted with, and decided to disregard, the government's response was admirable. I felt that regular people took matters into their own hands out of a sense of moral obligation.
People chose not to go along. It was a small revolution, but I think it was significant in our collective thinking. And it touched many people as both givers and receivers.
My father was good friends with a blind man named Herb who was also a good musician, if I recall correctly. This was sometime in the 1980's and I was just a small girl.
I wonder if this is the same Herb that you were friends with so long ago.
Ebert: My Herb wasn't a musician.
1. In my previous post there is an incomplete sentence. "In that the assertions made by faith are untestable, unchallengeable, and unproven, and that there always remains the potential that such inarguable, personal conclusions might lead people to violence..." should end with "he considers it faith an evil."
2. Roger, you've read a lot about evolution. I'm curious what your reading list includes.
I don't think Michael should have been guilty about not testifying for Hanna. She was a monster who refused to open a door for people who were burning inside a church. She knowingly sent young children, who had read to her, to their death because the camp needed more room, and she saw nothing wrong with this. She molested a fifteen year old boy and scarred him for life. No, Michael shouldn't have felt guilty about not testifying for socio-path Hanna who got what she deserved.
Eschewing at this point reacting at all to your usual outstanding commentary, I know that you know there has been much said of late about "another Holocaust film" (Defiance, misunderstanding The Reader, etc.) by people who, in my opinion, are more qualified to weigh in on the subject than Tony Scott. Therefore, I should like to propose a blog based on from where you spun this one: Are There Enough Holocaust Movies Already?
Will the game be a-foot?
By Nellie S. on February 8, 2009 7:32 AM:
"I think that her actions have something to do with the "german mentality" and their "love" of order. Being told that she must guard the prisoners, she couldn't do anything else but fulfill her duty."
It's not just a "German mentality." There is somewhat of an impulse to attach oneself to an authoritarian leader in Western culture as a whole. In 1941, Erich Fromm wrote an insightful analysis, Escape from Freedom of the the typical modern Western mindset resulting from social and economic conditions, and specifically analyzed how these paved the way for Nazism to take power in Germany. According to Fromm, while the modern individual's "freedom from" political authority, nature, etc has increased, there has been not enough of an increase in our "freedom to":
As a result, people (usually unconsciously) look to "escape from freedom" primarily through either mass conformity (our consumerist culture) or submission to a authoritarian power structure (religious organizations that derive authority from the threat of Hell for non-believers, and to a greater extent the WWII-era fascist dictatorships)
What a brilliant, beautiful piece of writing. I suddenly feel rather embarrassed for being a first time reader.
One of my least favorite dismissals has always been "Well, let's just agree to disagree."
Of course, I can see a theoretical time and place for it, after something has been discussed completely down to it's component parts and no common ground for substantial agreement can be found... I can imagine 'great' scientists reaching this point on some opposing theories, waiting for the research that will (we hope) vindicate one or the other. But I very much dislike it when used as polite shorthand for "I'm sorry... I only discuss these things with people who either already agree with me, or can be made to do so rather quickly and easily by means of a stunning display of my superior knowledge and intellect."
I've made myself somewhat less popular by taking up the habit of replying with something like "And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the country and the world." or, at least "That would seem to be the only way to guarantee we'll -always- disagree."
Religion speaks of a god who gave us these wonderful, wild, inquisitive minds, then praises those who can toss such a gift aside and swallow what's given without question... Likewise 'polite society' would take the 'gift' of freedom of speech and an inherently adversarial political system, and praise us for sticking to discussions where everyone agrees.
I think, perhaps, we've developed this hesitation to engage in argument because we've lost sight of the polite ability to distinguish between an argument and a fight. It seems that, more than in the past, people lack the ability to intellectually disagree without sinking into the impulse for emotional brawling.
It may well be that this is just me remembering I time I didn't experience as being better than it was, but even so... I can't find fault with the idea that we'd be better of if we could live up to that ideal.
To Brad
Did you read my first post? http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html It has this article in it, and the quote you used was Dawkins refutation on science being a religion and a hypothetical, historiological context when one assumes it is one. So, the quote (which wasn't fully quoted--and taken out of context) you used was Richard Dawkins' article that was comparing faith being evil COMPARED or AS OPPOSED to science As A Religion (i don't know how to use italics, so sorry for the capital letters).
To Brad
Well, away from Dawkins now, which you were wrong, and now back to this neutrality thing of faith and elevation (and by the way there wasn't anything in that article that defined elevation as neutral--it was also positive).
To reply what you said concerning the nazi's and elevation:
As Jules said in "Pulp Fiction": "same league...same ballpark...it ain't even the same fuckin' sport". Elevation, a positive feeling, has nothing to do with the nazi's. Elevation is the uplift felt for good combined with the shedding of the Feelings of cynicism etc., not the shredding of people. It's a Coming Together of People, not an erasing of people.
Back to neutrality:
If faith was neutral, all those guys or girls of differing traditional religions at the Snow Mass with Father Thomas Keating could have stayed home and not showed up or showed up either way. It doesn't make any difference to them--their neutral, right? No, they went to that meeting because they think faith is positive in their religious belief and worth fighting for. Faith by definition is positive as in the oxford dictionary "complete trust or confidence"--two positive feelings. In the other definition faith is linked with religious belief....not independent and neutral of it.
Ebert: The loophole is, some Nazis, probably many Nazis, thought what they were doing was positive and good.
I think I've somewhat come to terms with some of the worst things I've done, but I'm sure the future will hold plenty of opportunities for shameful acts. I feel like, in life, you always walk a moral tightrope, and if a sufficient wind comes along then you topple into a void wherein the values and orientations are unclear. Some people are fortunate to live behind a windbreak. Some aren't. As to asking oneself what one has done in a day, well, not everything happens over the course of a day, and it depends on what moral equipment you've got to take readings with, anyway. I'm not a person of strong convictions, myself. I only like the structures of arguments, and I don't too much worry about all the ethical conclusions because I figure they're all dependent on the epistemology behind the propositions, and I figure well we'll probably never get a chance to know what's right that way. Now, I'm not like one of the young men of Rope, and I do think it matters what you do. I guess that shows that I'm all full of contradictions, eh? Perhaps I shall reserve the right to contradict myself. This all comes to nothing, it seems. But, as Stephen King says through a character in Insomnia, done bun can't be undone.
as for speaking out, there are times when people believe that their opinions are more important than the issue itself. some people cast out their thoughts not just because of the thought but to see the ripple effect and reaction from those to upon whom the thought was inflicted. (see: limbaugh)
some people cast thoughts that create such ripple that it causes me to believe that the thought is not a genuine opinion but instead something crafted more for the ripple than the reasoning. (see: coulter)
many times i've been told, "i didn't ask for your opinion." to which i normally answer, "i know, but i don't wait to be asked. i'd rather give you something that you don't need than withold something that you might possibly need." still, just because something is true doesn't mean it needs to be spoken.
i often battle with students who insult each other. last week one student told another, "you need a tummy tuck." when i reprimanded the first student for having said that, she said, "but it's true." i wanted to reply with, "it's also true that you're an idiot, but that doesn't mean i should say it," but i held back. instead, later in the day, i said, "that girl didn't ask you if you thought she needed a tummy tuck. so why did you say it? just to insult her? just to make her feel bad? or maybe to make yourself feel good because you don't need a tummy tuck?"
that's when i launched into my lesson in which i stress that, "just because you can does not mean that you should."
i suppose it should be pointed out that these are 7th grade students i teach.
So now it all makes sense. Now I know why that scene with the blind person and the dead bird in "Dumb and Dumber" made you laugh out so loud that you embarrassed yourself, as you noted in your review. Now I see why that joke must have hit you so hard. Guilty, nervous laughter? Anyway, I feel for you.
Reply to: they think faith is positive in their religious belief and worth fighting for. Faith by definition is positive as in the oxford dictionary "complete trust or confidence"--two positive feelings.
I don't care what the Oxford dictionary says.
The way the Catholic Church uses "faith" is wrong. It becomes a negative thing.
Christianity is a con game. The best way to defeat a con game is to look at the facts BEHIND the "sales pitch."
Matthew 27:52 (after the resurrection of Jesus) the graves were opened, and many of the saints who had died were brought back to life, and coming out of the graves, they went into Jerusalem and appeared to many...
This is how you create a Con. You find people (ie, Paul was a Pharisee) who want to believe in a general resurrection where God will reward your guys and punish your enemies, and give them a written account that you call "proof," and then say, "You must accept this by faith."
Believing that the dead came back to life.... by faith... qualifies you as gullible.
Demand more proof. Don't hold up "faith" as a positive value. It is, by definition, the favorite tool of con men and scam artists.
Reply to: i wanted to reply with, "it's also true that you're an idiot, but that doesn't mean i should say it," but i held back... just because something is true doesn't mean it needs to be spoken. i suppose it should be pointed out that these are 7th grade students i teach.
However... there are times when, IF you listen to children, they speak a very clear form of Truth.
The problem I've found with most Christians is, they have so many automatic Defense Mechanisms, you can't have an intelligent conversation with them. They have too much faith. Misguided faith. Instead of giving an honest answer, they'll remain silent and think, "You're going to burn in Hell."
When Jesus died, no corpses came back to life. That was a LIE, and not entitled to any kind of "faith."
Once you get in the habit of seeking the Correct Answer, it gets easier.
Hello, Mr. Ebert.
I commend you on both your topic and the review of The Reader. And I agree completely with everything you said in this blog entry with one exception: you feel that your social decision not to offend people is similar to not speaking up when you could save someone. There is no correlation at all between the two.
1. As you gain wisdom you learn when you can change people's minds and when you will only be picking a fight. You learned the distinction. In my youth I used to wear "Pro Death" or "Things Go Better With Satan" t-shirts not because I was really in favor if killing fetuses or believed in God/Satan but because I was rebelling against all the rhetoric that kept trying to convince me I should pick a (their) side. In the end I learned wearing those t-shirts didn't convince anyone of anything but just hurt a lot of feelings and offended people.
2. It's as important to let other people disagree with you as it is to have your own opinion. People have a right to be wrong, and they have a right to be told they're wrong only when: a) it rescues someone from injustice, or b) they ask and mean it.
Roger, you go to dinner parties knowing that you are wiser in some things than most people around you; but your silence in many ways makes you even wiser.
I believe that if an atheist was being beaten up by religious zealots you would speak up; and I believe that if a religious zealot was being beaten up by atheist you would likewise intervene.
Everyone has a right to their opinions, and so long as they're not hurting anyone they can have it.
Is the priest who condemns other people who believe differently someone who should be battled? Yes.
But is the priest who allows dissent someone who should be battled? No.
The former does not deserve silence, but the latter does.
Ebert: There's such a thing as knowing when to pick your fights.
I accidentally the holocaust.
Shaun on Dawkins: "He argues that faith is an evil because it is by definition belief without evidence, and it can therefore be used to justify any cause."
I've noticed that some pretty horrendous conclusions--racist, sexist, and so on--are often reached by people who have "evidence"--mostly anecdotal, often skewed; but essentially empirical, first-hand observations (often supported by other observers), which they use to formulate generalizations that guide their future deductions, thus experimentally "proving" their hypotheses.
While faith-based arguments are unprovable (but, I would argue, only "evil" in terms of their application), evil can certainly arise from belief with evidence--and I would caution anyone who attempts to argue with evil about the quality of its evidence or the reliability of its findings. It's usually at that point in the conversation where evil applies its powers of deduction to conclude you're one of Them, and decides, like The Shining's Delbert Grady, to "correct" you.
Dear Roger,
Theodore Sturgeon, the late science fiction writer, famously said, "99.9% of everything in the universe is crap." I think he undershot the mark a little, but at any rate, your blog - your statements, the readers' comments, and your responses, might have been put by Sturgeon into that .1% mental list he kept...
What pains me about this country, what pains me about reactions to "The Reader" is the "real-life" analogue to a comment you have often made as to how to analyze a film: we should look lot to what a film is about, but "how it is about it." Looking at "The Reader" through this lens, I can see that it is not simply another (or even a) "Holocaust movie." It is a meditation on guilt, survival, and on how good and evil are only as descrptive and powerful labels as the human mind is capable and willing to operate outside of the narrow, cozy confines from which we want to operate it.
I have found that the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives (based on my anecdotal experience, which is no more and no less than I need to make the observation) is not so much what the two types believe in (there are stark differences, but commonalities) but how the two types go about in believing what they believe in. Conservatives (with many exceptions) often tend to start with a premise that to them is unimpeachable (God exists; the word liberal implies an inherently corrupted politics; the word "activist judge" implies that the judge in question is a bad judge; making money is good); for them, this has the virtue of deflecting legitimate argumentation directed at them. If you have already taken as a given the existence of God and that he created the universe, then, by definition, the word "Evolutionist" is a word to be used derisively. (To use a variant of this line of arguing, when you wrote about Rush Limbaugh's use of the term "Feminazi" several years ago, you wrote, and what a great line it was, sarcasm and all, "Who could disagree with Limbaugh? After all, once you have called someone a Feminazi, what else is there left to say about her?"
I once had a law professor who told us, when she presented us with essay questions to write, that if we were not presented with a fact that was critical to a proper answering of the question, we could assume that a fact existed (i.e. the contract was in writing, or it was not), but she inveighed against doing too much of this. "Try to answer the question first, before trying to state that the question is too difficult to answer, and therefore, resorting to creating facts to jerry-rig the problem to make it easier to answer."
People are jerry-rigging beliefs into facts, which these people are then using as fait-accompli premises to CUT OFF argumentation. These people, in other words, believe that their assertion carries more logical persuasive power than someone's reasoning.
As Justice Scalia (of all people) once said in a case, this is unfair. A famous English Marquis named Queensbury is known for but one, rather infamous thing: he tried to prescribe elaborate rules for boxing matches - he tried to prescribe absurdity. In the case where Scalia invoked the Maquis' name, a man burnt a cross on his neighbor's lawn, violating a state law that prohibited certain kinds of "hate speech" (such as that activity, hate speech directed at minorities), but left people free to engage in others - the distinction as to which speech was permissible was.... well, there was no distinction. The Court struck down the state law as being vague and impermissibly "content-based," meaning it silenced some speech while permitting other speech, in a manner the court believed did not rationally serve any interest the government had in regulating speech. As Scalia noted, "One side cannot be permitted to fight freestyle while the other is bound by Marquis of Queensbury tactics."
The playing field today is indeed uneven, and the solution is not to try to "fight" on the freestyler's terms. It is not even to convince them what a LEVEL playing field is. The solution, I think is more basic: to make them understand what an ARGUMENT is - what a PLAYING FIELD ITSELF is. If they cannot be brought to understand that, then what else can one do?
Haunting memories - The sin of omission - 20 years ago, at a campground in FL, my boys came running around the corner yelling about a man hitting his boys with a tree! I walked around the corner to see this guy in the distance wailing on his kids with a branch. My therapist wife stopped me from going over there, as he may have had a gun, or from calling a ranger, as the kids would just get beaten more for getting him in trouble. So I did nothing.
Of course my wife was 'right'. Even tho she was, by law, required to report such crimes. She felt this was the wrong time and place for such a battle. And she was as incensed as I was. My anger was also 'right'. I wanted to clobber this guy for what he was doing. But the park rangers would likely do little, and the kids would just be at more risk.
I've always been ashamed when I think of this incident, but, as I often remind my over-extended wife... you can't fix the world yourself.
And living on borrowed time - In the late 60's, living on the tip of Cape Cod, my GF's ex came back to town. He'd stay with us a few times, and rotated around until he got his own place. A couple of times he brought up the idea of taking a walk in the dunes, which for whatever reason never happened. One day he came by and said his GF in NY had drown in the tub, a few days after we had driven them to Hyannis to catch the bus. Then other women went missing, and a soldier back from Viet Nam came to town looking for his missing GF and found this guy driving her car. He was eventually sent to prison and was hung by someone. He was a nice guy, smart, interesting... and a real killer, not to be missed. But it is a haunting memory for me, likely never to return from that walk in the dunes.
I think we agree on a lot of topics, so don't bother inviting me to your next dinner party...
As a 19yo on the Cape, I worked in a restaurant. Every night after closing the kitchen staff made a meal for themselves. Norman Mailer would drop by 2-3 nights a week for a free meal. I knew little about him, and I'm sure he was impressed with my teen knowledge base! I don't remember any of the conversations, except they were lively and he enjoyed my humor. I was so smart back then that I painted HUMPHREY SUCKS on the side of my van, not even considering that Nixon was a viable candidate. Since then, I've become a little wiser about Humphrey - but am still confused about the world that would elect a Nixon, Reagan or a Bush - twice.
Feel free to delete my second story if you want. It doesn't really fit the topic, and I was just writing it for you - and me.
Thanks for the comment section. I'll consider this my dinner with Roger...
Ebert: Had you read a little Mailer at the time?
Ebert: The loophole is, some Nazis, probably many Nazis, thought what they were doing was positive and good.
I think concentration camps were created because executing jews at point blank range took a psychological toll. It wasn't easy, so a distance had to be created from the murdering process.
Roger,
Once again, a wonderful post. However, I have something else that I must say. Seeing this post reminded me of your support of The Reader when you placed it on your list of the best films of the year. Seeing your list of the year's best films reminded me that you didn't necessarily point out your favorite film of the year. Millions of readers across the web, myself included, have their testicles in a knot trying to guess which film you thought was the best. Was it Happy-Go-Lucky? Slumdog Millionaire? Perhaps it was Revolutionary Road? Or was it Iron Man?? You always present such unique and artistic choices when picking your top ten. I apologize for being so blunt, but people simply need to know: what was your favorite film of 2008?
Many thanks,
Garrett
Ebert: I suppose next year I'll have to cave in and go back to the traditional system. But this year I took my stand, and I'm stickin' to it.
I don't know if I can add my two cents to 'The Reader' discussion, as I haven't seen the film yet, but your rant on Creationism coincides with a path I've been on. I recently read the book "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller. Miller is one of the leading biologists in this country; the textbooks he's written have been used in classrooms all across the US. (My mother's a high school science teacher and a fan of them.) He tries to balance being a Catholic and believing in the Theory of Evolution. As he says in this speech, he believes in a God, but not a deceitful one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
The most frustrating thing is that the people who watch that vid aren't the ones who need to watch it. He even talks about the discovery of the combined chromosomes on the monkeys, to explain why we have 48 and they have 46!
I finally got around to seeing "The Reader" and I must say I enjoyed the film immensely.
I agree with you when you say it's not a Holocaust movie, yet, at the same time I feel that there's a certain stigma which comes with any film based around the Holocaust. Even if they are not directly about the subject, they seem have this label attached to them. Judging from the immensity of the subject itself; this is inescapable. It's impossible not to have some emotional attachment.
When I saw the Reader, I thought it was a beautiful love story, which had something to say about the human condition but did not seek to either understand or unravel it. That's the thing with art. Art cannot really help us understand why we are the way we are; it can merely show us how things happen. We in turn must decide for ourselves what we really think. Art cannot tell us why, it can only show us how. What we can hope to find though are moments of transcendent emotion; that is why I keep coming back for more.
Consider a moment in The Reader when Michael comes back to Hanna upset and asks her if she really loves him. Kate Winslet gives this glance (which says to him: "Yes") which to me spoke more volumes than any other moment in film this year. Hanna also says: "You don't matter enough to upset me!" Such moments ring so true that it’s painful to watch. You really get the sense of this character she created.
The Movies that were nominated for Oscars this year were so vastly different from one another, that it seems unfair that they should be in contention. Slumdog Millionaire, Frost/Nixon, The Wrestler, The Reader and Milk among others are all so different, that they speak volumes on different levels of emotion, different layers of thought; it is unfair to compare them.
I am also fond of The Wrestler. Not simply for its performances but for its transcendent, God-like quality of an outside voice overlooking a more muted one. It is a large portrait of the decay of America, optimistic yet remorseful in its view. It's also a love story unlike any other. Self-reflective and poignant rather than a means to an end. There is something indescribably beautiful about Randy "The Ram" performing that final body slam in front of a large noisy crowd, who may or may not really know him for being "him".
That film helped me to appreciate how so often in life we shut people out and deny them the attention they really deserve. We often place them into this kind of dream world, where we have an idealized if not skewed view about who they are. We often talk up a storm, based upon nothing in particular, quick to spew words but slow to listen and learn. We often end up hurting one another, when we should be enjoying each others' company. In pursuit of some crazy, idealized form of self that may or may not exist, we often deny ourselves the simple pleasures of life. Never has this been more true than in films like the Wrestler, that show us how little of our neighbors we truly understand; how we constantly strive for the stars when perhaps we should have been looking in our front porch first. By the time we figure this out, we are so wrapped into our ways that it's hard to be anything more than who we are. And yet, the Wrestler was more of an artistic achievement than it was an aesthetic one. Some of it's cinematic flourishes are arguably subjective, however, the performances and writing are undeniably, objectively great.
As for The Reader, who was right you might ask? Michael or Hanna? I don't believe either one of them were right or wrong. They were simply behaving the way that they intended or decided to behave. They just happen to be who they are, they cannot easily change that; as good or bad as that might be.
It's amazing how little we really can know about a stranger until we start to get to know them. Even then we don't really know. We can share moments of intimacy and insight, these help us to shape ourselves; we cannot change others, they must do that on their own. Imagine what kind of world that would be if we really could change people? Are we really ready to take that risk? To me forgiveness is always the hardest. To get over any hurdles in life, you have to be able to forgive yourself. When human beings learn how to do that, we can start working on all the rest.
On a lighter note, I'm looking forward to the Oscars this year. Partially because the movies themselves were so great and also because I think they have a great host this year: Hugh Jackman. I'm hoping that Slumdog takes home the Gold. It may not be the best movie of the bunch, but it's the most fresh and deserving. Frank Langella I felt gave the best performance but Rourke totally deserves the Oscar. As you know, the SAGs are a good indicator of who the gold will go to. In that case, Sean Penn has the upper hand. Winslet is overdue to win, while Streep would be acceptable. I disagree with you about Viola Davis. She's terrific but I fell Amy Adams will pull a fast one and take home the gold. Benjamin Button deserves all technical accolades but nothing more. I hope Richard Jenkins gets an Oscar eventually. If they don't give it to Ledger (well, let's not think that way shall we?). Wall-E, Wall-E, WALL-E!!! What happened to Australia!?... Oh, and Michael Sheen should have been nominated too. Of course, the Awards have a history of giving it to the wrong movie. Going My Way over Double Indemnity, How Green Was My Valley over Citizen Kane, Annie Hall over Star Wars, Ordinary People over Raging Bull, Dances With Wolves over Goodfellas; etc. Of course, there's been good choices too: A Man For All Seasons, Platoon, Midnight Cowboy, Ben-Hur, In the Heat of the Night, Titanic and No Country For Old Men. Oscars have grown more political with each passing year, but I still enjoy watching and getting caught up in it. There's my two cents right there.
What a marvelous read.
I don't think any great movie should be defined by it's setting.
I think that even a movie like Schindler's List, is a more of a film about the "voting with the tribe attitude" that people inherently posses rather than the premise of the story.
"The Gladiator", I would say is simply a Gladiator movie and in my opinion, not a very good one at that.
But is "Once Upon a Time in America" just a prohibition film?
I think not.
I sometimes watch "The Dog Whisperer" when flipping channels. Cesar Millan explains in many episodes that dogs don't want to be alpha; they're happier when you're in control -- then he goes on to demonstrate that effect. It sure seems like he's right.
I thought about this concept until it became a theory on religion that made sense to me: People are (can be, can appear, can think they are) happier when they can relinquish (figurative) control over every aspect of their lives to a specifically proscribed power who is largely seen as beneficial. And in re-thinking The Reader, I can see this concept applied more broadly, to explain the uncontested subjugation of average citizens by a power like the Nazis, whose national propaganda machine extolled their virtues loudly enough to drown out dissent.
I've pissed off more than one person by equating religion with The Dog Whisperer!
Ebert: I can imagine.
It is certainly true that a number of believers seem outright hostile to the idea of a purely scientific explanation for the origin of our species, but this is not without provocation. An entire brand of comedy has sprung up in the last decade, which seems to consist of nothing more than derision for people deemed ignorant, and religious people are invariably the primary target.
I've noticed that a great many people who proclaim to base their beliefs in science have done so without also adopting the skepticism and humility inherent in the scientific process. Too often, science becomes a blunt instrument, used not to believe in something or to obtain truth, but to have something to beat believers about the head with.
History is, as a famous quote says, the gradual discovery of our own ignorance. Religious people should remember this, but the same goes for people who parade scientific theory (or even likelihood) around as fact. Everything we know about our history tells us that quite a bit of what we hold to be true is going to be turned on its head. Methinks the disagreements so common among religious people, and non-religious people, would have a much duller edge to them if skeptics applied their skepticism across the board.
Re: history's "Worst President." I agree with previous commenters, who point out that sticking Dubya with this tag is dubious at best, and horrendously premature at worst. How many people who toss the label around can even name all 44 Presidents, much less judge their performance?
Ebert: Would you agree to "one of the worst?"
Just a brief comment for Anonymous (I hope) who is the born again gay man. There are other men like you out there, I promise. I live in Tulsa, OK (yes, Tulsa, OK) and I go to a church that is inclusive--it has people who love and serve the same Lord you do, and it is filled with mostly gay people. If we can have a church like that with people "like that" in Tulsa, I am convinced that you can find someone in the UCLA area. You are not alone. And you are in my prayers today.
And just a short comment of my own. I read with interest the people who seem to equate having religious faith with a refusal to think for oneself. I am a Christian and have been for nearly 40 years. I continue to have faith. I continue to think for myself. I don't take the Bible literally when it comes to such things as the Creation story, Noah and the Ark, Jonah and the Whale. However, I try to take literally (and more importantly, I do try to live) loving other Christian believers when I don't particularly agree with them (and at the same time that I do disagree with them; I can disagree and still love people), that I am to love all persons and all creatures as creations of the God whom I profess to serve, and that I am to safeguard the world which has been entrusted to me and to work for justice for all people. I take those commands quite literally. I don't get into arguments about ID and evolution because they don't seem to have much to do with loving and serving others. I could be wrong. I don't feel a need to demonize people who have a different faith than I have, or who have no faith or feel no need for a faith or who feel that it's all a bunch of nonsense either way. I may be wrong in what I believe; I've been wrong about things more than once in my life.
Just wanted to say that. Thank you, Roger, for your blog, once more. Not simply this particular one but the blog space you have created. And yes, people often fail to mention that the Holocaust also encompassed Jehovah's Witnesses, dissenting Catholics and Protestants, homosexuals, gypsies, people with disabilities of all kinds [the lovely phrase "useless eaters"],and the others you listed.
Thanks for helping me love film and for giving me the words I often need to tell other people of its wonderful power and the way in which the best films reflect what is most true and often give us a mirror to see not only the worst and most squalid in human behavior, but what is best and noble and good.
You can make the argument that there has never been a Holocaust movie. Schindler's List is about standing up against evil. Sophie's Choice is about the awful consequences of sadism. Eleni is about coming to terms with your family's past. Life Is Beautiful is about the desire to recast history through bad movie-making.
If you're compiling a list of the best Holocaust movies, would you omit The Reader because it's about not speaking up when you know you should? I wouldn't. In my way of thinking, it's a Holocaust movie.
Have you seen Ron Rosenbaum's article in today's Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2210804/pagenum/all
Yet another completely different take on the film.