Of all the films I have seen with a budget of less than $1 million, The Man From Earth might be the best. Many people cannot imagine a science-fiction movie being made for ~$200,000 in this day and age, but here it is. The movie is entirely set in the protagonist's small house and the surrounding area, and the story is driven solely by the dialogue. Yet, the film succeeds brilliantly.
The movie is about a 14,000 year old Cro-Magnon caveman who discovered that he was immortal. He conceals that fact, and bears witness to much of history, until finally he tells his story to a group of professors during a surprise party.
The movie's creators encourage its distribution through file-sharing networks, so anyone can watch it for free. I highly recommend this.
The most striking thing for me about this film is that it brought me back to a thought experiment that I have pondered and enjoyed since junior high. I first started thinking about this in my early days of playing the Conspiracy X RPG. In Con X there is a race called the Atlanteans, who came to Earth in prehistory. They possess incredible nanotechnology that allows them to, among other things, alter their appearance and prevent aging and disease.
In the game, the technologically advanced but psychically dead Atlanteans are defeated in battle by early-Bronze Age humans wielding powerful magic. The surviving Atlanteans decide to go underground, and become solitary demigods living hidden among humans. Each Atlantean assumes a kind of archetype that drives their motivation as they move, unseen, through history.
For example, Azek'al devotes himself to helping the human race improve itself. He has nudged scientists toward breakthroughs, and wishes to one day bring humanity to the point where they are equal to the Atlanteans. D'jeler, on the other hand, is obsessed with power, and works to reunite the solitary Atlanteans under his rule.
The game led me to start thinking about the following scenario: If I found myself alone at the edge of the Sahara circa 2500 BC, possessing a full complement of Atlantean nanotech systems, what would my archetype be? What do I think is most worth doing?
My first thought was to try and use my knowledge of history to influence its outcomes. I tend to think that temporal laws would prevent me from doing this (I would like to believe the "course-correcting" in Lost would happen), but I also soon realized that even if I could change things, it would be far too difficult to predict the actual outcomes of my actions. I couldn't take the risk of accidentally destroying the good things about today's world.
After seeing The Man From Earth, I started thinking about this scenario again, and I suddenly realized what my answer would be. I have always been fascinated by history itself, and always wished that I could have seen those events and places in their full glory, rather than just the fragments that exist in our time. If I had the chance to experience these events firsthand, the most important thing I could do would be to preserve them for all time, to make sure the true history of our Earth would never be lost.
To that end, the first thing I would need to do is to find a secure location where my archives could be established. I would want a place that was isolated enough that I would be able to work undisturbed, and a place where I would be out of the way of history. In 2500 BC, there were still vast stretches of the Earth that were uninhabited by people, and I would have to choose on of those. I would need a place where I would have a fair amount of space to operate, but not so much that I could not control it. A glance at Wikipedia suggested many potential candidates, almost all remote islands. My search initially led me to either the Tristan da Cunha islands in the South Atlantic or the Prince Edward Islands in the South Indian Ocean. However, once I started considering factors like weather and the logistics of managing several islands compared to one, I realized that the best solution was probably an island I have always been fascinated by, Easter.
Easter Island is isolated and was uninhabited until at least 200 AD, and probably much later. Nothing ever occured there that affected the course of world history, and its climate is pleasant enough to make living easy and provide areas for key parts of my archives.
The next thing I thought about is how easy it would be to construct a modern base in the distant past, without any equipment. I concluded that even for a modern human, it would be extremely difficult to build something like an oceangoing ship. However, that is quite a different thought experiment. I therefore decided to assume that I had a fully functional assembler, an Atlantean device that uses nanites and molecular blueprints to produce useful items.
Once on Easter, the basics would come first. I would construct a base, mostly underground, which would provide floor after floor of storage for artifacts. I would also need a hydroponics facility and living quarters, in order to feed myself and the others I would bring to the island. On the surface I would construct a surveillance and defence system for the island, disguised as a low-tech village. I would also need a number of enclosures for the animals I would bring to the island.
Those animals would be those that we have lost in the days since 2500BC. The human race has been extrodinarily destructive to other species, and although I would be too late to save the Holocene megafauna that were wiped out in the Americas around 10,000BC, I could save many species. First priority would be the dwarf woolly mammoths of Wrangel Island, the last of the mammoths that vanished around 1700BC. After that I would attempt to capture Moas, Thylacines, Dodos, Aurochs, Great Auks and Quaggas, among other species. If feasable, I would bring enough individuals to Easter to establish a viable population. If that turned out to be impossible (as it might with the mammoths and many of the species of Moa) I would collect and cryofreeze as much genetic material as possible, and attempt to maintain a small population of the animals on Easter using artificial insemination techniques.
Obviously I would be unable to manage such a large collection of animals myself. Species like the auks and the aurochs would be largely self sufficient, and could freely roam the island with a minimum of managment. Species that would be unused to the climate of the island, or species that might overrun the native island life (or the other introduced animals) would have to be put in more of a zoo environment. Setting Thylacines loose on the island, for example, would not be good for the Dodos to say the least.
I would therefore have to recruit some assistance. I would obviously want to pick people that shared my love of nature and history, and smart people with a talent for languages would also help. In 2500BC, anyone I recruited would require significant education, but I doubt I would have trouble recruiting adventurers. I would have to find people who would be willing to forgo having families though, as I would want to keep the human population on Easter to a minimum.
As time went on and people became more knowledgeable about the state of the world, I would have to be more careful. Once technology became available that would allow people to get off Easter and back to seafaring societies (probably in the 15th century), I would have to begin conducting recruiting in a different way. I would obviously want to prevent knowledge of my mission and technology from becoming public, for fear that Conquistadors might come knocking with an invasion force. One possibility might be to recruit mostly women, given that they were oppressed in many places until recently, and might welcome the chance for a different life.
Once I was done establishing the Easter Island wildlife reserve, I would begin the more meticulous process of cataloging human history. I would have to have recruits stationed around the globe, with a way to alert me if something historically significant was happening. As time went by this would become easier, as I would have a general idea of where to be and when.
Once I had this network set up, I would likely travel the world with a high-definition video camera, making record of places and key events. I would bring back pictures and video, along with artifacts like books and art. Easter Island would become a place of refuge for the true history of the world, and I would have many, many lifetimes of critical work to do.
Fascinating thought experiment. If only it could be done.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Phantom Menace
With the UN climate-change conference underway in Copenhagen, the swords are drawn on both sides. Despite the fact that I wrote a post on climate change quite recently, I realized while rereading it that recent events probably necessitate another post. I have heard some interesting viewpoints that have caused me to adjust my position on the issue somewhat, and that is always reason enough to write.
Basically, in my previous post I advocated a fairly aggressive cap and trade system, combined with significant investment in renewables and other efforts, including modification of the GST. I also pointed out, however, that the hysteria around climate change had reached a point where the predictions of doom were far removed from the actual science, and perhaps even more troubling, the issue was actually starting to detract from other worthy environmental endeavours.
I have since heard some viewpoints that have significantly reinforced those beliefs. I recently read Bjorn Lomborg's Cool It, and subsequently watched the excellent Munk Debate on Climate Change, held in Toronto a couple weeks ago. Dr. Lomborg is 100% on board with the mainstream view of climate science, but he gives people like Al Gore fits with his views on what should be done (or not done) about climate change.
Dr. Lomborg spends much of his book arguing that although climate change will have negative consequences, they are far overblown by supporters of radical action, as well as by the media. Here I agree with him completely. He also makes a case that existing programs like Kyoto are expensive and don't even mitigate emissions by a significant amount, and action severe enough to make a big difference would be economically ruinous. He then goes on to show that the ROI (return on investment) is infinitesimal for dollars spent on fighting climate change, and that it would be far better to spend the money on fighting malaria & AIDS, or on supplying clean water to those that don't have it.
He therefore advocates a strategy of a small carbon tax, combined with a big expenditure on Green R&D and a huge increase in money spent on fighting disease and promoting development in poor countries.
His argument is persuasive, and I strongly agree that development is seriously underfunded; I also concur that in the long term, green technology (including fusion) is our way out of the problem. However, I do take issue with his argument about a small carbon tax. I've previously stated why I prefer cap and trade, and think that the scale can be bigger than Lomborg suggests only if the tax is revenue neutral. Much of Lomborg's argument centres on the huge cost (in terms of lost economic growth) that would result from a heavy carbon reduction program. However, this loss would be mitigated if the tax was truly revenue-neutral. A tax shift, like I have advocated, would make a larger carbon program much more feasible.
The common response to Lomborg is also something I feel like I should address. Many people say "we have to do both carbon reduction and development!" Lomborg rightly points out that with limited budgets, that may not be possible. I still think that there are many things that could be done on both fronts without spending too much money, the distribution of birth control and associated information would be very cheap, and effective. Eliminating agricultural subsidies in developed countries would save money and promote development in the 3rd world. Those are only a couple of the possibilities available to us.
Therefore, I think it reasonable to say that my recent readings have confirmed my views on many aspects of the issue, but perhaps make me a little more hesitant to prescribe a strong response to climate change, especially if it is not 100% revenue neutral. The existing proposals, whereby most permits would be given away instead of auctioned (making it impossible to use revenues to cut income taxes) are certainly not satisfactory from my point of view.
Dr. Lomborg was also one of the debaters at the aforementioned Munk debates, facing down George Monbiot and Elizabeth May on the resolution: "Be it resolved that climate change is mankind's defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response". I thought that the Con side clearly won the debate, showing that although global warming is a serious problem, it can hardly be mankind's defining crisis. It is one of many serious problems that we face. The response at Copenhagen must be rational and considered, and must not succumb to the hysteria.
However, out of all the recent furor on climate change came one other thing, something which has the potential to do far more damage than people think, in an entirely different way than people think. It is far more of a "phantom menace" than climate change itself (or Bjorn Lomborg's controversial views).
I am speaking of the incident regarding the emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK. Unlike the conspiracy theorists and the climate change skeptics, who assert that the emails represent the final "nail in the coffin" of the global warming "hoax", my own reading of the content suggests that there is nothing to suggest any sort of global conspiracy or manipulation of climate data.
Nonetheless, what the emails do show is that the scientific process, as it exists today, is far less transparent than it should be. The emails do show some evidence of politics influencing the practice of science, and certainly show unethical behaviour when it comes to the transparent release of information, or the suppression of contrarian views that are so key to the advancement of science.
These problems allow attacks on science itself. Increasingly over the last few decades, beginning with the tobacco companies in the 1960's, political groups have begun to attack science itself, claiming bias, conspiracy and politicisation in order to "reposition" certain issues "as theory rather than fact".
This is a serious problem that has the potential to greatly damage future world progress unless it is dealt with immediately. As I said in my last post, I believe the greatest battle our species faces is the battle to pull ourselves up out of the darkness, to realize our own ignorance and commit ourselves to the pursuit of knowledge. Only if superstition, fundamentalism, dogma and irrationality are defeated can humanity realize its full potential.
In modern times, for the most part, science and reason have been winning that battle. Recently, though, on issue after issue, especially in the United States but also everywhere else, the fight has dramatically intensified. Support for evolution in the United States is actually declining, despite the incontrovertible evidence in its favour. The Catholic Church's stance on birth control has severely damaged efforts to prevent the spread of AIDS. In the Islamic world, in a culture that produced many of the world's foremost scientists in centuries past, the recent trend has been towards repression and closed-mindedness. Countless far-right pundits in the United States are making various claims that are completely unsupported by facts, and yet their shows attract thousands of followers.
It is time that we turn the tide of this battle. The CRU emails are a significant blow, but we must "examine all obstacles carefully, because with a little ingenuity they can often be turned into levers". We must seize this opportunity to make science more transparent and accountable. I understand that scientists are hesitant to release their data to the public because they want to make sure they are credited for their discoveries and hard work, but I think it would be reasonable to require all scientific data sets pertaining to peer-reviewed publications be made publicly available on the Internet once the journal has gone to print.
I also understand that scientists are frustrated by "junk science", which most of the work done by climate change skeptics would certainly qualify as. However, they would be better served to allow those people their right to their view, and then use ruthless analysis and incisive logic to expose that "junk science". That would help science far more in the long run that trying to suppress the publication of bad science in the first place.
I am not a scientist, and therefore the ideas I have presented may be impractical or ignorant. However, the point remains. Science is a key pillar of a brighter future, and we must maintain the integrity and transparency of the scientific method at all costs. Otherwise, fundamentalism will surely win more victories in the future.
P.S. I read an article today about an interesting carbon reduction program. The idea is to link the rate of carbon reduction to the actual change in temperature. That is, if the temperature rises a lot, countries would be obligated to cut emissions more drastically. There are some serious potential problems here, mainly with uncertainty and huge fluctuations, but a system like that might be worth considering. You could reduce the volatility by comparing a 10 year rolling average of global temperature to the baseline temperature measured over at least 50 years. You could then say that my 2% per year reduction (see previous post) in the amount of carbon permits issued could fluctuate between 0-4% based on relative temperatures. It's certainly an interesting idea, and I'm glad to see people thinking creatively about this issue.
Basically, in my previous post I advocated a fairly aggressive cap and trade system, combined with significant investment in renewables and other efforts, including modification of the GST. I also pointed out, however, that the hysteria around climate change had reached a point where the predictions of doom were far removed from the actual science, and perhaps even more troubling, the issue was actually starting to detract from other worthy environmental endeavours.
I have since heard some viewpoints that have significantly reinforced those beliefs. I recently read Bjorn Lomborg's Cool It, and subsequently watched the excellent Munk Debate on Climate Change, held in Toronto a couple weeks ago. Dr. Lomborg is 100% on board with the mainstream view of climate science, but he gives people like Al Gore fits with his views on what should be done (or not done) about climate change.
Dr. Lomborg spends much of his book arguing that although climate change will have negative consequences, they are far overblown by supporters of radical action, as well as by the media. Here I agree with him completely. He also makes a case that existing programs like Kyoto are expensive and don't even mitigate emissions by a significant amount, and action severe enough to make a big difference would be economically ruinous. He then goes on to show that the ROI (return on investment) is infinitesimal for dollars spent on fighting climate change, and that it would be far better to spend the money on fighting malaria & AIDS, or on supplying clean water to those that don't have it.
He therefore advocates a strategy of a small carbon tax, combined with a big expenditure on Green R&D and a huge increase in money spent on fighting disease and promoting development in poor countries.
His argument is persuasive, and I strongly agree that development is seriously underfunded; I also concur that in the long term, green technology (including fusion) is our way out of the problem. However, I do take issue with his argument about a small carbon tax. I've previously stated why I prefer cap and trade, and think that the scale can be bigger than Lomborg suggests only if the tax is revenue neutral. Much of Lomborg's argument centres on the huge cost (in terms of lost economic growth) that would result from a heavy carbon reduction program. However, this loss would be mitigated if the tax was truly revenue-neutral. A tax shift, like I have advocated, would make a larger carbon program much more feasible.
The common response to Lomborg is also something I feel like I should address. Many people say "we have to do both carbon reduction and development!" Lomborg rightly points out that with limited budgets, that may not be possible. I still think that there are many things that could be done on both fronts without spending too much money, the distribution of birth control and associated information would be very cheap, and effective. Eliminating agricultural subsidies in developed countries would save money and promote development in the 3rd world. Those are only a couple of the possibilities available to us.
Therefore, I think it reasonable to say that my recent readings have confirmed my views on many aspects of the issue, but perhaps make me a little more hesitant to prescribe a strong response to climate change, especially if it is not 100% revenue neutral. The existing proposals, whereby most permits would be given away instead of auctioned (making it impossible to use revenues to cut income taxes) are certainly not satisfactory from my point of view.
Dr. Lomborg was also one of the debaters at the aforementioned Munk debates, facing down George Monbiot and Elizabeth May on the resolution: "Be it resolved that climate change is mankind's defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response". I thought that the Con side clearly won the debate, showing that although global warming is a serious problem, it can hardly be mankind's defining crisis. It is one of many serious problems that we face. The response at Copenhagen must be rational and considered, and must not succumb to the hysteria.
However, out of all the recent furor on climate change came one other thing, something which has the potential to do far more damage than people think, in an entirely different way than people think. It is far more of a "phantom menace" than climate change itself (or Bjorn Lomborg's controversial views).
I am speaking of the incident regarding the emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK. Unlike the conspiracy theorists and the climate change skeptics, who assert that the emails represent the final "nail in the coffin" of the global warming "hoax", my own reading of the content suggests that there is nothing to suggest any sort of global conspiracy or manipulation of climate data.
Nonetheless, what the emails do show is that the scientific process, as it exists today, is far less transparent than it should be. The emails do show some evidence of politics influencing the practice of science, and certainly show unethical behaviour when it comes to the transparent release of information, or the suppression of contrarian views that are so key to the advancement of science.
These problems allow attacks on science itself. Increasingly over the last few decades, beginning with the tobacco companies in the 1960's, political groups have begun to attack science itself, claiming bias, conspiracy and politicisation in order to "reposition" certain issues "as theory rather than fact".
This is a serious problem that has the potential to greatly damage future world progress unless it is dealt with immediately. As I said in my last post, I believe the greatest battle our species faces is the battle to pull ourselves up out of the darkness, to realize our own ignorance and commit ourselves to the pursuit of knowledge. Only if superstition, fundamentalism, dogma and irrationality are defeated can humanity realize its full potential.
In modern times, for the most part, science and reason have been winning that battle. Recently, though, on issue after issue, especially in the United States but also everywhere else, the fight has dramatically intensified. Support for evolution in the United States is actually declining, despite the incontrovertible evidence in its favour. The Catholic Church's stance on birth control has severely damaged efforts to prevent the spread of AIDS. In the Islamic world, in a culture that produced many of the world's foremost scientists in centuries past, the recent trend has been towards repression and closed-mindedness. Countless far-right pundits in the United States are making various claims that are completely unsupported by facts, and yet their shows attract thousands of followers.
It is time that we turn the tide of this battle. The CRU emails are a significant blow, but we must "examine all obstacles carefully, because with a little ingenuity they can often be turned into levers". We must seize this opportunity to make science more transparent and accountable. I understand that scientists are hesitant to release their data to the public because they want to make sure they are credited for their discoveries and hard work, but I think it would be reasonable to require all scientific data sets pertaining to peer-reviewed publications be made publicly available on the Internet once the journal has gone to print.
I also understand that scientists are frustrated by "junk science", which most of the work done by climate change skeptics would certainly qualify as. However, they would be better served to allow those people their right to their view, and then use ruthless analysis and incisive logic to expose that "junk science". That would help science far more in the long run that trying to suppress the publication of bad science in the first place.
I am not a scientist, and therefore the ideas I have presented may be impractical or ignorant. However, the point remains. Science is a key pillar of a brighter future, and we must maintain the integrity and transparency of the scientific method at all costs. Otherwise, fundamentalism will surely win more victories in the future.
P.S. I read an article today about an interesting carbon reduction program. The idea is to link the rate of carbon reduction to the actual change in temperature. That is, if the temperature rises a lot, countries would be obligated to cut emissions more drastically. There are some serious potential problems here, mainly with uncertainty and huge fluctuations, but a system like that might be worth considering. You could reduce the volatility by comparing a 10 year rolling average of global temperature to the baseline temperature measured over at least 50 years. You could then say that my 2% per year reduction (see previous post) in the amount of carbon permits issued could fluctuate between 0-4% based on relative temperatures. It's certainly an interesting idea, and I'm glad to see people thinking creatively about this issue.
Friday, December 11, 2009
The Life & Death of Leonidas
Most of the posts that I have brought over from my first blog to this one, and almost all those that I have written since, have been on a pretty narrow range of topics. I did this on purpose, as a way to avoid the personal ramblings, the melodrama and the lack of seriousness that filled my first try at a blog.
However, I recognize that although my politics and my philosophy are two extremely vital parts of my empire of ideas, my coherent worldview, there are other things that contribute as well. I recently stumbled on Roger Ebert's blog, which inspired me to come back to some of those other things. Ebert is a film critic, and many of his blog entries are about film, but he doesn't limit himself to that. He discusses media, politics, books and his own personal experiences, which adds to my perceptions of his movie reviews, and deepens my understanding of the man himself.
Therefore, I have decided to try and incorporate some other things into this blog, whether they are experiences, interesting things I've been thinking about, or even comments on books and films. I will steadfastly avoid the song lyrics and melodrama that I have used in the past, but I don't see the harm in writing, for example, about some of my thoughts relating to the movie 300.
First, though, I want to include a short but stirring excerpt from Ebert's blog:
"What do I really need that isn't here in this room?" I asked. "Its dimensions are a little more than twice as wide and deep as I am tall. I don't know, maybe 150 square feet? Here I have the padded wood chair in which I sit tilted against the wall, my feet braced on my straight desk chair. I am holding the three-inch-thick Paul Hamlyn edition of Shaw's complete plays.
This room contains: A wood single bed, an African blanket covering it, a wood desk and its gooseneck lamp, a small dresser with a mirror over it, my portable typewriter, a small wardrobe containing my clothes, a steamer trunk serving as a coffee table, and two bookcases, filled to overflowing. What more do I actually need?"
To this inventory I would today add: A rice cooker, knife and cutting board, to prepare my meals; a small refrigerator; and a MacBook and nice speakers to supply the internet, music, videos and TV.
This hit home for me. I have often thought about the very same question, "what things do I really need?". The list isn't long when it comes down to it. I have often told people that I have no desire to have a big house in the suburbs, even though I grew up in one. The quality of my possessions is far more important to me than the quantity. I think I would have to add a few things to Ebert's list but not many.
I would want a larger bed, first of all. Probably a queen-size. I would probably want a functional kitchen, although I could do with just a rice cooker, fridge and knife, it wouldn't be bad to have a stove and a BBQ as well. I could do without the typewriter as long as I had my MacBook. As everyone knows, I would also need some way to watch live sports, which currently is not available on the Internet. Hopefully that will soon change.
Probably that is all I would need, along with a bathroom with a good size bathtub, to be very happy with my living arrangement. There are a few additional luxuries that I would allow myself, like a real stereo, including a turntable, a video game system, laundry machines and a dishwasher. I would also really like to have a beautiful car, although I think Ebert is limiting himself to only his living environment, and not his other possessions.
The point is, spartan but high quality living beats excessive materialism any day of the week. Also, Ebert's point should be well-taken: books are an absolute necessity.
I want to close with those few thoughts on 300. Most people, including Ebert, dismiss the film as shallow machismo, which it is. Nonetheless, there are some important messages in the movie, beneath all the adrenaline. The controversy about the plot revolves around the post-9/11 portrayal of West vs. East, of the fascist undertones, of the white Spartans facing down the multi-racial, androgynous Persians. Those things are there, and I am not one bit surprised that Iran is upset, along with advocates of multiculturalism.
I hesitate to defend any of this, because those racist attitudes are undoubtedly reprehensible (and wrong!). However, I must point out that the movie is a narration of the battle provided to the warriors at Plataea before they face the Persians. I saw the film as a representation of the imaginations of those warriors, brought forth by the narrative of the story. That is one of the reasons why I feel that the surreal style was so effective.
I also must point out that much of the East vs. West ethos, and the racism, is based on contemporary (Greek) accounts of the battle. Herodotus paints the battle exactly as the movie does, East vs. West, and I must respect the movie staying close to the best available source material.
Finally, I must point out that there are some good messages to take away from the movie as well. The framing of the battle not only puts East against West, it frames it in a way that I find much more applicable to our time. That is, it tells the story of the fight between reason and freedom on the one hand, and "mysticism and tyranny" on the other hand. This is a key message, and this is the real defining battle of our time (and all time). No matter whether you are from Canada, America or Iran, I believe it is critically important to promote science, reason, rationality and tolerance, and to battle against dogma, fundamentalism and repression.
I also want to point out that we can learn much from the attitude towards death in the movie (and in Spartan culture). It is my strong belief that we place far too much emphasis on mourning our dead, and do not properly celebrate or honour the person's life and death. 300 rightly tells us not to fear death, but to see it as something that simply is, and to want your death, and your life, to mean something. The movie is riddled with quotable lines, but the ones on that topic are some of the best.
However, I recognize that although my politics and my philosophy are two extremely vital parts of my empire of ideas, my coherent worldview, there are other things that contribute as well. I recently stumbled on Roger Ebert's blog, which inspired me to come back to some of those other things. Ebert is a film critic, and many of his blog entries are about film, but he doesn't limit himself to that. He discusses media, politics, books and his own personal experiences, which adds to my perceptions of his movie reviews, and deepens my understanding of the man himself.
Therefore, I have decided to try and incorporate some other things into this blog, whether they are experiences, interesting things I've been thinking about, or even comments on books and films. I will steadfastly avoid the song lyrics and melodrama that I have used in the past, but I don't see the harm in writing, for example, about some of my thoughts relating to the movie 300.
First, though, I want to include a short but stirring excerpt from Ebert's blog:
"What do I really need that isn't here in this room?" I asked. "Its dimensions are a little more than twice as wide and deep as I am tall. I don't know, maybe 150 square feet? Here I have the padded wood chair in which I sit tilted against the wall, my feet braced on my straight desk chair. I am holding the three-inch-thick Paul Hamlyn edition of Shaw's complete plays.
This room contains: A wood single bed, an African blanket covering it, a wood desk and its gooseneck lamp, a small dresser with a mirror over it, my portable typewriter, a small wardrobe containing my clothes, a steamer trunk serving as a coffee table, and two bookcases, filled to overflowing. What more do I actually need?"
To this inventory I would today add: A rice cooker, knife and cutting board, to prepare my meals; a small refrigerator; and a MacBook and nice speakers to supply the internet, music, videos and TV.
This hit home for me. I have often thought about the very same question, "what things do I really need?". The list isn't long when it comes down to it. I have often told people that I have no desire to have a big house in the suburbs, even though I grew up in one. The quality of my possessions is far more important to me than the quantity. I think I would have to add a few things to Ebert's list but not many.
I would want a larger bed, first of all. Probably a queen-size. I would probably want a functional kitchen, although I could do with just a rice cooker, fridge and knife, it wouldn't be bad to have a stove and a BBQ as well. I could do without the typewriter as long as I had my MacBook. As everyone knows, I would also need some way to watch live sports, which currently is not available on the Internet. Hopefully that will soon change.
Probably that is all I would need, along with a bathroom with a good size bathtub, to be very happy with my living arrangement. There are a few additional luxuries that I would allow myself, like a real stereo, including a turntable, a video game system, laundry machines and a dishwasher. I would also really like to have a beautiful car, although I think Ebert is limiting himself to only his living environment, and not his other possessions.
The point is, spartan but high quality living beats excessive materialism any day of the week. Also, Ebert's point should be well-taken: books are an absolute necessity.
I want to close with those few thoughts on 300. Most people, including Ebert, dismiss the film as shallow machismo, which it is. Nonetheless, there are some important messages in the movie, beneath all the adrenaline. The controversy about the plot revolves around the post-9/11 portrayal of West vs. East, of the fascist undertones, of the white Spartans facing down the multi-racial, androgynous Persians. Those things are there, and I am not one bit surprised that Iran is upset, along with advocates of multiculturalism.
I hesitate to defend any of this, because those racist attitudes are undoubtedly reprehensible (and wrong!). However, I must point out that the movie is a narration of the battle provided to the warriors at Plataea before they face the Persians. I saw the film as a representation of the imaginations of those warriors, brought forth by the narrative of the story. That is one of the reasons why I feel that the surreal style was so effective.
I also must point out that much of the East vs. West ethos, and the racism, is based on contemporary (Greek) accounts of the battle. Herodotus paints the battle exactly as the movie does, East vs. West, and I must respect the movie staying close to the best available source material.
Finally, I must point out that there are some good messages to take away from the movie as well. The framing of the battle not only puts East against West, it frames it in a way that I find much more applicable to our time. That is, it tells the story of the fight between reason and freedom on the one hand, and "mysticism and tyranny" on the other hand. This is a key message, and this is the real defining battle of our time (and all time). No matter whether you are from Canada, America or Iran, I believe it is critically important to promote science, reason, rationality and tolerance, and to battle against dogma, fundamentalism and repression.
I also want to point out that we can learn much from the attitude towards death in the movie (and in Spartan culture). It is my strong belief that we place far too much emphasis on mourning our dead, and do not properly celebrate or honour the person's life and death. 300 rightly tells us not to fear death, but to see it as something that simply is, and to want your death, and your life, to mean something. The movie is riddled with quotable lines, but the ones on that topic are some of the best.
"Remember us. That was his hope, should any free soul come across that place, in all the countless centuries yet to be. May all our voices whisper to you from the ageless stones..."
and
"Remember this day men, for it will be yours for all time"
are two of my favourites.
The best line in the entire movie, however, is quietly delivered by Gerard Butler:
"You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever..."
The Spartans understood that this was a deadly insult. We, in modern times, don't understand that every story, and every life, needs a ending to be complete.
The best line in the entire movie, however, is quietly delivered by Gerard Butler:
"You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever..."
The Spartans understood that this was a deadly insult. We, in modern times, don't understand that every story, and every life, needs a ending to be complete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)