Coincidence

Last week I streamed Of Time and the City on my Netflix account. (I posted a few notes on the movie here.) The film opened with a narrator reading Shelley's "Ozymandias," which gave me a start. Just a day or two earlier, I had read a passage in Philip Roth's When She Was Good in which one of the characters was analyzing "Ozymandias" as a school assignment. The poem is well-known among the better-educated; I had barely heard of it. At any rate, I felt an odd thrill in hearing the name of a poem, obscure to me, from two different sources within a few days' span.

Last summer, quite by accident, I watched two films in a row which featured Nick Nolte and a water buffalo. (The films were Tropic Thunder and The Beautiful Country.) The coincidence was meaningless but somehow pleasing, nevertheless.

There are some people - an alarming number, really - who would insist that these events were not chance at all. They would say that the universe is speaking to me, or that God is carrying out some clever scheme. Many find comfort in this idea; if everything is like a puppet on a string, one can stop worrying and leave the future to be worked out by whatever's in control. I like the not worrying part, but if we find agency in the reappearence of "Ozymandias," we pretty much have to attribute agency to things less whimsical - things horrible, in fact. Laying the Haitian earthquake at God's feet feels like blasphemy; I'd rather tote it up to chance. Someone might say, "Aha, but Who do you think created Chance?" I'm happy to reply that I'm not smart enough to work that one out.

"For the war ... against the troops"

Such is the state of politics these days that if a politician criticizes a war or military action, some demagogue will be ready with the accusation of undermining or attacking the military personnel involved. That's why most statements against a war are accompanied by something like, "Of course, I am 100% behind our troops."

During the Gulf War, comedian Bill Hicks recognized this kabuki and came out with his own version: He was for the war, but against the troops. Not only did he take this stance to invert the political posturing of the day; he was also pointing out - protesting, almost - the huge difference in technology (and casualties) between our troops and the Iraqis.

James Cameron seems to be channelling Hicks in his latest spectacular. (A few mild spoilers follow.) He structured Avatar so that the story would culminate in a huge, glorious battle between the indigenous, low-tech Na'vi and the sophisticated invading troops from earth; and so that we would be rooting against the earthlings. To accomplish the latter, he drew on negative stereotypes of the military: bloodlust and single-minded hatred of the enemy.

Cameron also throws a similarly unflattering light on capitalism. In his lust for unobtainium, the civilian leader is happy to blow away however many of the tall blue natives he needs to.

Some folks have sharply criticized the movie for these reasons. The criticisms have a point, and the story is weakened by these one-dimensional characters. (For a more fully-realized portrait of the military, positive and negative, I'd recommend the TV mini-series Generation Kill. As for the critique of capitalism - at this moment in history I'm OK with letting it stand.) On the other hand, these folks have to be pretty villainous if we're going to put up with seeing them get brutally mowed down.

Overall, I'd say enjoy the thrill ride. Go to an IMAX if you can, put on the 3D glasses, and let Cameron put on his show. He does know how to tell a story.

Not the worst blog name ever ...

... but possibly in the bottom quintile. I wanted something unique and non-specific; I expect to post a lot of miscellaneous junkwisdom here.