Looks like a typical action movie, doesn't it? |
But
so many of today’s movies – at least many popular movies – embrace that adolescent
sensibility; they glorify easy pleasure and disdain deeper understanding. In a modern action movie, beauty is found only
in violence and wisdom consists only in the cool and concentrated determination
to defeat your enemies. These movies
play up to adolescence, typically a cynical time, a time when the adult world seems
constructed of hypocrisy and falsehood, when fun and exciting experience is the
only real truth, when morality is a sham and nobility a joke. If there’s nothing to believe in, nothing to fight for, then why not drive
200 miles an hour? Fantasy movies – such
as Lord of the Rings, Star Wars – do directly address issues
of good and evil, but only in a pre-adolescent
way: the good guys are all good and the bad guys are all bad. It’s true that the bad guy who’s really a
good guy underneath – Darth Vader, Gollum – is a common device in this genre, but
typically such characters have turned bad because they’ve been tempted by power,
the totalitarian state being the great nightmare of the 20th
century. That is, such movies remain
morally simple.
I
like to see movies that 13-year-olds don’t fully understand! The other morning I watched (for something
like the 12th time) The Guns
of Navarone, a World War II action movie made in 1962, starring Gregory
Peck and Anthony Quinn. Peck is the
leader of a group of Allied commandos (Quinn being one of the commandos) who
are assigned to sabotage huge guns the Nazis have placed on the Aegean island
of Navarone, guns that must be removed if British destroyers are to pass by
Navarone and rescue 2000 trapped British soldiers. Overcoming overwhelming obstacles, including
a traitor in their midst, the guns are blown up and the soldiers rescued. Yes, the movie is guilty of its own adolescent
fun, like the obligatory early scene where Peck goes through the list of the
boys on his team, each one with his own special skills and weaknesses. Sitting in the British commander’s civilized
office, replete with maps, books and a tea-bearing man-servant, the scene feels
like the start of an old-fashioned English adventure yarn, as if Peck’s team
was planning to scale Mt. Kilimanjaro or traverse the Khyber
Pass, rather than going forth to kill or be killed by history’s most
destructive and evil war machine. Good
luck, old chaps!
But
there’s more to the movie than adventure, though it does have plenty. There’s genuine moral dilemma: how should
brutal should we be in fighting a brutal enemy?
Is it OK to become as brutal as Nazis?
At one point while working their way across the island, Peck decides to
leave behind one badly wounded commando comrade – the most idealistic one, nicely
played by Anthony Quayle – to be found by the Nazis. But before leaving him, Peck lies to him
about Allied plans in the hopes that the Nazis will torture him and that he will
reveal the false information. He throws
his friend into the Nazi hell in order to save 2000 other men. Is that defensible? And the Nazis will be deceived but Quayle will
be destroyed by guilt, thinking he has betrayed his comrades. The main character betrays and discards the
idealist, the man who would rather die than betray and discard him. Which one of them is the hero?
Now
we look back and see that early scene in the tea-drinking English commander’s
office rather differently. We can no
longer see it as planning just good old adventure, as just planning for
physical danger and daring; it was planning for moral danger and daring as
well. And it is a somber undertaking. Peck and his team got cracking without drama,
without self-congratulation or self-aggrandizement. The movie is not about how great or coldly
violent they can be (Gregory Peck would never have walked away coolly in
slow-motion without looking back toward a huge explosion he had just caused),
it’s about how much crud and muck we must walk through to get to our noble
goals. It’s about how dirty we have to
get, how hard it is to resist the temptation to needless violence, how hard it
is to separate ends and means. Can we
walk the line of being good while not always doing good? The movie doesn’t ignore hard moral choices,
like the pre-adolescent movies do, and it doesn’t ignore noble goals, as the
adolescent movies do. It has the courage
to address both. When Peck plans his
raid he knows he’ll have to deal with these issues and that they will confuse
and confound him, that there are no easy answers, but that he must proceed
anyway. His job will be hard and it will
require all his wisdom and skill and effort.
But the movie understands that this work is what we were made for: fighting
the good fight that is never as clearly good as we would wish, but clear enough
that we must still fight it. This is the
human responsibility. The best art
accepts the confusion and ambiguity that responsibility entails and does so with
sobriety and maturity and humility, even with optimism and hope, but never with
adolescent flash and bravado.
No comments:
Post a Comment