May 19, 2006
"this Passion for Superiority"
Good questions by Peggy Noonan...
....I do not understand the thinking of a studio that would make, for the amusement of a nation 85% to 90% of whose people identify themselves as Christian, a major movie aimed at attacking the central tenets of that faith, and insulting as poor fools its gulled adherents. Why would Tom Hanks lend his prestige to such a film? Why would Ron Howard? They're both already rich and relevant. A desire to seem fresh and in the middle of a big national conversation? But they don't seem young, they seem immature and destructive. And ungracious. They've been given so much by their country and era, such rich rewards and adulation throughout their long careers. This was no way to say thanks.
I don't really understand why we live in an age in which we feel compelled to spoof the beliefs of the followers of the great religions. Why are we doing that? Why does Hollywood consider this progressive as opposed to primitive, like a pre-Columbian tribe attacking the tribe next door for worshiping the wrong spirits?....
They don't want the admiration or approval of 90% of America. Just the opposite. Their deepest desire and hunger is to feel they are part of an elite, that they are superior to 90% of human beings, that they understand what the swining masses do not...
A wise man saw this over 200 years ago...
I believe there is no one principle, which predominates in Human Nature so much in every stage of Life, from the Cradle to the grave, in Males and Females, old and young, black and white, rich and poor, high and low, as this Passion for Superiority . . . . Every human Being compares itself in its own Imagination, with every other round it, and will find some superiority over every other real or imaginary, or it will die of Grief and Vexation.
-- John Adams, in a letter to Abigail Adams, April 17, 1777
You can understand a lot of what we see arond us by just remembering what Adams wrote. That's why "artists" create "artworks" that make ordinary people want to vomit, or why the fashion industry uses models who look like depraved drug addicts. They desperately need to feel superior to ordinary people, who, of necessity, must reject their art, to show that only the "in-group" understands it.
That's why judges concoct decisions that let criminals go free on ludicrous pretexts--they get their kudos from the in-group of other judges and law professors.
that's a lot of why leftists hate free markets and want government to control things--they want experts to be in charge, as a general principle, even if the results are bad.
That's why Hollywood and leftists and the "Democrat" Party have no love of democracy. And why they are so anti-Christian. Christianity is about the most anti-elitist philosophy around. I always think of the John Bunyan, who related somewhere how he thought as a young man that he was a very superior Christian, until he happened to overhear some poor old biddies chatting in an alley, and was stunned to realize that they were, spiritually, way ahead of him...
Posted by John Weidner at May 19, 2006 07:00 AMChristianity is a long, deep tradition with which that 85% to 90% of the population is familiar. The DaVinci Code is a fun story that puts a new twist on this shared history. That makes it extremely intriguing and engaging, and I'm not all surprised that someone would make a movie out of it. It's a good story, not really told well, but told competently (I don't think Dan Brown is a great writer, he just had a killer idea for a plot) (or stole a killer idea for a plot from Holy Blood, Crescent Moon, depending on your point of view). Perhaps Hanks and Howard just wanted to put out an exciting movie based on a clever plot device.
Occam's Razor seems appropriate to apply to speculations about Hanks and Howard's motivations here - putting out a good movie based on a best-seller that's about something everyone's familiar with seems like sufficient explanation for me. And theories that they're leftist elitist with no appreciation for the blessings of America seems nuts to me, I'm sorry to say. Could be true, but I'd rather see evidence for it that can't be easily explained by known facts...
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at May 19, 2006 09:17 AMBy the way, I don't think that discounts the Adams quote you have - I agree, that's a great explanation for much of the "shocking for the sake of shocking" nonsense that passes for art today, or for elitism in any form, leftist, artistic, professorial...I just don't see that it applies to Hanks and Howard is all.
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at May 19, 2006 09:19 AMA test of your view would be to find out how those same people reacted to The Passion. I don't follow Hollywood, but I recall that a lot of Hollywood people hated it.
If their interest is only in "putting out a good movie based on a best-seller," well, The Passion fits that description...
Posted by: John Weidner at May 19, 2006 10:21 AMI have to say, the argument that "Tom Hanks and Ron Howard likely think just like the most outspoken of the Hollywood elite" is a pretty poor basis for an argument. I'm with you most of the time, John, but this one seems flimsy. Any evidence that Howard or Hanks ripped Gibson's film?
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at May 19, 2006 02:10 PMA story positing that the Catholic Church is really a woman-hating pack of power-mad scam artists who have killed millions of people (mostly women) to conceal the "truth" that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were really married and their descendent is some French chick is "a killer idea for a plot"? Funny, when some Russian freak wrote something similar about Jews it was called "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Real fun.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 19, 2006 04:31 PMEthan, you misunderstood me. I was just saying that that could TEST your view. It might show that you are right. If they happened to refer to The Passion as good film-making and smart business, then that would indicate that their making DVC was similarly motivated.
If the were heard to say that The Passion was a plot by neo-cons to impose theocracy on people too stupid to vote Democrat, then one would suspect that they glommed onto DVC with more than just money-making in mind.
But I don't have any idea what they actually think.
I should not have phrased my argument so it looked like I was just referring to these particular individuals. I ought to have said something like: "If these people are like many Hollywood types, they don't want the admiration or approval of 90% of Americans..."
Posted by: John Weidner at May 19, 2006 07:10 PM
Andrea - yes it is a great plot device. The device is Jesus having married, his line being a string of French kings, a secret order devoted to keeping the truth, clues and cryptography and great art and strange characters and hidden truths, all wrapped around an intricate history that it just happens that most folks are at least glancingly familar with. I don't remember the murder of millions of women from the book, though it's been a while - but portraying members of the church as willing to stop at nothing to keep the truth concealed is a plot device to allow for car chases and scary people. It's ancillary to the plot, not central to it. You may not believe that, but I don't think it's unreasonable for many folks to see it that way.
John - I guess I just recoiled a bit at Peggy's direct assault on Tom Hanks and Ron Howards motivations, without the slightest shred of evidence that she has any idea what motivated them. I mean, she presumes to call them ungracious to their country! Yeah, Tom Hanks has a long history of despising his country - as evidenced by Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan, perhaps? I think Peggy's out of line here, and in my annoyance, I didn't notice the shift in antecedents in your follow-up commentary...Peggy's "they" was Hanks and Howard, but reading it again, I believe your "they" was Hollywood elites...
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at May 19, 2006 08:19 PMMy posts tend to be hasty things, scribbled as time allows. Sometimes I'm not sure myself who my pronouns hook up to. Feel free to call me on these things; I like to spout off, but also want to learn...
Posted by: John Weidner at May 19, 2006 09:04 PM
