I'm a big fan of Bill Murray's work--and not only the earlier crowd-pleasers, also the current crop of more idiosyncratic "blue" pictures--so this New York Times article caught my eye.
Pop culture is nearly always "important": if not for the art objects it produces, then as a cultural barometer. Of course, there is always the question of how much "pop" reflects, and how much it directs; and the answer to this question, depending on the times and the climate, often varies with the political sensibilities of the questioner. At the very least I think almost everyone would concede there is no such thing as a completely "unmoved mover" in terms of culture. (The Godless Hollywood of many conservative commentators may be real, but not in its role as a puppet master or an epicenter for our decadence: decadence has no center, or otherwise it is ideology and not really decadence. The "cultural Marxism" cited by Paul Weyrich and others may be a more effective scapegoat, but then I am not convinced that it is possible to narrow the problem in America down to one or several opposing (organized) sociopolitical currents. The attempt to do so summons up countless "phantom menaces," but it does precious little else.)
Anyway, though, I saw "Wedding Crashers" recently, in part because of the article, and in addition to being funny, it struck me (ridiculously enough) as a suprisingly apt commentary on a whole host of issues (homosexuality, for one: the solitary gay character is told by Vince Vaughn in a throwaway line [throwaway because in context it is meant in its literal sense] to "stay in the closet till its a convienent time for you to come out"). Many reviewers seem to have disliked the film's "inevitable" turn from an above average male wish-fulfillment movie to a more responsibly-minded romantic fantasy. (For example, the New Yorker's Anthony Lane, after celebrating the "simple pleasure[s]" and energy of the opening, snaps in disgust that in the end after all "this is a dumb-ass picture about dumb-ass men. it even looks dumb...", etc, etc.) The part of the whole thing that impressed me as most genuine, however, was not the pleasure trip but the fatigue following it. Owen Wilson's conversion from hedonistic bachelorhood comes when, depressed and disillusioned, he meets the "pioneer" wedding crasher (Will Feral in a suprise cameo as a mildly creepy man/child), who persuades him to "crash" a funeral. The moment that follows is a forgetable but fluent picture of maturity gone wrong: manhood as a kind of permanent boyhood, a parasitical existence eaked out by feeding off the real menschs.
Pop culture is nearly always "important": if not for the art objects it produces, then as a cultural barometer. Of course, there is always the question of how much "pop" reflects, and how much it directs; and the answer to this question, depending on the times and the climate, often varies with the political sensibilities of the questioner. At the very least I think almost everyone would concede there is no such thing as a completely "unmoved mover" in terms of culture. (The Godless Hollywood of many conservative commentators may be real, but not in its role as a puppet master or an epicenter for our decadence: decadence has no center, or otherwise it is ideology and not really decadence. The "cultural Marxism" cited by Paul Weyrich and others may be a more effective scapegoat, but then I am not convinced that it is possible to narrow the problem in America down to one or several opposing (organized) sociopolitical currents. The attempt to do so summons up countless "phantom menaces," but it does precious little else.)
Anyway, though, I saw "Wedding Crashers" recently, in part because of the article, and in addition to being funny, it struck me (ridiculously enough) as a suprisingly apt commentary on a whole host of issues (homosexuality, for one: the solitary gay character is told by Vince Vaughn in a throwaway line [throwaway because in context it is meant in its literal sense] to "stay in the closet till its a convienent time for you to come out"). Many reviewers seem to have disliked the film's "inevitable" turn from an above average male wish-fulfillment movie to a more responsibly-minded romantic fantasy. (For example, the New Yorker's Anthony Lane, after celebrating the "simple pleasure[s]" and energy of the opening, snaps in disgust that in the end after all "this is a dumb-ass picture about dumb-ass men. it even looks dumb...", etc, etc.) The part of the whole thing that impressed me as most genuine, however, was not the pleasure trip but the fatigue following it. Owen Wilson's conversion from hedonistic bachelorhood comes when, depressed and disillusioned, he meets the "pioneer" wedding crasher (Will Feral in a suprise cameo as a mildly creepy man/child), who persuades him to "crash" a funeral. The moment that follows is a forgetable but fluent picture of maturity gone wrong: manhood as a kind of permanent boyhood, a parasitical existence eaked out by feeding off the real menschs.
posted by J.S. at 12:31 PM
1 Comments:
Cassidy,
I don't recall the exact comment I made, but I think what you are remembering is something I said about Neitzche's relation to Christianity: that is, he saw it as backward because it places controls and restrictions on man's will and ego. now, it isn't that nietzsche sees restrictions as bad, (he describes such restrictions as in some sense good, man's attempt to create memory and "the ability to make promises"), but he believes they should be taken on for the sake of the greater freedom of man. nietzsche saw christianity twisting man's ego around from being directed toward its own good, to the good of some thing entirely outside of itself: moreover, everyone starts (according to the christian system) with original sin (in a sense a "debt" to God). now, of course this is a debt we can't pay, but that just makes the situation even worse from nietzsche's eyes. According to Nietzsche, we should be placing restrictions on ourselves to achieve greater depth and power of will, not because we are obligated to by some power which stands in judgement over us. I don't think that the redemption story makes it any better for him: probably it makes it even more disgusting. (since the solution, like the problem, involves God and a "realization" of personal weakness).
but anyway, I've explained nietzsche very, very badly, so just disregard all of that mess and know that my comment was not meant in so general of a sense. of course among religions you are right that the concept of a "debt to God" does not make christianity unique.
yes, and nietzsche's aphorisms are super-cool. I used to read lots of them while writing, they are very sharp and excellent.
and I fail to see how any of this has anything at all to do with bill murray, the media, or "wedding crashers."
jns
Post a Comment
<< Home