Movies

I am perhaps the last individual in the U.S. older than 10 to have seen the first installment of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movies, The Fellowship of the Ring. That wasn’t by choice, but rather of necessity. Having acquired first a TV, then a decent VCR, and now a copy of the movie, I have at last seen Jackson’s rendering of Tolkien’s tale of the nine who set out for Mount Doom, to destroy the One Ring of power.

Knowing I was unlikely to see the movie in the cinemas, I didn’t pay much attention to the hype running up to its release, nor did I read any reviews, which often contain too much information and thus are spoilers. It’s been years since I read any of the Tolkien books, although I have read them multiple times with much enjoyment. I came to The Fellowship of the Ring with few expectations, and ready to soak in Jackson’s vision of the story. While I have the inevitable quibbles about some omissions and changes, the movie delivers the essence of the story with remarkable clarity and emotional punch. What surprised me most about watching The Fellowship of the Ring was my reaction to Boromir’s death scene. It was a highly charged account in the book, one I remembered well, yet the depth of my response to its portrayal in the movie seemed inappropriate. Why had his fall affected me so?

Jackson does a truly masterful job, and actor Sean Bean, who is compelling as Boromir throughout the movie, is perhaps at his best in the death scene. But my response was not due to the superb crafting of the scene, but rather a thought I had upon first seeing it—one that returns to me every time I see it: there are few individuals I’m aware of in the pro-freedom movement who would likely be so valiant. As far as I can tell, we have at best very few sons of Boromir.

I’m not talking about Boromir’s courageous fighting, battling vainly to protect two of the hobbits from the orcs even as the orc leader shoots arrow after arrow into his body. Nor is it his unflinching stance when the leader takes aim at point-blank range that I refer to. In the scene immediately prior to the battle with the orcs, Boromir has unsuccessfully tried to take the One Ring from Frodo. Its power began weaving its spell on Boromir from first sight at the council in Rivendell, and ultimately led him to confront Frodo. When he realizes what he’s done, Boromir is horrified. He calls out an apology to Frodo, but it is too late. Frodo has gone, and the Fellowship has begun to break up. Boromir immediately recognizes that he has done wrong, and it is his attempt to set it right, to his last breath, that leaves me near tears every time I see the movie.

Some Tolkien scholars have interpreted much of the Lord of the Rings in terms of religious themes. Thus, according to some who ascribe to this view, Boromir’s actions are explained by a need for redemption, of setting things right before he dies. But Boromir can’t do that: the Ring is being carried away, unbeknownst to him, even as he fights the orcs. Indeed, his actions have set in motion a series of events that needs to happen—the Fellowship of the Ring needs to be broken up—for good to triumph over evil in Middle Earth.

Boromir’s heroism is ultimately much more simple, and noble to my mind, than that. He is human. It’s no small part of his heroism that he rises above his human flaws in the last battle of his life. Rather than sitting and thinking, or whining and playing the victim, he battles bravely, in part to counter his perceived failing of the Fellowship and his comrades.

How many libertarians would follow in his steps? I can think of a few men whom I can envision doing so, and maybe one woman (no, not me) ... but sadly, I see no more than that in my fairly wide circle of friends and acquaintances. The freedom movement seems to spawn individuals of talk and analysis rather than action. But there comes a time when talking, philosophizing, and analyzing are for naught; there comes a time when the only thing that will make a difference is taking up one’s chosen weapon, and making the best stand one can in defense of one’s principles. Many seem to pine for a John Galt to appear among us—but there are, and never will be, no such individuals. We are human, with frailties, flaws, foibles, and fears. That isn’t to be denied, nor is it to become an excuse or a copout. We can choose a nobler course.

Near the end of the movie, Frodo recalls an earlier conversation with Gandalf, after Frodo expressed the wish that “none of this” had happened to him. Gandalf replied, “So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.” With the USA PATRIOT and Homeland Security Acts pressing upon us, challenging times are here—and likely to be present for some time—for those who cherish liberty. If ever there was a time to test our mettle, it is now. We can choose not to give in to our inevitable human weaknesses, and instead choose to fight the fight of our lives for a cause we believe in. We can do as Boromir did. The question is: will we?

Joey Bishop has died. I must say that I vaguely recall him—my Rat Pack faves were Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr.—but he will be missed with all of the gents. And I’ll miss them as much for their talents as for the camaraderie they displayed. Don’t think we’ll see the like again anytime soon.

You are a pirate

and talk like a pirate day comes tomorrow.

Still a small bit of time away, until then you might check out my latest movie review at Endervidualism, which also gets linked from my latest Ender's Review.

... but it appears that I agree, in small part, with Michael Moore.

I saw this movie last night. It may not be in theaters much longer. It has qualities that a large screen will show better than a small one.
First the trailer -

The idea of freedom presented in the film 300 ( which is based on Frank Miller's excellent graphic novel of the same name) is a modern concept that had no real basis in the ancient world. Sparta was a police state that was kept strong through the practice of eugenics and the complete suppression of the individual in the service of the state.

Still, the movie as such is inspiring, especially to men, as it presents a powerful picture of what true masculinity can and should be: men who are not afraid to be masculine,in the service of freedom.

Writer-psychologist friend Shaun alerted me to an interesting news story: Erasing the Pain of the Past: Scientists Are Developing Drugs That Could Eliminate Traumatic Events From Our Memories. A brief quote from the three-page article:

Much about why painful memories come back to haunt soldiers and those who live through other traumatic experiences remains unknown. Scientists say that is because little is known about how the brain stores and recalls memories.

But in their early efforts to understand the way in which short-term memories become long-term memories, researchers have discovered that certain drugs can interrupt that process. Those same drugs, they believe, can also be applied not just in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event – like a mortar attack, rape or car accident – but years later, when an individual is still haunted by memories of event.

The hope is that a post-traumatic stress disorder patient can work with a psychiatrist and focus a traumatic event, take one of these drugs and then slowly forget that event. With that hope, however, comes a series of ethical concerns. What makes up our personalities – the essence of who we are as individuals – if not the collected memories of our experiences?

Multiple cans of worms opening up here. I found the timing interesting, as I’ve been wanting to see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind again; I commented on that movie some time ago. I certainly understand the strong desire to help a hurting individual deal with an awful event, but I do not see how erasure might accomplish that. Others won’t necessarily forget the incident; and it will almost certainly come up, again and again over the person’s life. And how can one learn and grow from that which has been banished? One can’t.

Lots more I could say, but no time today.

I don't do it much, because I generally don't like revealing sufficient details for y'all to grok, but part of why I finally decided to blog was being able to vent. So it was with my entry of a few days ago. A deep thanks to everyone who wrote me afterward -- that was quite a warm and very thoughtful, supportive response I received, both here and in email. I appreciate it all more deeply than I can say.

I don't think it's revealing too much to say that what stuck in my mind from seeing Serenity Friday was the theme of making people better. Not in the same way as in the movie, but in the way that the statist do-gooders want to. A common desire seems to be to make people better, whether they want to be made "better" or not, so that some nice, tidy society is the result.

I don't remember what originally triggered it, but for some time I've been questioning whether my activism and continuing advocacy for freedom is of a class with the statist do-gooders. After all, am I not attempting to push my view of what's good for others on themselves, whether they want it or not? I am, in a manner of speaking. Am I not asserting that my view is the correct one, same as they? I am -- and I will continue to do so.

I saw Serenity yesterday. A good movie, overall, but I'm not going to review it now or delve into it too deeply. A few elements in it struck a nerve in me and I'm still trying to articulate that and its reverberations well enough to share here.

Perhaps that'll happen later today ... for now, I'll just ask: Why didn't the movie people use the lovely television theme song somewhere? Well, that and one more: What happened to "I can kill you with my brain"?

Another dash-in, dash-out post as I'm on a deadline this morning, and have loads of other work to try to see to today. Conspirator Tom Ender has been reviewing some really fine movies lately. This week's featured movie is Tucker: The Man and His Dream, which I enjoyed much more than I expected I would. Recent reviews include The Story of Louis Pasteur, which as Tom says packs a lot of stuff into a short movie. It's a 1936 film, so the style may not suit your taste -- but, aside from some small quibbles, I tend to greatly enjoy good movies from that era, Jane Eyre being perhaps my favorite. Last, my mother loved The Unsinkable Molly Brown, but when I was a kid musicals bored me, so I've not seen it. Tom's review suggests it's just what I need 'bout now.

I'm very pleased that the good news I hinted at yesterday is a go, so look for that to flower later today. Off to work now!

First, I've been seeing a lot of good stuff from fellow freedom-lovers lately. Mark Vande Pol, who I interviewed last month, has an excellent article at The Price of Liberty, titled Kelo and the 14th Amendment: Exploring a Constitutional Koan. Vache Folle has been on a tear lately; I Would Rather Some of the Troops Didn't Come Home highlights a very ugly truth that ought to be getting more attention. Similarly, James Leroy Wilson has been serving up good stuff at his blog, but I particularly enjoyed his latest Lew Rockwell piece, on what a "bad" father he'd be. Proof positive he ought to become a dad, if you ask me. Last, Tom Ender's This Weekend features a review of Serpico -- fitting, given all the bad cop stories around this week.

Closer to home, I've been spending a lot of time outdoors. The corn has tassled out, and the early- and late-day sun slanting through it turns it a lovely strawberry-blonde shade. The picture doesn't do it justice, but here's a taste:

My daughter loves flowers. Despite numerous tearful conversations with her after a bouquet has wilted, she apparently can't resist plucking them (without stems, which makes the wilting thing worse). The morning glories are taking advantage of her absence; I caught this one showing off in the morning's first blush of light:

Gonna be outside a bunch again today, trying to move a couple of projects further along while I can. For all of you waiting, yes, you will get a reply to your email ... some day.

In addition to the most recently added items visible on the home page, which include a review of Lorenzo's Oil and a new essay from Bob Wallace, I just premiered my new web issue format for Ender's Review.

There are many changes both in the review format and the section of the web site devoted to it. Most of the format changes are related to extensive use of Cascading Style sheets, which is how most of the Endervidualism site will be done/appear in the future.

Although I'm still using Front Page to do the page management and publish operations, I've done all the coding for the new Ender's Review pages "by hand." After removing all the Microsoft proprietary stuff from the rest of the site, I'll be moving to a different tool to manage the pages too.

Besides the new web edition format (the e-mail version will not have these changes), the Review section also now has archives of the old issues which are complete for 2004 and 2005, so far. I will upload the rest of the 2003 issues as I get time. Ender's Review continues to have the "permalink" naming that I've been using, but there is a new "current issue" link too, which will always have the most recent issue.

I am interested in your comments on the appearance and workings of the new things.

Thanks in advance.

Hi All,

I've just finished putting Sunni's interview with Mark Vande Pol in the Salon. Like all Sunni's preceding interviews, this too is a good one.

While you are at Endervidualism, you might be interested in a new movie review I also just put up. I review I, Robot, which is now on Cinemax and will soon be showing on HBO. Of course, it is out on DVD too.

Enjoy.

Two terrific pieces from a couple of friends for your enjoyment ...

Cat's got yet another powerful, thoughtful piece at Endervidualism. I won't give away her ending, so I'll tease you with a different bit from Demonizing Versus Deifying Dreamers and Dissidents:

I tend to worry more about those who are all action and no think than about those who are "all talk and no action." It takes a great deal of power behind talk to render it harmful, in a broader sense than the chance that a hearer might feel insulted or hurt by it. What does concern me is refusal to respect forethought - the obstinate human tendency to begrudge the thinker his time to think, to insist that action is always superior when in fact it's often the reverse.

While over there, I noticed that Tom has published a review of Les Miserables, which is currently in the rotation on HBO. I've read the book, but never seen the play or the movie ... sounds like I should. Thanks, Tom!

I didn't think anyone could make me laugh about the robed nazgul's recent antics, but I underestimated Garry Reed's skill at making his points with humor. If only they really were The US Supine Court:

All people are created equal, but people with money, power, and noses firmly affixed to the buttcracks of their hired legistraitors are more equal than others. ....

It's obvious to libertarians, if to no one else, that the Supremes have a continuing conflict of interest. They are biased in favor of BigGov. .... Who among them has ever made a living on the basis of free market competition? Who among them has ever lived outside the coddling collective of the BigGov bubble?

They should be permanently recused from every case that comes before them.

Ahhhh, we can dream, Garry ...