Anti-Sovet Propaganda in Enemy at The Gates

From the opening scene we can see anti-Soviet propaganda. The Nazi slaughter of Soviet troops is treated with little music and normal speed indicating that it is a normal event. Once the soldiers turn back and are shot by their own side for retreating do we see the dramatic slow motion showing what a supposed atrocity it is. It deliberately paints the opposite. The returning soldiers are shot out of necessity to maintain and offensive against a losing battle, but treat as normal the actual atrocity of the Nazis that was the in invasion and slaughter of Europe. This may transcend from anti-Soviet propaganda to pro-Nazi propaganda.

In the battle over the woman Tania, Danilov is using his superior education and sophistication over Zaytsev who is an uneducated Sheppard boy from the Urals. Intended here is to show that classes still existed in the Soviet Union. Well, of course they did, the class antagonisms just took on a new form. The idea that the bourgeoisie only exist because they are anchored to private property was proven to be wrong. This was one of Mao’s theoretical breakthroughs in socialism, understanding that they continue to exist and the plan to combat it.

It even falsely claims that the Soviets were allies of the Nazis. As Zaytsev aims a shot at a Nazi telephone wire his partner Koulikov tells of how he was in Germany “when our Joseph and their Adolph were walking hand in hand.” This is a lie, the Soviets and the Nazis had the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement after every other country had an agreement with them. Stalin used it as time to build up a fighting force against the Nazis, while Belgian, Norway, Finland, Hungary and Bulgaria all joined the Nazi side. No criticism of them is ever made.

Koulikov then delivers a hilarious story of being tortured for being sent to Germany to study in German. Of course it is claimed that Stalin sent him and not one of thousands of subordinates. They claim he was tortured means nothing as no one tortures people for simply having been sent to another country to study. As well as the fact that this is a work of fiction. Its too obvious to mention the torture committed by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison, Guantanamo Bay and countless CIA black sites around the world.

Near the end of the movie Zaytsev makes the complaint that he’s “been made about to something he can’t live up to”. To me this reeks of an Atlas Shrugged moment. A moment in which the objectivist complains that the individual has too much to bear in contributing to others. However a war let alone a World War requires enormous team work and sacrifice. Interestingly, objecitivists rarely have to fight for anything, almost never are they even soldiers. They’d know nothing about what it means to sacrifice to save lives and defend. This moment is supposed to somehow justify the Virtue of Selfishness, by portraying Zaytsev as an oppressed great man being dragged down by the “stupid worthless mud” (to use her own words).

The propaganda at the end is the most hilarious, superficial and most detached from materialism. Danilov outright claims socialism can’t work because two men can love the same woman. Two men loving the same woman have nothing to do with the democratization of productive forces. The attempt made here is to claim that the romantic love between two people is the same thing as the general love that one can feel for all of humanity. These are two completely different things.

The movie was made political deliberately, I would have much preferred the movie simply be about the war and the man himself. Its too bad this anti-communist propaganda couldn’t have been placed in some other work so as not to detract from this great story.

Movie Review: Green Lantern (Material vs. Ideological)

This movie quite surprised me, I was not expecting such a deep level of philosophical analysis possible. I had expected another typical super hero movie that didn’t really have any substance beyond good guy/patriot wins over the evil/foreigner message. There’s a few themes I’d like to go over in this movie. Primarily, I think most importantly the conflict that exists in this movie is that of ideological vs. material.

Anti-Intellectualism

Green Lantern like pretty much all super hero movies contains the usual anti-intellectualism. Its a very common theme for comic books and super hero movies to place a great fear or revulsion on those of great intelligence. The hero is rarely an intellectual. Take the archetype Superman, the strongest man in the world. His archenemy is Lex Luthor, a man who is rarely afforded any ability to physically fight. He uses the power of his intelligence that proves to be more dangerous than any of the physical combatants Superman ever faces.

Green Lantern faces his enemy Hammond who is a xenobiologist, which is a scientist that could not be any more abstract. He literally embodies the understanding and the pursuit of the knowledge of the Other. He is the intellectual who is to be feared most. In the course of the movie he pretty much loses the ability to use his body and as a result his gains psychokinetic powers. Thus literally making his mind more powerful and deadly than his body could ever be.

This demonetization of the intellect is a common theme throughout Western popular culture.

In reality it manifests itself in a hatred for the greater educated. One need look no further than the fear mongering of Glen Beck and the Tea Party people making outlandish claims of University and Collage professors indoctrinating students with Marxism. Hilarious and idiotic when one considers the actual indoctrination that takes place against ideas that challenge the status quo.

Positive Human Nature vs. Negative Human Nature (Will vs Fear)

Fear as addiction:

The theme of the Green Lanterns is a combat of Will versus Fear. The Will of any Lantern is the source of their power, they’re forbidden to feel any fear for it is a weakness. A weakness the main enemy Parallax exploits all too well. Superficially we can see here the struggle between strength and weakness in its most “male bravado” way. To show any fear is to admit weakness/cowardice, so one must insist upon refusing to admit that they have any fear. This refusal of admission leads to an inability to deal with the fact fear is felt, causing the deaths of several of the Lanterns. This fear is only defeated once one of the Lanterns (Ryan Reynolds) finally admits that his is afraid and is thus able to combat his fear.

Fear is the problem that affects the entirety of the Green Lantern corp. In this do we not see the addiction to fear as it is denied? Fear like a chemical addiction is something kept in private until its effects upon our lives becomes too large to hide. This is what happens in the film, Green Lantern sees the problem, this all pervading fear is causing, thus he has to take the first step in conquering any problem/addiction. “Step 1 – We admitted we were powerless over our addiction – that our lives had become unmanageable.”

Doesn’t the scene where Ryan Reynolds calls out the Guardians of the Universe on being afraid not seem an awfully lot like an intervention? He very confrontationally accuses the Guardians of the Universe of being afraid themselves and calls on them to admit as such. In doing so he gets them to admit their weaknesses and allows them to more objectively view them.

Good Nature vs. Bad Nature:

As the struggle between Fear and Will continues throughout the movie it becomes clear that we are dealing with not just some abstract super hero issue, we’re dealing with human nature itself. We can see that the Lanterns have chosen Will as a weapon and not Fear. Is this not the same choice we face ideologically here in the real world as we confront the multitude of social problems and economic relations?

It is in reality, like in the movie, much easier to give into fear (which symbolizes the negative in human nature) than it is to play to the good in people (symbolized by Will in the movie). Do we not see this same struggle in economics? Is not capitalism the product of fear? The fear that one may not have as much as another? The fear that we will have to give too much? Or fear being invaded something we are not familiar with, as with the perception of immigration? Isn’t this fear much easier to live with than having Will? Isn’t the struggle to hold onto Will scarier than simply just being fearful?

Interestingly here there is a parallel we face with the problem of revisionism. As the Guardians of the Universe begin to realize the seriousness of the situation (in a bad time) they begin looking at fear as possibly weapon to be used against fear. They consider betraying their core belief in Will as a means of dealing with a problem they don’t know how to solve with Will.

Isn’t this all too similar a temptation of revisionism? When faced with a situation that we don’t know how to use Marxism to solve, isn’t there a temptation to just us a pro-market reform to solve it? Isn’t the revisionist action easier than to studiously work out the contradiction causing the problem? Revisionism, like Fear in Green Lantern, is an option that is made available to us. The Guardians of the Universe know that using fear is a slippery slope to the eventual downfall of the Green Lantern core, just as we know a single pro-market reform could cause untold devastation among the socialist economy.

Are we not tested in our ability to resolve contradictions using the dialectic not similar to the way the Guardians of the Universe are tested in using Will to defeat Parallax?

Ideological vs. Material

Before the final battle between Green Lantern and Parallax, Green Lantern has to face Hector Hammond. In the battle between these two characters there is a clear philosophical struggle. Green Lantern uses objects created out of energy as weapons, non-material objects. Hammond uses real material physical objects that are around him as weapons. So here we can see a conflict not just between two powerful beings, but a conflict between ideology and materialism.

This can certainly been seen as the struggle among the Left that we see today. One portion of it has a Utopian view, left liberalism, the Venus Project etc., those to propound a great world view with nothing at all as a blue print to affect that change. Their flaw is exactly that, their inability to give that blue print because they are too abstracted into the Utopian view they have. The real concrete material conditions that prevail are certainly (and rightfully so) criticized, but they do not give the tools for defeating or altering them. (Utopian socialism.)

On the other side of this struggle we see the materialist view point, those of us who see a method of change that is grounded in the real material world. Anarchists and Communists alike see that things are the way they are because of series of conditions, many of them contradictory. The key to our beliefs is not in some abstract view that is supposed to “instantly appear” once the system is smashed. We see it as a series of concrete material conditions that have to be changed. Contradictions that must be resolved so that we may get to our view of a better world. A materialist view shows us not only the goal, but the path itself and gives us the tools in order to construct it. (Scientific socialism.)

This is the problem we face today in the Left, and why it is so dysfunctional right now. Too many are pulled to Utopian views like a genteeler kinder capitalism like the various Green parties that exist, or a very left Democrat stance. In its most obscene form people are drawn to the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist movement, complete Utopian views with absolutely no grounding materialism. Just one day all people will automatically become supporters of the Venus Project. (Especially funny here is how this is supposed to happen when the vast overwhelming majority have not even heard of it.)

Movie Review: Super 8

The basic rundown of the story is this: The movie begins with the main character dealing with the death of his mother. Later we learn who is responsible and the main character forgives him. Some kids are filming an amateur movie about zombies and witness a train crash. As a result of the crash an alien that has been abused by its Air Force captors is set free. They all try to keep their knowledge of the events secret because the Air Force is going around doing their “thing”. The group of main characters eventually become trapped by the alien creature and instead of being killed by it, the main character empathizes with it sharing his abuse by the hands of another teaching the alien to forgive and stop killing. The alien then leaves to return home.

Super 8 is above all a story of forgiveness and an introspection into our own human nature and then a celebration of our ability to forgive the big Other. This lesson is brought to us by the innocence of a child, thus reminding us that our ability to forgive may primarily lie in our most basic good hearted form. And reminds us that we do indeed need to rerun to our most innocent and good hearted mode of feeling. That of a child yet to be spoiled by full envelopment of human nature as we are programed to believe exists.

This movie presents “identity” in a way that I do not believe has been since ET: The Extraterrestrial. A typical plot for the alien invasion scenario is that we “discover” ourselves as human beings. We begin to identity ourselves as human beings rather than our usual “identities”, that being race, national citizenship, religion or even class.

Allow me to put things a simpler way: Native Americans identify themselves as the indigenous population of North America (or Turtle Island if you will). Before colonization by Europeans there was no such identity. They each had identity as a member of a particular tribe. They see the other tribe as the big Other in the Hegelian sense. Now with the colonization, the Europeans became the Other because they were different than all the tribes. Now with this new Other the Native American’s have an identity as the indigenous because there are now non-indigenous.

Usually in these movies we see the aliens as the Other and thus “discover” our identity as human beings in contrast to the aliens. In this movie, like ET, the opposite is presented to us. The main character Joe Lamb does not combat the alien but instead shares his sorrow of mistreatment by another to connect with the alien. By doing so he shares his ability to forgive those who have wronged him. He shares his humanity with the alien teaching it to forgive those in the Air Force who have harmed it. Instead of discovering our humanity to unite and defend ourselves, instead humanity is shared with the Other, and in doing so a commonality is discovered. The alien suffers and feels pain like we do. Thus it seeks to unravel the concept of the Other and to see it as “ourselves”.

This contrasts wonderfully with the subplot of the main characters making their own zombie movie. The Zombie has always been a symbol of the Other as well, like the alien. Except the Zombie is always a threat, irrational, violent, mindless monster that must simply be destroyed. That is the usual perception we are fed by society. The Muslims in the 3rd world are portrayed as ruthless killing animals that need to be controlled. This theme of the Other being something that is to be feared and controlled dates back as far as the colonization of America and the treatment of the indigenous.

So I think intentionally or not, the movie tries to get us to re-think how we see ourselves in contrast to the Other; and that the Other may not be so “Otherly”.