In Lord of the Rings -- the movie -- two young hobbits meet extremely
powerful denizens of the ancient world -- the Ents -- and actually trick them
into joining a fight they had decided against joining. It's easily their most
self-activated moment in the series -- they weren't operating under anyone's
instructions; there was no way to know whether Gandalf would have approved of
their actions or not. They simply had a vision of their own world coming
tumbling down as a result of the Ents' decision, and, infuriated, decided to
further test the Ents on how resolved they would be in their detached
independence if they saw with their own eyes the devastation Saruman the wizard
had already incurred on Middle Earth. In the books, Tolkien tries to inscribe
both hobbits at the finish of their adventures, as not really having changed
all that much. But if such was declared at the end of the movie series, it
would read false -- "no," we would say, "we saw something there... with their behavior with the
Ents, that didn't read as something they had been up to routinely in the Shire.
For the Shire was the Shire in part for it balking at loud challenges that
tugged at something deeply true, though withheld from conscious view, that drew
people to change." In the movie, at least, these two hobbits were out on
an adventure in which they did not return the same way they set out. For them,
a spark was kindled out there.
Kong: Skull Island invites
the kind of "adventure" the book series Lord of the Rings offered the
two hobbits. The personnel who seek out this previously undiscovered island,
receive from Kong and from the tribe of humans that live there, exactly what
the hobbits receive from the Ents in the book. They park next to extremely
dangerous and great entities who could destroy them one hundred times over if
at all motivated to do so, an estimation that they are not "orcs":
that they are not a threat, and might even be tolerated and even hosted for
awhile. This is the "grail" these "adventurers" find for
themselves on this island. Indeed, the most emblematic moment is when the young
female photographer takes a photo of the assembled indigenous tribe. It's later
in the movie; they've had their opportunity to absolutely recognize the tribe
as not in any sense primitive, but actually far in advance in temperament,
wisdom, and social accomplishment than any human society alive today; and found
the tribe grace them as those who would do absolutely nothing that irked the
tribe in any way. And the moment she is commemorating is their joyous success
is establishing themselves as harmless, as willing to understand them in any
way they bloody well want ... as not much worth anyone's bother, really.
This is how they score
their "victory" -- his deigning them as passable, and maybe even
worth helping: which he actually does, save them that is, though he seems to
make clear that it's not as significant a moment to him as his normal behavior
of rescuing stray or trapped cattle of his "flock"-- with Kong too.
No one is going to more declare Kong as actually an ancient, great protector of
all things weak... as the equivalent of Treebeard in Lord of the Rings, than
these humans are. No one could possibly be more sincere when they declare that
they'd die before letting the rest of the world know about him. They're not
interested in brag; only in re-staging frights and seeing demonstrated an
ability to be warded against them. They'd forsake themselves of this immunity
for absolutely nothing. He could have smashed them to smithereens... but owing
to how they presented themselves to them, they knew in his short time
considering them that he'd categorized them as sincere in their apparent
resolve to abay themselves to him in any way they possibly could. This is what
they sought form him: proof that they had this "power."
Possessing this
"ability" -- to be deemed "not a threat" by a scary,
powerful entity -- is what so shamed Corporal Upham, in Saving Private Ryan,
that he needed to reclaim his "masculinity" in brutally killing the
next human soul who came across his path who tried to disarm him into being
affable. There is no sense that there will be any of this upcoming here. What
we have here is the beginning of a time where a movie watching audience takes
delight in adopting through their avatars a poise that'll distinguish them for
perhaps a decade or so. It is the poise that most held during the 1930s, where
before triumphant, powerful and scary "entities" -- Hitler,
Mussolini... and perhaps even Roosevelt and Churchill -- who claim themselves
as shepherds of the people... who are folkish in their essence, and who seem
associated with some great power of ancient origins, arisen again, you could
imagine yourself safe if suddenly put before inspection. Four years hence, when
nationalism has further caught on, and pretty much everyone has decided that we
are in a war of civilizations where our fates are tied to "great
leaders" "bravely" trying to defend our own, after multiple
decades of "liberals' efforts to break it down from within," we will
have shaped ourselves through movies like this one so that we'll be the ones
photographing, not just our great Trumps, protectors of our Mother Countries,
but perhaps even of the "righteous" carnage they create in their
paths... all the people hanging from gibbets we'll joyously stand beside,
taking selfies.
It's funny this. There's
all this effort put in the film to show how the female lead is an empowered
feminist war-photographer, but this is only done vis-a-vis the men in the
group. Amongst them, she's settled in comfortably as as brazen, as pronounced,
as any of them... as much as any of them, she's been in the shit. Then they're
all set out into the field... to chase victory in proving themselves absolutely
abnegative, absolutely unobjectionable, to ancient greats returned to view.
They chase victory... in successfuly comporting in the stereotype of the
properly feminine.
Comments
Post a Comment