The Bondian Metamorphisis - Glimpses of Post Materialism

Some of the Bond movie enthusiasts I spoke with said they were disappointed with the New Bond movie, 'Skyfall'. I think they have their valid reasons to be. Traditionally, Bond movies were always about what Bond did and how cool he looked doing it, especially with the guns, gadgets and girls. The new Bond is no longer about being 'cool'. The new Bond is about being 'real' the authentic, broken guy who needs help just as everyone of us do. I think this metamorphosis of the Bond movies says something about the changing trajectory of human needs. Traditionally, human need for movies as titillating entertainment was to see popular movies as an escape from the dreary realities of life and have a good time. Now, that is changing movies are increasingly seen as avenues of seeking depth and meaning within the dreary realities of life itself.

I want to do three things in this post.
1. I want to offer a key difference between the traditional and the new Bond movie.
2. Point at the broader scope of this Bondian Metamorphisis that involves other superhero movies too.
3. Offer one key insight into trajectory of human psychic needs which I believe is driving this Bondian Metamorphisis.

A key difference between the traditional and new Bond movies is the focus on the vulnerable side of the Bond. The movie delves into the depths of Bond's insecurities and how it is related to 'Skyfall', his childhood home. Which Bond movie has attempted to expose Bond's insecurities? In Skyfall, when 'M' dies, the Bond hugs her and grieves for her. I don't know if any Bond in the prior movies ever had to bother with that tender emotion of 'grief'. This is not a sudden metamorphosis, it started with the 'Quantum of Solace' (which incidentally is another movie the traditional Bond enthusiasts did not like). In 'Quantum of Solace' the Bond shows himself a man with a 'heart', he goes after the guys who killed his girl in the prior movie, which the traditional Bond never did. There was a distinct change in Bond characterization which I wrote about here. I should say that I liked to new Bond in 'Quantum of Solace', I like him more now in 'Skyfall'. The old Bond was as a man with great style but as Chesterton would call him, 'a man without a chest' - zero depth. The new Bond on the other hand, is a man with a heart who is affected by the sharp edges of life and who is driven by deeper and meaningful life experiences than just guns, gadgets and girls.

The Bond is not the only Superhero movie where the story delves deeper into the human soul and attempts to unravel the mystery and meaning behind things. This trend is apparent in Christopher Nolan's Batman movies too. The Batman does not just come to do cool stuff, much of the movie focuses on who he really is and what part of his soul drives him to do what he does. From the trailers to the next version of the 'Superman' movie, it looks like the Superman movie will take the psychological plunge too. Interestingly, even the Supervillians in these Superhero movies have become people with deep souls, albeit sick ones. In traditional Bond movies, the Supervillian, for some inexplicable reason, is intend on World Domination. In 'Skyfall', the Supervillian Silva isn't so. Rather, Silva is a 'hurt soul' seeking his revenge for M's old 'sins'. In the 'Dark Knight Rises', Bane is a Supervillian - the movies goes into his soul to explain the cause of its twisted nature. With these supervillian's one almost gets to have some pity for them. One gets to see a part of their soul that is soft and tender seeking love and acceptance as anyone else. The Supervillian is just trying to cope with the dreariness of life, albeit the wrong way. Hence, these new Super Hero movies aren't just about providing a good time enjoying the titillating entertainment, but delves into deeper meanings behind things.

I think there a key reason behind this new need for depth and meaning in action movies is that as a society people increasingly crave more for meaning than superfluous titillation. Fredrick Neitzche in his book 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' has a poem about the 'Superman'. He believed if evolution created man from the ape, then naturally it would create a Superman from man. And the last of the (current) man-species he called 'lastman' in his poem. The lastman's last achievement would be to invent happiness...

'We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink.

Indeed, in ushering the age of materialism, the modern man has invented happiness. All it take is a click of a button or the swipe of a card. We live in a world of titillation at our finger tips. Nirvana's song Teen Spirit epitomizes this when it says 'here we are now, entertain us'. Inventing happiness is the height of materialism.

Neitzche was prescient in his prognosis that man will invent titillative happiness. But he is wrong in that after finding this titillating happiness, the lastman will be stuck in the evolutionary ladder and 'blink'. The Lastman isn't a man on the evolutionary ladder, paving way for a higher being. Contrary to Neitzche's belief, instead of becoming obselete in an ocean of titillating happiness, the lastman (in the fallen image of the 'Everlastingman' - G.K.Chesterton's Christ) realizes the bankruptcy of his predicament and yearns for something in life beyond titillating happiness. He looks for depth. He craves meaning in spite of dreariness.

This change of trajectory seeking deeper meanings isn't noted only by the Hollywood Script writers and Directors. In fact, it has been happening in Music industry for a long time now. Much of Rock music from Rolling Stones to Pink Floyd expressed the need for deeper meaning. In fact, sociologist/futurists predicting future economic trends notice it too. In the book 'A Whole New Mind: Why Right Brainers will Rule the Future', the author talks about the importance that search for 'meaning' will take in people's lives. The author quotes the astute psychologist Victor Frankl, "It is not so much that people try to seek pleasure and avoid pain, but that they really are in search for depth and meaning".

The Age of materialism perfected the art of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, we had 'invented happiness'. We realize that it does not satisfy. We have begun moving into the post-materialistic age of search for meaning. Back in the day, movies were made for audience who looked to materialism, and movies as an expression of materialistic titillation  as diversion from the dreary realities of life. People were just there to have a 'good time'. But now, that we have lived through the age of materialistic titillation and found it to be the empty thing that it is, things have changed. We don't just need a 'good time', we need a meaningful time. In this Bondian Metamorphosis, we are seeing the grounds shift away from the age of materialistic titillation to one of seeking meaningful experiences.

So yes, traditional Bond enthusiasts will be disappointed with this trend. But they need to remember the pendulum swings both ways. After having swung for too long into joy-ride of materialism, it is beginning to lose inertia and is starting to trend towards the depth and meaning-ride of the age of post-materialism. The 'Skyfall' Bond gives a glimpse of how entertainment of the Post Materialism age will look like. From the looks of it, it looks like it will have a lot more mystery, meaning and depth, kind of like life itself.

Hunger Games - A Fight for Love and Life!

I saw the movie 'Hunger Games' sometime back. 'Hunger Games' is based on the popular teen novel written by Susan Collins. As is my custom, not having read the book, I attempt to write about my impressions of the movie. 'Hunger Games', I think, ultimately alludes to the deep hunger for love which make a human being truly human. I think a scene in the moive which alludes to this Truth is when President Sown has Seneca, the Head Gamemaker of Hunger Games, commit suicide. Seneca's job was to entertain the rabble. His cardinal mistake was in encouraging love to blossom in the midst of glamorized celebration of kids killing each other.

'Hunger Games' is not much unlike the Gladiatorial fights that made the Roman arenas famous. The difference being that instead of the brawny Gladiators, kids from ages 12 to 17 are made to fight each other to death. The elite and the powerful live in opulence of the Capitol governed by President Snow. The 'slaves' live in 12 Districts. Each year a male and a female kid from each district is chosen by lots to go to the Capitol and fight and kill other kids, until one victor remains. The fight is televised for the amusement of everyone in the Capitol and the slave Districts. The District with the victor get special rations. So this is the National sport, and then some more.

'Hunger Games' has two motives. One exterior, another one ulterior. The exterior motive is to provide entertainment for all. The ulterior movie of the games is to remind slave Districts, who is Boss - the Capitol's Hunger Games force the slaves' kids do something they don't quite like - killing each other. This way the 'slaves' a afraid of rebelling against the Capitol. Seneca's mistake is that in trying to fulfill the exterior motive, he had inadvertently jeopardized the ulterior goal of keeping the slaves from contemplating rebellion. By encouraging love in the loveless 'Hunger Games', Seneca inadvertently gave the oppressed a reason to hope.

Katniss and Peeta the chosen pair from District 12 are in love with each other (actually it is more complex than just that, anyways...). If the game had one victor, they would have to kill each other. Seneca realizes that his game has a pair of star-crossed lovers. Seneca changes the rules of the game that if a pair from the same district reminded alive at the end, that they wouldn't have to kill each other. He decides encouraging their love would make the game more interesting. And it does. It captivates the attention of the audience. After all, who wouldn't want some good romance in an action flick?

President Snow warns Seneca that his change would encourage love would give hope to the hopeless. The point of 'Hunger Games' was to assert power over the oppressed subjects to the point of denying them the right to love each other. President Snow understood that love was divine, within the human heart it had a power of its own. Love would make life special and would give the slaves the self-sacrificial strength and the will to fight for life. Love would create hope and urge to fight for freedom.

President Snow subtle warnings doesn't quite get the attention of the superficial Seneca. He continues on with the game thorough acts of self-sacrificial love, Katniss and Peeta finally win. There is a point at which  both decide the if one of them has to die the other will die too, so self-sacrificial was their love. In a game that is all about killing, self-sacrificial love inspired the oppressed to fight. As President Snow predicted it gave them hope. People in a District start a riot against the opressive Capitol. President Snow asks Seneca to pay for his mistake with his life.

Trying to create oppressive society using President Snow's philosophy of 'denying love' is effective, but only for a while, eventually it breaks down. Denying something is not a best way to keep people from doing something. A better way to keep people from doing something is to make love meaningless. In fact, the brilliant Aldous Huxley does precisely this in his dystopian novel 'The Brave New World'. He creates a hierarchical society not by denying people love, but by making love meaningless. The 'Brave New World' makes love meaningless by giving its subjects two things - free sex and free drugs. People access to unlimited pleasure wouldn't want love any more. They would willingly submit to any system of oppression created in the 'Brave New World'. President Snow understood human nature much better than Seneca did. Aldous Huxley is a league ahead of President Snow himself.

When we look at our own world, any observer of current affairs can see that we are much closer to Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World' of meaningless love than Susan Collin's 'Hunger Games' of denied love. From easy access to unrestrained use of contraceptives to legalizing marijuana, political elites are passing legislations that make it easier to have indiscriminate recreational sex and drugs. This will result in making love meaningless and will ultimately rob people off the need to fight for what is right.

Kate Boltlick in the Atlantic, she explores the idea of being happily single all her life. She takes a role model, an elder single lady living in France. The lady live unperturbed her own little home. She has a boy friend with whom the agreement is that none should sleep over at another's place. To have another person sleep overnight is too much of a violation of private-space. They don't 'love' each other but they are sort of together free from the entanglements of love.

The reason why love is increasingly becoming meaningless in our society is because the idea of love has be disassociated from the idea of sacrifice. Love is confused with having a sense of 'feeling good' about oneself. Recreational sex and drugs serve to foster a craving for the 'feel good' mentality and makes people atuned to seeing any form of sacrificial love as something alien.

In Hunger Games, when the love deprived people look at the games and see how sacrificial love finally won, it stirred them to do the right thing sacrificially. The reason why the society of today's has the epidemic disease of meaningless love is because we do not have a good role model for sacrificial love. I have said it many times, but I'll say it again. The ultimate model for sacrificial love is the love of Christ on the Cross. Any culture that does not look up to the love on the cross will end up missing the point of love. It will lose the will to fight for love and life.