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.

Black Hawk Down - A Lesson on Love

The movie 'Black Hawk Down' is a non WWII war film that is riveting in its realism of depicting the workings of a modern war fought in the urban cities. In spite of the incessant violence in the role of 'Hoot' played by Eric Bana I found a poignant lesson of love.

Hoot rugged looking handsome and brave insurgent that works behind enemy lines. While every soldier is supportive, helpful and anxious, Hoot appears standoffish, unloving and almost incapable of compassion. In the battlefield he is decisive, brave and appears to love war that you might want to label him a jingoist. One might want to say that Hoot is either a sadist who loves violence or he is a man who has been hardened by years of living life the hard way at the edge of mortal danger.

The Delta force that Hoot is a part of raids a rebel stronghold. They massively underestimate the enemy firepower and get badly beaten. Not knowing what hit them, large numbers of troops are trapped behind enemy lines. As the trapped soldiers make their way out into the safe zone they get butchered as they fight their way through. After hours of battle, being chased and shot down as though they were dogs, a group of soldiers make it through and Hoot is among them.

While the soldiers that made it through rest feeling safe and blessed to have made it to the safe zone, Hoot retools to go back behind the enemy lines. Sgt. Eversmann is flabbergasted that Hoot wants to go back behind the Enemy lines after having been through hell and back. He asks...

Sgt. Eversmann: You going back in?

Hoot, the seemingly unfeeling in-compassionate machine of a man gives a impassioned poignant reply explaining his rationale for taking this crazy risk...

Hoot: There's still men out there. Goddam. When I go home people ask me, they say "Hey Hoot, why do you do it man? Why??? You some kind of war junkie? I won't say a goddam word... Why??? They won't understand... They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand, it's about the men next to you. And that's it. That's all it is. 

There is a deep Christian principle in what Hoot is saying here. If you truly loved your Neighbor as you should, you will do what needs be done. If need be, you will go behind Enemy lines to save souls. When I think of this tall, sharp nosed, handsome Hoot, I am reminded of an ugly, short, (supposedly) large nosed man who lived a couple of millenia ago and loved going behind Enemy lines to save souls, St. Paul.

To Paul, going to Rome was to go behind the Enemy lines. To be right under the nose of the Great Caesar and preach that Caesar isn't God but Christ is, is asking to get killed. But Paul is eager to do it, Why? Because he feels an 'obligation' to the 'neighbor' both Jew and Gentile.

Romans 1:
13. I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14. I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 15. So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

Paul is no crazy adventure junkie. He has a reason why He eagerly risks going behind enemy lines. He explains... that it is because the Gospel he preaches is 'powerful' enough to change 'people groups'.

Romans 1:
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

If you know anything about History, you'll know that the Gospel is the Power of God that transforms people groups. It may not happen overnight. It usually takes centuries. Since Paul got behind enemy lines it took about three centuries before Rome turned from being the seat of a Pagan power to a well spring of Christianity.

The famed Historian Will Durant when describing this age of Early Christianity succinctly says, "Christ and Caesar met in the arena and Christ won" (BTW, Will Durant was no Christian. He was just a good historian.)

That there were men out there that needed to be saved was preeminent on Hoot's mind. It defined who Hoot was. That men needed to hear the Gospel, that it was his 'obligation' was preeminent on Paul's mind. It defined who St. Paul was. The question that 21st Century Christians might want to ask ourselves is what thought take such preeminence in our minds that it defines us. 

Not every Christian has to have a St. Paul like ministry, but all of us have preeminent thoughts in our minds that define us to such an extent that we appear crazy to other people. Crazy people are attractive. It is the normal run of the mill folks that are vapid. As Christians aren't called to be run off the mill people. We are called to be crazily in love with our neighbor that others will see that and be attracted to Christ.

John 13:
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Going behind enemy lines looks different for different people. To Paul it was going to Rome to fulfill his obligation to love his neighbor. To us it might be spending time with a friend to make him/her feel valued or may be lending money to people who need help or just being with people listening to their suffering without venturing to give half-baked prognosis as Job's friends did or just doing whatever it take to make one realize one is loved.

To love is to risk. To love much is to risk much. If the 'new commandment' to crazily love is something that would truly be preeminent in our minds, if this would truly define us as Christians, that would be a place where the Power of God transforming people groups through the Gospel would be easily apparent and would attract people to Christ. Unless Christians understand this transformational lesson on love, we will miss an opportunity to help the pagans understand the language of love that Christ speaks in.

The Brilliance of 'Dumb and Dumber'

Friday night, we had a guys-night with some Church friends at my buddy Matt's house. We saw the movie 'Dumb and Dumber' (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dumb_and_dumber/). I was the only one who hadn't then seen the movie. Everyone promised me that it would be one of the funniest movie I would ever have seen... When I saw Jim Carey's face, I could agree my friends were right. When the movie was over, I totally agreed that it was indeed one of the funniest movies I had ever seen. Matt challenged me to write blog on it and he wanted me to tie it back to the Gospel... The Gospel is so brilliantly all encompassing that in theory I should be able to tie it to anything... If the Gospel doesn't quite fit into the context of this post, it has no bearing on the Gospel Truth, it only reflects my mediocrity as a writer. So here it goes...

For anything to be dumb and funny, it actually has to be pretty intelligent. The brilliant journalist G.K.Chesterton said that in the Newspaper the easiest page to write for is the center-page editorial. The most difficult piece is the two line jokes on the last page. It takes a special brilliance to be able to write two-line jokes. The reason why it takes considerable intelligence to write a good joke is because the joke has to be based on an element of Truth and the joke has to render the Truth in a caricature that well contextualized for people to identify with. A good joke writer has to have more than just an understanding of Truth, it requires a firm grasp of the quirkiness of human nature within the context of a given culture.

'Dumb  and Dumber' is no different... it is based on a Truth which is that human beings, will do anything for love - even if odds in favor is just 1 in a million, 'there is still a chance' :P. 'Dumb and Dumber' renders this Truth as a caricature by twisting the context a bit... This twisting of context is what makes the movie so much fun. Here is an example of that twisting of context... Jim Carey thinks the guy banging the door is the 'gas-man' wanting money. The guy banging the door, when addressed as the gas-man, wonders how Jim Carey could have known about his 'gas-troubles' if he hadn't been following him already. So he thinks that Jim Carey is a professional killer who knows his business, which is an absolute lie. In the movie, you see how Truths, when rendered in a twisted context ends-up being absolutely funny, instead of just being a lie.

Now, let us focus a bit on the cultural contextualization part of the joke. If someone from the middle-ages would watch 'Dumb and Dumber', they may not find the premise of the movie funny at all. That is because they do not quite have our culture's idea of "I'll do anything 'crazy' for love" as in travelling to Aspern penniless and hoping to meet the beautiful girl and impressing her enough to make her fall in love. The reason being, back in the middle ages, love was sort of like food, taken for granted. They lived in joint-family setups where familial love held life together. They did not have to do anything 'crazy' to earn the right to be worthy of love. Love just was... But we, living in a fragmented society, unless we do something for love, will not be loved. The idea of "I'll do anything for love" is deeply ingrained in our society. The script writers of 'Dumb and Dumber' skilfully exploited this deep need for works-based-love our culture.

Even kids movies exploit this works-based-love. In the Disney movie, "How to Train a Dragon", the hero, a nerdy little guy is treated like a worm by the girl he desires. Siding with her hot-handsome boyfriend, she ridicules him. Then this nerdy kid has to go train a sick Dragon and do some incredible stuff with his friendly Dragon to impress this girl. He finally impresses her enough to make her fall in love him. He had to work for love. As romantic as this sounds, this works-based-love has quite paradoxically, wrecked our society - the suitor works hard to get the woman he wants, once he gets her, in and of himself, he does not see a need to work for love anymore. He stops working on his love. Soon he loses love and wonders what the heck happened to his first-love. The SpaceX Founder and CEO Elon Musk is classic example... a year after marrying his super-model girl friend, to justify divorce he said "I still love her, but I am not IN love with her anymore... everyday marriage is just too much hard work."

The Gospel gives the solution to this problem of works-based-love. The gospel is ALL about love, but one does not have to work for this love. Gospel love is the opposite of works-based-love. It is the unconditional love of an ever-loving Father. You can't do anything to earn His love. But this does not absolve the Christian's need to work, rather the gospel-love becomes the fuel for him/her to work harder to love others unconditionally as Christ loved him/her. A Christian who knows the Love of God will work hard, not because he is wants to earn something new, but because He wants to be true to His calling of being his loving Lord's Servant, Scholar and Soldier. In fact, whether it be providing clean water in Africa or rescuing trafficked-women from Malaysia, this 'love of God fueled work' done by Christians is the saving Grace of our increasingly apathetic world.

Unfortunately, when the Christian message is presented to the society it often is presented in such a twisted context that the message of love becomes branded as the 'the religion of a bunch and dumber people' by the popular opinion makers of the likes of Richard Dawkins. He has said that he wonders if Christians have lesser IQ. His rabid atheism apart, there is something to what Richard Dawkins thinks about Christianity. Without the right context, even the best presentation of the Gospel wouldn't even rise to the dignity of a joke. We live in a society where everyone is familiar with the name 'Jesus Christ', but they do not have the right Gospel context to know Him for who He is.

To make Christianity not look 'dumb and dumber' in the eyes of the world, what we need is not just right words, but right words that are put into the right context. The question is, "How is this context built?" This context-building comes when our lives become Christ-like and we become the embodiment of His unconditional love. When people we interact with do not have to work to earn our love, when we would love them as God loves us, we wouldn't look dumb and dumber when we present the Gospel to them. Our lives will look brilliant that they would look at us and wonder what kind of God we worship to be so radically loving. In fact this is precisely what Jesus says...

John 13:
34)  A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35)  By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

If the script writers of the same caliber that made "Dumb and Dumber" were to make movies today, it wouldn't be based on the caricature of the Truth of 'i'll do anything for love'. It would I suspect it would be based on, 'i'll do anything to not be bound by love'. If you have been following social trends you'll know that for the first time in human history there are more singles than married people (across the globe). There are more and more books written about the glories of 'going solo' as against being bound in marriage which is increasingly being looked upon as an obsolete social institution. Having lived increasingly fragmented lives for a few generations now, as a society we are losing the motivation and the ability to build truly loving relationships. This makes the Gospel, the dire need of this society. If Christians do not act, like now, our society might end up in a tail-spin of some sort.

John 4:35 Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, then comes the harvest’? Look, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are white for harvest.
Matthew 9:37
Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few;
Matthew 9:38
therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”

Just like the brilliance of 'Dumb and Dumber' is in the context in which the truths are presented, the brilliance of the Gospel too is in the context, the context being Christ-like love. Instead of being bottled within our selfishly contextualized lives, if Christians would only look-up, we would see that the fields are ripe for harvest, waiting for God's love exemplified in the Brilliant Gospel. If the Gospel does not appear Brilliant within the context of modern day living, the problem is not with the Gospel. Society's caricatured understanding of the God's love reflects only upon the mediocrity of Christian-love. Christians without an understanding of the loving context within which the Gospel Truth needs to be rendered, make it look Dumb and Dumber.

Safe House, Away from the Messy World?

Word enthrall me. Safe House is a movie so full of noise, but very few words. So there wasn't much in the movie to captivate me. But hey, I would gladly pay 10 bucks to watch the gritty Denzel Washington anytime. Denzel is one of the few rugged men still left in Hollywood which is increasingly permeated by the pretty kind.

In spite of all the bombastic baloney, a few words caught my attention which is what I want to write about. Towards the end of the movie, when the safe house keeper writes a report to his superior, his superior tells him that some part of his report would be redacted. The naive novice objects, 'But that wouldn't be the Truth as you and I know it'. His seasoned superior replies, 'Sometimes, Truth is messy. We don't want a scandal. Truth will give us sleepless nights.'

The superior did not want to be troubled by the Truth. He just wanted 'personal peace'. Francis Schaeffer  in his book 'How Then Shall We Live' says that the modern man having emerged into the post-Christian era has only two goals in his life, 'affluence' and 'personal peace'. As long as he is not troubled by the plight of people around him, he'll live in his self-contained sub-urban house with a beautiful wife, pretty kids and happily amuse himself to death.

The fact of the matter is, God did not design a world where some people can live in a bubble unperturbed by the plight of the sick and the poor and the persecuted. If people were to ignore the poor and the persecuted, God intervenes and brings the smack down on the elitist culture. In fact this is what happens with Judah. During the time of Isiah, the elitists in Israel (actually Judah) did not care for the poor and the needy and God brought judgement upon them.

Isiah 1
23 They do not bring justice to the fatherless,
   and the widow's cause does not come to them.
 24 Therefore the Lord declares,
   the LORD of hosts,
   the Mighty One of Israel:
“Ah, I will get relief from my enemies
   and avenge myself on my foes.
25 I will turn my hand against you
   and will smelt away your dross as with lye
   and remove all your alloy.

God's people are not supposed to live in cozy cocoons and turn a blind eye to the messy Truth of the fallen world around us. We are to hunger and thirst for righteousness in ourselves and in the world around us. We are to deal with the messy Truth of people dying of hunger, women trafficked from around the world to be made the prey to licentious men, Christians being killed in droves where they are religious minorities, the disintegration of life among the poor pushed to the periphery to make space for our cozy cocoons.

Dealing with these messy Truths will give us sleepless nights. But that is what God wants His people to do. In fact, in Isiah 1 the Lord says that He will not accept their worship unless they take care of those oppressed among them.

15 When you spread out your hands,
   I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
   I will not listen;
   your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
   remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
 17 learn to do good;
seek justice,
   correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
   plead the widow's cause.

It is interesting to note that God did not reject Israel (actually Judah) because it did not worship Him. Judah worshiped the Lord, but they did it just to placate their need for 'personal peace'. God wasn't to be fooled. Christians today can sometimes think that because we are able to have great weekly worship services that they are good Christians. Alas, we may just be turn-a-blind-eye-to-messy-Truths elitist Christians and not even know it. The Church is not to be the safe house away from the world. We are to make the world a safe house of God for the poor and oppressed who need a safe house.

Days of Heaven - A Story of a Family that Wasn't

I saw the movie 'Days of Heaven' last weekend. 'Days of Heaven' is made by the legendary of Terrence Malick, the director of the recent 'Tree of Life'. Like much of his other movies, it is a narration/thoughts of one person witnessing life.

The movie is about a few parent-less kids, a nomadic group of three and a lone guy who is a rich young farmer. The group of 3 nomads is a boy, Bill, and two girls the younger of which Linda, is the narrator. The elder girl Abby and Bill are sort of in love, but they behave as brother/sister to the outside world. During the narration little Linda says they are sort of family, but not quite.

During their nomadic journey, they work at the farm of the rich young farmer in Texas. The rich young farmer finds Abby attractive. Bill learns that rich young farmer is terminally ill and may die soon. The rich farmer wants to marry Abby. The shrewd Bill concocts a plan. If Abby would marry the rich young lonely farmer and then he dies soon, the money would all be theirs.

He cajoles Abby into marrying the rich farmer. Of course, there is a whole lot of confusion. The movie ends with gun fights and painful tears. Bill and the farmer are dead. Abby and Linda are separated. The last scene is that of Little Linda, along with another nomadic friend, walking along the railway track not quite sure where they are going. It is a sad ending.

As I sat back and wondered what was missing in the movie, I realized that the movie had no real family. There wasn't a man and woman who were fused into one body, there weren't kids taken care of by a family, everyone was restless and yearning for something real in life.

There is a poignant scene in the movie. On the night of the phony marriage, Abby is on the bed, her Groom walks in looks at her and says, "you look like an Angel". She looks troubled and says, "but I am not one". Then Abby tries to be the Angel and really falls in love with her husband. For a short while, they have a real family resulting in a brief interlude of peace and rest, which I believe is what Linda considers the few 'Days of Heaven'. But one day, the Abby's Angel goes to sleep and the devil shows up. All hell breaks loose. Little Linda observes later on, 'we are all half Angel, half Devil'.

God created the family for it to be a place of rest, peace and contentment. In as much as we do not value family life, we miss the God-given gift to rest, nest and enjoy our little 'days of heaven' on earth. The problem is, the Devil-half of us will ruin even the best of gifts that God gives us. So to be an Angel and enjoy the 'Days of Heaven' (on earth) one needs supernatural strength and thus, 'a family that prays together, stays together'.

Lonesome Dove & (relationally) Spineless Men

Painters depict reality through paint and canvas. Writers depict reality through words. Movie makers are privileged to straddle both realms. Hence in one sense, movies get to reflect reality in a unique way. Even as we enjoy the comedies, it is the tragedies that often truly reflect life. The saddest movies are the ones which are relationally unresolved, whether it be the 'Titanic' or 'Gone With the Wind'. Depiction of unresolved relationship is painful to watch and feel.

The TV seriese of the novel 'Lonesome Dove' which won the Pulitzer prize in 1986, took the angst to a whole new level. The story ends relationally unresolved at multiple levels which reflects the problem with the society we live in.

When I started seeing the movie, it seemed a sort of 'happy' movie. Then I got to part 4, I was bawling for the most part and my nose was clogged almost through the entire episode. Every time my nose cleared up, it clogged right back again. I have seen many movies, quite a few that made me cry. When I saw "Forest Gump" I must have cried for about 10 minutes at the least. I was upset for having cried. Then I told my friend, "I saw 'Forest Gump' yesterday". He replied, "I have seen it too." After a pause, looking away I said, "I actually cried". He replied, "I did too". I looked at him and smiled. I was glad, I wasn't abnormal.

In spite being used to movie-crying, what "Lonesome Dove" did to me is abnormal. The morning after I watched 'Lonesome Dove', I lay in the bed for (may be) 30 minutes thinking how so sad "Lonesome Dove" was. What makes the movie really, really sad, for me, is that though the materialistic goals of the protagonists are fully realized and the 'hard virtues' of justice, bravery and honor were most beatifully epitomized, deep hunger for relational fulfillment was not satisfied.

The movie is about a couple of Texas Rangers Gus and Call, revered for their brave campaigns destroying the Apache Indian tribes. The movie is about their retirement plan to drive some cows North into Montana and build a ranch there with a bunch of cowboys. As I was watching the movie, I realized that to me, the movie wasn't so much about whether the cowboys will get to build the ranch in Montana as much as it was about whether Gus would allow himself to truly love a woman and Call would acknowledge Newt to be his son (this bias of mine explains why I am harsh on the character of Gus and Call in this post). Neither of the wishes get fulfilled making the end truly 'lonesome' for all involved, including the viewers.

The movie is overflowing with the great virtues of Justice, Courage, Honor and Fortitude discussing which would be a topic for a different blog. But it is bankrupt when it comes to matters of love, especially familial love. The closest you get to love in the movie is expression of tender feelings for beautiful ladies who happen either to be sex workers or wives of other men. Sometimes, it is honor masqueraded as love. I find this bankruptcy of true love quite baffling. In one sense the cowboys pay the highest honor to womanhood by making her the priced trophy and the end of all. In another sense, the women are more a figment in their imagination and a burden to be exchanged for freedom.

Without Clara and Lorine, Gus' love interests, "Lonesome Dove" wouldn't be what it is. They bring so much to the table but really take nothing in return. Except to live their lives in a state of perpetual angst at the non-committal boys they can't help falling in love with.

Gus and Call are opposite personalities. Gus is happy-go-lucky. Call is the most serious guy ever. But they both have one thing in common, their disdain for anything that smacks of family ties. In fact Gus repeatedly tells Newt that Call wouldn't acknowledge that he is Call's son because to do that would imply that he is just as any other human being. Gus concludes that Call wanted to make a god of himself. Almost like the Great warrior Achilles who wasn't interested in being a Father or a Husband, but rather was keen on showing himself more then human, a god.

Interestingly, Gus too has the same problem, though in a different sense. Clara and Lorrine are DEEPLY in love with Gus, especially Clara. Gus knows it, but choses not to love in return. Lorrine who has known Gus longer tells Clara something that amounts to, "Gus loves being himself more than he loves you or me".

Finally, Gus is injured. Both his legs need to be amputated or he'll die. He has to chose between dying with a warrior's legacy or choosing to live crippled being taken care of by Clara who DEEPLY loves him. He says he can't imagine himself being crippled. He chooses to die instead of devoting the rest of his life to the love of a woman. I saw an uncanny parallel to Alexander the Great, who couldn't imagine himself being same as ordinary men and wanting everyone to believe him to be a god, tried to drown himself into a river.

Both Call and Gus, in spite of their personality differences, had the same problem. They wanted women for sex and good company. They wanted to build a bigger than life image. They saw the family as a burden. They wanted to leave behind a godlike legacy. Every man has in him the urge to prove he is himself and that the himself is someone Great. Sometimes men do it at the cost of family life. Such men are spineless for to be a Great man and have a family takes a lot more courage than to be a Single and Strong.

I say 'spineless' because it takes more courage to start a family than to start a war. Yul Brynner of the classic, "The Magnificient Seven" would agree. A kid tells him that his father is a coward and not as brave as Yul. Yul quickly gets angry and forbids the kid to every think his father to be a coward for not standing up to bad guys. Yul explains, "it take more courage to handle the plow and serve a family than to handle a gun to fight bad guys."

When a society has too many Strong single men who are so preoccupied about being who they want to be and don't want to burden themselves with family ties, such a society would self-destruct. The modern society, in expanding the base of freedom and individuality has cursed a good chunk of its men into being lonesome Rangers who live godlike but, ironically, relationally-spinelessly, only for themselves.