Chaos

Sometimes Roger Ebert is less movie critic then philosopher. I just read his discussion (post-movie review) of a film called Chaos, which appears to be nothing but evil from beginning to end.

I have always thought it would be fun to see a movie that ended with the bad guys victorious. You know, Dr. Ohno puts James Bond into a trap, and instead of escaping the trap, Bond falls into the shark tank where he is eaten, and Dr. Ohno goes on to conquer the world - cue film credits. That would be a real kick in the pants.

But, it looks like this Chaos movie is nothing but sadistic and cruel from beginning to end. There is no catharsis, and there is no redemptive moment at the very end. Ebert gave it zero stars and advised everyone to stay away from it, which is pretty unusual for him.

Clearly the movie could be considered "art" as it is making a point, and perhaps it is the truth - that we are doomed to annihilation - but is art "good" just because it is unique? I really don't know the answer to that.

One paragraph from Ebert's commentary stands out for me.

Animals do not know they are going to die, and require no way to deal with that implacable fact. Humans, who know we will die, have been given the consolations of art, myth, hope, science, religion, philosophy, and even denial, even movies, to help us reconcile with that final fact. What I object to most of all in "Chaos" is not the sadism, the brutality, the torture, the nihilism, but the absence of any alternative to them. If the world has indeed become as evil as you think, then we need the redemptive power of artists, poets, philosophers and theologians more than ever.

Interesting, but are the producers of Chaos correct? Sometimes I think so, but then I have to remember where I am, what the world is like around me, and who is giving me information to process.

Is the world regressing? Sometimes I think so, and we come full circle back to politics and 9/11 again. But is it really regressing - considering just a mere 60 years ago, Germans were busily exterminating 6 million people? I don't know the answer to that question, but it's sure as hell obvious that human nature is a sadistic thing, taking delight in the suffering of others. Does Fox News cover a missing pretty-white-teen because their throngs of viewers are empathetic and truly saddened by her situation? Isn't it more likely that the viewers are privately gleeful that the punk-ass rich bitch is dead?

Answer that question, and then maybe we'll know if the point of Chaos is a valid one or not.

** update **

One other thing from Eberts site I found interesting:

Q: On never having seen "Dukes of Hazzard": "This is why we, the liberal elite, get such a black eye. When you denigrate something that you admit you have never seen, then I understand why the conservative right calls you, and by extension, the rest of us, elitist. The fact that you list never watching the TV show as a reason as to why you are 'so smart and cheerful' basically marks you as a fool. I happen to believe that there is something to be gained from many different forms of entertainment, even that which is 'popular.' I just wanted you to understand how insulted I felt by that particular review."

Ron Lindsey

OK, this is Ebert again: If we are, as you say, "we, the liberal elite," then why shouldn't conservatives call us elitist? Conservatives can be elitist, too. In fact, it is something we should all strive for, don't you think? Any reader of my reviews knows I love popular culture. I also love putting my tongue in my cheek, which is where it was parked when I wrote about being so smart and cheerful. Have we, the liberal elite, entirely lost our sense of humor?

One of the reasons that I think I'm more "elite" then many of the "super-elite" is because I have, in fact, seen the Dukes of Hazzard tv show. I have, in fact, been to a NASCAR race. I do, in fact, swill Budweiser on occasion as opposed to a fine imported beer.

Consequently, I am very qualified to comment on the red-neck lifestyle, and the mentality of those that live that way.