Please wait while the Pandalous reader loads...
Pandalous
The Place for Intelligent Conversation
 
 
 
  
Latest Post: May 2, 2009 at 12:52 PM
2 people participating
Spans 1 day

Pandalous reproduces the college experience online, in a new universal college of everyday life. Personal development after college is usually professionally oriented and not multi-dimensional. Pandalous allows you to constantly encounter and explore new ideas and areas of life, with a diverse community of participants, from university professors and students to journalists, artists, professionals, and monks. Join us in the experience of teaching and learning.

The internet doesn't have to be a waste of time.

I was watching yesterday Oliver Stone's latest film, W, dealing with the career and life of George W. Bush. I don't know that it is necessarily a great film, or that Stone is a particularly great director, however i found it to be a film of some remarkably interesting insights, especially when put in the context of Stone's other psychodramas of the lives of political leaders, such as J.F,K, Nixon, and perhaps most importantly Alexander (which i find to be Stone's most fascinating film)   constituting with them a cinematic psychoanalytic/historical project that i think might be actually quite significant. The point that i found perhaps to be the most profound one in W is the way that Stone, in a non-satiric, very earnest and almost sympathetic manner, tries to think the relations in Bush's life between his father complex - feeling to be the non-recognized and unfully loved child of a powerful father, abandoned so to speak by this father whom he nevertheless reveres - and his religious, almost mystical awakening to political life as someone who is CALLED to be president, and a president that will correct the father's mistakes by spreading the American democratic principles world wide, something the father failed to do by not going all the way with the first Iraq war. I think Stone is here on to something very profound in relation to three concepts, the father, the call, and political desire. I have never thought about it as such, but Stone I think shows that the very notion of the call - of feeling all of a sudden elected to fulfill a historical destiny by an authority whose origin is not exactly revealed - is something that arises in relation to the abandonment by the actual father. The one who hears the call is the one abandoned by the father,all of a sudden as if hearing out of nowhere the voice of a higher father, the one who will compensate for the neglect of the real father. It is obvious that both Christianity and Judaism that have formulated concepts of the call in different ways, act out a certain drama of the abandonment of a father who is replaced by a call. This was also to an extent the case in Stone's Alexander, dealing as well with a political leader who discovers his destiny following the death of a father that was also a political leader (precisely like the relations between the two Bushes). What is also particularly remarkable is that both in Alexander  as well as in W the political call one discovers  involves a certain conception of UNIVERSALISM, and world uniting desire. Alexander was the first leader in history that to an extent conceptualized the idea of ONE political world, uniting all nations. Bush as well had a vision of a universal American democracy. Why is it, that the one abandoned by the father, a father who does not necessarily have universalizing ambitions, hears a call out of nowhere to unite the entire world? 

Films Discussed

W. (Widescreen)



One more particularly interesting point I wanted to raise in relation to W. has to do with W.s predecessor, i.e. Obama, and with the question of a black voice, that constitutes one of the more interesting aspects of W. It is clear that Obama, no less than Bush, is a leader with a universalizing political desire that has to do with being a fatherless son (his autobiography is famously entitled Dreams about my father, and W. itself is a film framed by a dream, with which it opens and closes, and contains as well dreams that W. had of his father.). Obama's father, on the other hand, was not a great political leader, not even an American, and it is clear that in this sense his way of not belonging, thus of being abandoned, is to an extent of a different nature than Bush's. While Stone made the film prior to Obama's victory, it is clear that this victory is already marked somehow in the film, especially in relation to the question of blacks, those members of America that are particularly abandoned and fatherless, and presented in the movie as if not having any voice with which to speak. The two blacks or African American characters are of course Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Powell is presented as the most sympathetic member of the Bush cabinet while Rice is presented as the most ridiculous, practically being a caricature (whether this points to Stone's Chauvinism or not, I have no idea,but the point he makes through this is interesting.) While they are vastly different in this sense, it is clear that Powell and Rice also share something, and this is not belonging to the white establishment, and as such as both equally not really being able to a voice of their own. While Powell is presented as an honorable and reasonable man, he is also someone who finally has to cooperate with the evil people surrounding Bush, as if not really believing that he has a right to speak, and finally, in a very symbolic moment, in his famous speech to the U.N that many see as having been the nail in the coffin that allowed for the iraq war to take place, he is seen basically as someone whose speech is taken away from him, becoming an empty mouthpiece for the watching dogs of Cheney. Rice, on the other hand, is from the beginning presented as literally voiceless (she doesn't utter a word for the first half of the film) and when she finally starts to speak, she is a pure parrot, just there to echo Bush without anything to say of her own. It is as if the blacks, those disinherited and fatherless people, not being entitled in this sense to even speak on their own, had to wait for someone who can speak in the name of a call, of a speech higher then the father's, and perhaps through this, finally achieve their own voice, being able to start to speak for themselves.

Join the Community
Full Name:
Your Email:
New Password:
I Am:
Country:
By registering at Pandalous.com, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

  
Share: digg reddit delicious Facebook StumbleUpon Newsvine Mail to a FriendSubscribe to Discussion
Order:
  
Searching
No results found.