Taking off from yesterday, there are a couple of interesting points about mythic stories I wanted to dwell on. One of my claims was that noir isn't mythic and that was why it was impossible for a western to be noir. I want to walk back a little on that today.
One of the really interesting things about The Man of the West is that it challenges the standard western mythology. We have this legendary bandit named Doc Tobin (for once using the word legendary correctly for there really are legends about this guy). And not only is he the subject of legends, he tells them. His power over his followers depends to a large extent on his ability to enthrall them with these legends. It is because he can keep them excited by the possibility that they too can do legendary things that keeps some of his gang members following him.
And then the movie challenges these legends. How far does it challenge them? Well, that's a good question. There are two possibilities. The first is that once upon a time there was an era of the outlaws, just as there really was a an era of the Shogun in Japanese history, and now that period is over. There are dozens of classic westerns that say that. But this movie opens another possibility which is that it's turtles all the way down—meaning that the legends were built on legends, which were built on legends ... such that the whole way of life was inevitably going to collapse as soon as a more viable alternative was available.
The movie doesn't force you to take either view. The easiest option is the first one but the second is logically possible. And that is a very subversive possibility.
The thing to pay attention to is this: once upon a time Gary Cooper's character rode with the legendary bandit and then he stopped and rode away from him. Why? What was it that made him seek a life elsewhere? The movie never gives a clear answer to this question but rather leaves it up to you to decide. Whatever the answer is, it has something to do with sex because the thing that makes his character different from the rest of the gang is his attitude towards women and sex.
The Noble Lie
The noble lie is an argument we find one form of in Plato. We also find a version in westerns.
The western version goes like this. In the beginning was the wide open frontier, a lawless region populated by mythical figures called cowboys. This lawless region is going to be replaced by civilization. But how do you make the mythical figures go away?
And the problem here is not just that these guys are larger than life but also that they are inside of us. The raging, revenge seeking, rapist that each of us would be if there weren't civilization.
Okay, you can make an argument that civilization is better than this lawless land but, as Hobbes asked in Leviathan, who goes first? "I'll put my gun down as soon as you put yours down." And with that goes it's corollary, "Well, why should I put my guns down first when you might just shoot me?"
At the end of Shane, made just five years before The Man of the West the following dialogue takes place between Shane, the hero, and Ryker, the chief cattleman and voice of the old cowboy era at the very end of the movie.
It matters that the kid is the one who sees it, that we see it through his eyes, because the story is mythical. As adults, all we have is civilization. This sort of mythic story is the kind of thing a little boy would see—the movie is like seeing Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals acted out in front of us. This is supposed to be the cauldron where the moral basis of society is cooked up and it requires a trick, a noble lie. It requires the cold-blooded killer who, for some reason, decides to make civilization possible and then rides away leaving it to go on without him.
And it's not enough for some cowboy to outdraw the bad guy, kill him and then announce, "Okay we're going to have civilization now." No, the sort of hero who does these things has to be pushed off stage so civilized people can take over. He isn't a credible player in civilization. He is too much of a threat to keep around. And we see that theme in classic westerns such as The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and Shane. We also see it in the latest Batman movie.
And the noble lie here is that it takes an uncivilized man to make civilization possible. These guys have to make the giant move that defeats the forces opposed to civilization and then voluntarily withdraw.
If you want to believe that, one of the questions you have to ask yourself is, "How often does this have to happen?" Does it happen only once to get civilization rolling? Or does it have to happen again every time their is a rift in society?
It's no accident that a lot of people are heavily invested in super hero movies now. There is a huge divide in our society and no one trusts anyone. The different sides of the red-blue debate speak incommensurable moral languages. There are no moral facts outside those two world views powerful enough to resolve the division that that anyone can appeal to that each holds as authoritative. So how do you get out of it?
One answer is Batman. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but that is a childish, simple-minded solution. Some, but not all, of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 were swept up by that kind of thinking. "The One" would change things. There is nothing wrong with liking Batman so long as you realize it's a children's story. But if you start writing essays arguing that Batman teaches us something about how society ought to be, then you're crazy.
Sustainable civilization
The Man of the West presents a different option. It tells a story about how the mythology simply collapses under its own weight. What the legendary bandit does is always crazy and it gets a little crazier every year until it collapses. In this view, civilization is sustainable and the legend is not.
And this is nothing new or revolutionary. Both the red side and the blue side of the current debate both sometimes argue that their side is simply more sustainable. Of course, they also keep trying to use government to fix the race for their side at the same time, suggesting that their faith in the sustainability of their side is not as solid as they like to make it appear.
On this view, no magical moment needs to take place to transfer from the world of the cowboys to the world of civilization. The cowboys came first, the small farmer and civilization came second, both co-existed for a while but the cowboys ultimately died out.
Now is probably the time for me to tell you that the name of Gary Cooper's character is "Link". Anyone think that is accidental? He is a guy who has lived in both worlds. He has been the bandit and now he is the civilized guy. Nothing he does makes civilization possible. It was coming anyway. The bandits' time was coming to an end anyway and would have done so had Link Jones never ridden into town. He makes the story interesting because he can and has lived on both sides. He is the link that connects the two stories so we can have them both in the same movie.
And that, I think, is interesting. I'll come back to this.
BTW: I know I'm always on about the sex but it really is a big part of the equation here. If you watch Shane, about as iconic a western as you will ever find, there is a very telling moment at the end when little Joey is running after Shane trying to convince him to stay. He shouts after him,
PPS: Isn't it fascinating that Shane has an Irish name?
One of the really interesting things about The Man of the West is that it challenges the standard western mythology. We have this legendary bandit named Doc Tobin (for once using the word legendary correctly for there really are legends about this guy). And not only is he the subject of legends, he tells them. His power over his followers depends to a large extent on his ability to enthrall them with these legends. It is because he can keep them excited by the possibility that they too can do legendary things that keeps some of his gang members following him.
And then the movie challenges these legends. How far does it challenge them? Well, that's a good question. There are two possibilities. The first is that once upon a time there was an era of the outlaws, just as there really was a an era of the Shogun in Japanese history, and now that period is over. There are dozens of classic westerns that say that. But this movie opens another possibility which is that it's turtles all the way down—meaning that the legends were built on legends, which were built on legends ... such that the whole way of life was inevitably going to collapse as soon as a more viable alternative was available.
The movie doesn't force you to take either view. The easiest option is the first one but the second is logically possible. And that is a very subversive possibility.
The thing to pay attention to is this: once upon a time Gary Cooper's character rode with the legendary bandit and then he stopped and rode away from him. Why? What was it that made him seek a life elsewhere? The movie never gives a clear answer to this question but rather leaves it up to you to decide. Whatever the answer is, it has something to do with sex because the thing that makes his character different from the rest of the gang is his attitude towards women and sex.
The Noble Lie
The noble lie is an argument we find one form of in Plato. We also find a version in westerns.
The western version goes like this. In the beginning was the wide open frontier, a lawless region populated by mythical figures called cowboys. This lawless region is going to be replaced by civilization. But how do you make the mythical figures go away?
And the problem here is not just that these guys are larger than life but also that they are inside of us. The raging, revenge seeking, rapist that each of us would be if there weren't civilization.
Okay, you can make an argument that civilization is better than this lawless land but, as Hobbes asked in Leviathan, who goes first? "I'll put my gun down as soon as you put yours down." And with that goes it's corollary, "Well, why should I put my guns down first when you might just shoot me?"
At the end of Shane, made just five years before The Man of the West the following dialogue takes place between Shane, the hero, and Ryker, the chief cattleman and voice of the old cowboy era at the very end of the movie.
Shane: Yeah, you've lived too long. Your kinda days are over.Rykers "friend here" is his hired gunfighter Wilson. Shane blows Wilson away in a gunfight and kills Ryker and then he rides away. He tells little Joey, who is the only one to see the events (that matters) that he has to go away.
Ryker: My days? What about yours gunfighter?
Shane: The difference is I know it.
Ryker: Alright, so we'll all turn our six guns into the bartender and we'll all start our own spots. Is that it?
Shane: Not quite yet. We haven't heard from your friend here.
It matters that the kid is the one who sees it, that we see it through his eyes, because the story is mythical. As adults, all we have is civilization. This sort of mythic story is the kind of thing a little boy would see—the movie is like seeing Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals acted out in front of us. This is supposed to be the cauldron where the moral basis of society is cooked up and it requires a trick, a noble lie. It requires the cold-blooded killer who, for some reason, decides to make civilization possible and then rides away leaving it to go on without him.
And it's not enough for some cowboy to outdraw the bad guy, kill him and then announce, "Okay we're going to have civilization now." No, the sort of hero who does these things has to be pushed off stage so civilized people can take over. He isn't a credible player in civilization. He is too much of a threat to keep around. And we see that theme in classic westerns such as The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and Shane. We also see it in the latest Batman movie.
And the noble lie here is that it takes an uncivilized man to make civilization possible. These guys have to make the giant move that defeats the forces opposed to civilization and then voluntarily withdraw.
If you want to believe that, one of the questions you have to ask yourself is, "How often does this have to happen?" Does it happen only once to get civilization rolling? Or does it have to happen again every time their is a rift in society?
It's no accident that a lot of people are heavily invested in super hero movies now. There is a huge divide in our society and no one trusts anyone. The different sides of the red-blue debate speak incommensurable moral languages. There are no moral facts outside those two world views powerful enough to resolve the division that that anyone can appeal to that each holds as authoritative. So how do you get out of it?
One answer is Batman. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but that is a childish, simple-minded solution. Some, but not all, of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 were swept up by that kind of thinking. "The One" would change things. There is nothing wrong with liking Batman so long as you realize it's a children's story. But if you start writing essays arguing that Batman teaches us something about how society ought to be, then you're crazy.
Sustainable civilization
The Man of the West presents a different option. It tells a story about how the mythology simply collapses under its own weight. What the legendary bandit does is always crazy and it gets a little crazier every year until it collapses. In this view, civilization is sustainable and the legend is not.
And this is nothing new or revolutionary. Both the red side and the blue side of the current debate both sometimes argue that their side is simply more sustainable. Of course, they also keep trying to use government to fix the race for their side at the same time, suggesting that their faith in the sustainability of their side is not as solid as they like to make it appear.
On this view, no magical moment needs to take place to transfer from the world of the cowboys to the world of civilization. The cowboys came first, the small farmer and civilization came second, both co-existed for a while but the cowboys ultimately died out.
Now is probably the time for me to tell you that the name of Gary Cooper's character is "Link". Anyone think that is accidental? He is a guy who has lived in both worlds. He has been the bandit and now he is the civilized guy. Nothing he does makes civilization possible. It was coming anyway. The bandits' time was coming to an end anyway and would have done so had Link Jones never ridden into town. He makes the story interesting because he can and has lived on both sides. He is the link that connects the two stories so we can have them both in the same movie.
And that, I think, is interesting. I'll come back to this.
BTW: I know I'm always on about the sex but it really is a big part of the equation here. If you watch Shane, about as iconic a western as you will ever find, there is a very telling moment at the end when little Joey is running after Shane trying to convince him to stay. He shouts after him,
Pa got things for you to do.We, of course, are aware of what little Joey doesn't know about how his mother might want Shane. Out of the mouths of babes.
And mother wants you,
I know she does.
PPS: Isn't it fascinating that Shane has an Irish name?
No comments:
Post a Comment