Another great piece about two great movies. I always loved the small but significant character of Sgt. Mulcahy (the name means ‘warlike’ in Irish) in Glory.
His harshness with the recruits is initially attributed to racism, setting the viewer up to see him as another predictable, minor villain. Later its revealed that he is simply committed to his duty as an NCO, making sure the men are properly prepared for the trials of battle.
Another great read. But I am surprised you didn't link Joseph Campbell and the Hero's Journey into the essay. He presents a great roadmap for budding authors, especially ones obsessed with worldbuilding and exploring concepts like spirituality, philosophy and culture- hoping to construct an escape tunnel from our postmodern/neoliberal cultural cul-de-sac.
Campbell helps writers re-emphasis character and plot front and centre in their work. His Hero's Journey makes it personal and individual. This also why most good storytelling at least possesses a socially conservative architecture or skeleton- because ultimately, it's usually about the triumph of the individual over great adversity, even in death.
Here's an interesting piece of cultural trivia. I only found out recently why Tolkien so disliked Frank Herbert's Dune. The question has perplexed me for some time, given that both authors are without peer in their respective genres. Although fictional, the scriptwriter of Freud's Last Session obviously did their due diligence in terms of research. Tolkien was indeed a devout Christian, a Catholic, and played a major role in convincing C S Lewis to reconsider his atheism. Tolkien wouldn't have liked Dune's cynicism towards religion, or indeed its specific focus on Islam.
On reflection, he was probably right. Herbert evinced a deep understanding about so many aspects of human nature and society, but on religion he was facile. He failed to make a distinction between between some of the less savoury elements of religion as an institution or memetic structure, and the deeply spiritual core of faith.
The obliviousness of atheism constantly amazes me. The evolutionary biologist has no explanation for music, its development, or its ability to move us. None whatsoever- other than a few insufficient and weak observations about pattern recognition and prosocial bonding mechanisms . This doesn't mean we should blindly accept everything which religion tries to foist upon us- it can often be a Rorschach for our worst instincts. But when religion moves us in the same way that music does, to dizzying heights of joy or sonorous solemnity, we should at least consider that we have found a truth impregnated with the legacy of deep and abiding spiritual wisdom. I'm thinking about writing an essay on the subject.
“The obliviousness of atheism constantly amazes me.” Would love to hear more. I’m a garden variety deist and allergic to organized religion but to dismiss the divine just seems willfully ignorant.
From a purely philosophical and scientific perspective, the most defensible position would have to be agnosticism- almost all attacks on religion consist of either asking the opposition to provide proof or presenting ridiculous strawmen which are then easily dispatched. The belief in a supreme being is not necessarily contingent upon a belief in scripture, even though much of the King James Version drew heavily on the translation of William Tyndale (an inspired source, in terms of the history of English Literature), also a major source of inspiration and occasional pilfering by none other than Shakespeare himself. Indeed, as astounding proportion of English Idioms have their roots in Tyndale.
But that’s literature. Anyway, the more ardent atheists are technically correct. Something cannot be claimed to be scientific knowledge unless it is falsifiable. But most modern believers in the West don’t claim their spiritual beliefs are scientific knowledge. It would be more accurate to state that for most who have spiritual beliefs, it’s more experiential, though not necessarily subjective, given the underlying commonalities to all spiritual experiences, repeated in almost every religious tradition in history, other than a few rejectionist belief systems which seek out the antithesis.
On the deist question, have you considered the possibility that if God exists, he would operate in 4 dimensions? He would thus likely operate more significantly earlier in recorded history.
Anyway, here is an interesting answer from GPT 4.0. It relates to records in Ancient China at around the time of the crucifixion.
‘Yes, there are historical accounts that suggest an unusual solar eclipse may have occurred around the time traditionally associated with the crucifixion of Jesus, though it's debated among scholars. In particular, Chinese records from around 31–33 AD describe phenomena that could have been an eclipse or an unexpected darkening of the sky.
One notable source is the Hou Han Shu ("Book of the Later Han"), which contains records of unusual celestial events, including a "heavenly black" event in 31 AD, described as a darkening of the sky that lasted for hours.’
Here is a translation from Hou Han Shou which describes the interpretation of the event.
"Yin and Yang have mistakenly switched, and the sun and moon were eclipsed. The sins of all the people are now on one man. Pardon is proclaimed to all under Heaven."
Well, if you're familiar with the story of Jesus on the cross, as he died, the sky supposedly blackened, like night, as a sign of God's anger. These ancient Chinese court records from the time, support the contention that not only might these events have taken place in China, half a continent away, but also that the Court Astrologers correctly predicted the cause of events- even though they wouldn't have had any direct knowledge of Jesus.
Anyway, I just mentioned it as a strange historical coincidence. I don't make any claims on the matter.
I probably should have said claims as to its deeper meaning. The veracity of the historical source is well-established, although it’s been pointed out the timing of the event may not have been around the time of the death of Jesus. The Chinese records are easy to place in their historical moment. The Ancient Chinese kept meticulous records. Although we have proof of the life of Jesus and his death by crucifixion, the exact timing is a little less exact.
We can’t be sure the darkening of the skies over China occurred immediately following the death of Jesus.
We know Ed really well, built his home in Colorado. He is so talented, a good person. Politically we are on 2 different planets though as he is a liberal jew living in lala land and we are conservatives living in paradise. I wonder if he could vote for Kamala?
I would like to mention Conrad’s critique of liberalism “Heart of Darkness”. It has been plastered over by lit crit paens to its imaginative and groundbreaking structure, before of course it got skewered by ignorant but politically correct misreadings. But its message still stands: Beware the lightbringers of progress!
It’s sad that there’s never been a great movie version. Yes, I know that Apocalypse Now was a modern retelling, but as for the actual film it hasn’t been done. Zwick would actually be a good choice to direct, come to think of it.
I am really enjoying these essays from you, and as I am a huge fan of The Last Samurai you brought up some excellent points that I hadn't considered, and now I want to go back and rewatch.
This is my favorite Tom Cruise movie. Maverick was excellent, but this was really a great role where Cruise submerged himself in the character. As young blood I trained Aikido for 10 years, and Cruise and the film portrayed the mindset and the act of stilling the mind to sense the vectors of attack as an observer, almost as though dying to the peril as the mind calms. The bushido and walking the path to dispel fear of death was excellent, and Cruise / Algren's growth as he learned to master his demons and fear is paced well. This evolution makes the action sequences all the more compelling.
Going to get really weird on you and add some Ian Flemming ala Bond: You only live twice, once when you are born and once when you stare death in the face. It's in those moments for death and struggle that Algren fully lives, and yet to reach that point much of his pain and his western thinking had to die and fall away.
While I said this is my favorite movie with Cruise, I am a huge fan of Maverick, as that movie is about the old wolf with yet some fangs left, coming to terms with his failings. In light of what you are doing with these types of essays I'd love to see your interpretation of that movie and it's themes. It was a far different movie than what I expected, and in my opinion far better than the original. There was a sadness to it as well, like the bittersweet realizations of life's twists as one ages.
Anyway, these have been really enjoyable, and inspiring. Gives me some ideas.
I remember watching Glory in history class in middle school, and The Last Samurai a few years later in the theater with a friend--and not really getting either of them. Something about these themes went over my teenage head. The depth didn't click. But there was something about them that resonated, more than the battles (or Ken Watanabe's acting, and the ninja invasion scene from the latter, both artistic features that stood out). It's interesting looking back on them now. It's interesting to think that a movie like The Matrix, from the same time period, is the one that philosophically and ethically and aesthetically resonated in my teenage brain--and with many teenage and nonteenage brains--but also still resonates deeply with me and with many people today. I still think the Matrix is great art, and that it may continue to age well. I'm not convinced that all great art is right wing. This is an interesting claim, though. It seems maybe connected to the Camille Paglia school of thinking about art. Is The Magic Mountain right wing? The Matrix? Citizen Kane? East of Eden? Chekhov, Gogol? What about visual art, paintings like--The Garden of Earthly Delights? I'm starting to lose the thread. I guess my point is: great art straddles all "wings" and amalgamates varieties of beliefs present at the context of the time it is created. Something like that. Anyway. You can counter this argument. I think Glory and The Last Samurai are great, and they may be highly mature works of art in their Greatness. Reading about them again now I think I may see more in them, and so thank for writing this essay. It's piqued my interest to revisit both of them in light of the present moment. Well said and written. But at the same time, these movies fell short of capturing my younger imagination in its totality despite being curious and interested in their artistic representations of reality. Also, they seem not to have aged well, generally. Is this a feature of the liberal, progress-obsessed time we live in? Or is it that they missed capturing a certain totality that great art captures? I've grown a lot since then, but in that sense, I suspect they lacked some qualities of "great art."
In this model of right vs left, right is objectively true, while left is a rebellion/reaction against right.
In that frame: all great art says something true about life and reality. All that is in accord with reality is right wing, therefore all great art is right wing.
Yes this whole discussion hinges on the definition of right wing. Which I don’t subscribe to myself yet believe this essay is a valuable take, especially given the moment.
On the other hand, I am also considering works of literature like The Brothers Karamazov/Crime and Punishment, The Magic Mountain, Grapes of Wrath/East of Eden, and (maybe) War and Peace and other works by Tolstoy, among other Russian authors--what's going in these works of literature is something like a "cast" of characters struggling with ethical and political issues from all realms of the spectrum. For example, in The Magic Mountain there's a series of dialogues between a Nietzsche-like character and an "Enlightenment/progress/rational world" type character. Their conversations unsettle all the other characters, from patients to doctors, who all have their own thoughts and feelings.
My examples above, yes, this represents kind of a rebellion/reaction to art. I kind of just listed things popping into my head.
The Matrix is a cinematic masterpiece in a long tradition of technologically anxious art, from Metropolis to Brave New World/1984. These aren't Renaissance masterpieces but commentary, I suppose, about the industrial paradigm we've been in since the 19th century. Are they great, or just good?
There's a certain kind of "Statue of Apollo" style of art that points towards the aspiration of order of the human Spirit, and soul.
There's also (I don't want to call it Dionysian) messy art--perhaps less "Great" but still crucial to society--that I think the authors above wrote in those novels. I'm not sure how to fit in any of the Russian literature giants, but I suppose they fit in somewhere--were they mostly on the right? Tolstoy strikes me as a left-leaning person when he talks about Christianity. Perhaps Picasso and John William Waterhouse, and other pagan/symbolist/myth-interested and Romantic, and experimental painters can fit into this vast category of not-right good art. Guernica is pretty good, and true, and real. But it's something else, neither right nor left. I suppose.
This is absolutely top-notch writing - in the top 5 movie reviews/cinematic analyses I've ever read. I would read an entire substack devoted to nothing but movie reviews by you.
Can't agree with the attacks here on Liberalism, and its imperialism--from 1776 on, apparently! For one thing, no Liberalism, no Lincoln, slavey remains and expands, and no Glory. For another, it's 2024, sir, and our stand for freedom of speech must be Liberal in part. So this is where my conservativism part ways with your monarchism, or whatever it is. See my very latest, or my big essay on how to understand conservatism, "Conservatism in Relation to Perennial Wisdom." https://substack.com/home/post/p-124186033
That said, a wonderful work-of-art essay, just perfect.
Once again, unearthing new layers to classic movies! I especially related to the defeat of Liberalism in the soul, since that was my experience of the Culture War -- hairline fractures in my worldview splintered and shattered, as I was confronted with one outrageous absurdity after another. My personal conversion won't save the West, but every bit counts.
What superb insight, Librarian. I had never been interested in watching either of these films, assuming them to be the usual studio fodder. I will now seek them out keenly, not least to better understand your concept (all great art is rightist) - though instinctively I know you are correct.
Another great piece about two great movies. I always loved the small but significant character of Sgt. Mulcahy (the name means ‘warlike’ in Irish) in Glory.
His harshness with the recruits is initially attributed to racism, setting the viewer up to see him as another predictable, minor villain. Later its revealed that he is simply committed to his duty as an NCO, making sure the men are properly prepared for the trials of battle.
You see the men using the exact bayonet techniques he taught while storming the fort. Chekov’s bayonet.
You do a great job of giving these two movies context. The opening battle scene in Glory is one of the finest I've seen.
I've just rewatched Legends Of The Fall and that movie, as you point out, is also a confrontation between modernity and the old ways.
My wife and I were in our twenties and just beginning to have children when we watched ThirtySomething. The ad agency storyline was very good.
There’s just something fascinating about a man being able to make lite family dramas and epic war movies.
Another great read. But I am surprised you didn't link Joseph Campbell and the Hero's Journey into the essay. He presents a great roadmap for budding authors, especially ones obsessed with worldbuilding and exploring concepts like spirituality, philosophy and culture- hoping to construct an escape tunnel from our postmodern/neoliberal cultural cul-de-sac.
Campbell helps writers re-emphasis character and plot front and centre in their work. His Hero's Journey makes it personal and individual. This also why most good storytelling at least possesses a socially conservative architecture or skeleton- because ultimately, it's usually about the triumph of the individual over great adversity, even in death.
Here's an interesting piece of cultural trivia. I only found out recently why Tolkien so disliked Frank Herbert's Dune. The question has perplexed me for some time, given that both authors are without peer in their respective genres. Although fictional, the scriptwriter of Freud's Last Session obviously did their due diligence in terms of research. Tolkien was indeed a devout Christian, a Catholic, and played a major role in convincing C S Lewis to reconsider his atheism. Tolkien wouldn't have liked Dune's cynicism towards religion, or indeed its specific focus on Islam.
On reflection, he was probably right. Herbert evinced a deep understanding about so many aspects of human nature and society, but on religion he was facile. He failed to make a distinction between between some of the less savoury elements of religion as an institution or memetic structure, and the deeply spiritual core of faith.
The obliviousness of atheism constantly amazes me. The evolutionary biologist has no explanation for music, its development, or its ability to move us. None whatsoever- other than a few insufficient and weak observations about pattern recognition and prosocial bonding mechanisms . This doesn't mean we should blindly accept everything which religion tries to foist upon us- it can often be a Rorschach for our worst instincts. But when religion moves us in the same way that music does, to dizzying heights of joy or sonorous solemnity, we should at least consider that we have found a truth impregnated with the legacy of deep and abiding spiritual wisdom. I'm thinking about writing an essay on the subject.
“The obliviousness of atheism constantly amazes me.” Would love to hear more. I’m a garden variety deist and allergic to organized religion but to dismiss the divine just seems willfully ignorant.
From a purely philosophical and scientific perspective, the most defensible position would have to be agnosticism- almost all attacks on religion consist of either asking the opposition to provide proof or presenting ridiculous strawmen which are then easily dispatched. The belief in a supreme being is not necessarily contingent upon a belief in scripture, even though much of the King James Version drew heavily on the translation of William Tyndale (an inspired source, in terms of the history of English Literature), also a major source of inspiration and occasional pilfering by none other than Shakespeare himself. Indeed, as astounding proportion of English Idioms have their roots in Tyndale.
But that’s literature. Anyway, the more ardent atheists are technically correct. Something cannot be claimed to be scientific knowledge unless it is falsifiable. But most modern believers in the West don’t claim their spiritual beliefs are scientific knowledge. It would be more accurate to state that for most who have spiritual beliefs, it’s more experiential, though not necessarily subjective, given the underlying commonalities to all spiritual experiences, repeated in almost every religious tradition in history, other than a few rejectionist belief systems which seek out the antithesis.
On the deist question, have you considered the possibility that if God exists, he would operate in 4 dimensions? He would thus likely operate more significantly earlier in recorded history.
Anyway, here is an interesting answer from GPT 4.0. It relates to records in Ancient China at around the time of the crucifixion.
‘Yes, there are historical accounts that suggest an unusual solar eclipse may have occurred around the time traditionally associated with the crucifixion of Jesus, though it's debated among scholars. In particular, Chinese records from around 31–33 AD describe phenomena that could have been an eclipse or an unexpected darkening of the sky.
One notable source is the Hou Han Shu ("Book of the Later Han"), which contains records of unusual celestial events, including a "heavenly black" event in 31 AD, described as a darkening of the sky that lasted for hours.’
Here is a translation from Hou Han Shou which describes the interpretation of the event.
"Yin and Yang have mistakenly switched, and the sun and moon were eclipsed. The sins of all the people are now on one man. Pardon is proclaimed to all under Heaven."
Interesting but I can’t claim to understand what it means
Well, if you're familiar with the story of Jesus on the cross, as he died, the sky supposedly blackened, like night, as a sign of God's anger. These ancient Chinese court records from the time, support the contention that not only might these events have taken place in China, half a continent away, but also that the Court Astrologers correctly predicted the cause of events- even though they wouldn't have had any direct knowledge of Jesus.
Anyway, I just mentioned it as a strange historical coincidence. I don't make any claims on the matter.
I think you just did.
I probably should have said claims as to its deeper meaning. The veracity of the historical source is well-established, although it’s been pointed out the timing of the event may not have been around the time of the death of Jesus. The Chinese records are easy to place in their historical moment. The Ancient Chinese kept meticulous records. Although we have proof of the life of Jesus and his death by crucifixion, the exact timing is a little less exact.
We can’t be sure the darkening of the skies over China occurred immediately following the death of Jesus.
We know Ed really well, built his home in Colorado. He is so talented, a good person. Politically we are on 2 different planets though as he is a liberal jew living in lala land and we are conservatives living in paradise. I wonder if he could vote for Kamala?
That’s amazing. When you see him, kindly give him my regards.
I would like to mention Conrad’s critique of liberalism “Heart of Darkness”. It has been plastered over by lit crit paens to its imaginative and groundbreaking structure, before of course it got skewered by ignorant but politically correct misreadings. But its message still stands: Beware the lightbringers of progress!
It’s sad that there’s never been a great movie version. Yes, I know that Apocalypse Now was a modern retelling, but as for the actual film it hasn’t been done. Zwick would actually be a good choice to direct, come to think of it.
I am really enjoying these essays from you, and as I am a huge fan of The Last Samurai you brought up some excellent points that I hadn't considered, and now I want to go back and rewatch.
This is my favorite Tom Cruise movie. Maverick was excellent, but this was really a great role where Cruise submerged himself in the character. As young blood I trained Aikido for 10 years, and Cruise and the film portrayed the mindset and the act of stilling the mind to sense the vectors of attack as an observer, almost as though dying to the peril as the mind calms. The bushido and walking the path to dispel fear of death was excellent, and Cruise / Algren's growth as he learned to master his demons and fear is paced well. This evolution makes the action sequences all the more compelling.
Going to get really weird on you and add some Ian Flemming ala Bond: You only live twice, once when you are born and once when you stare death in the face. It's in those moments for death and struggle that Algren fully lives, and yet to reach that point much of his pain and his western thinking had to die and fall away.
While I said this is my favorite movie with Cruise, I am a huge fan of Maverick, as that movie is about the old wolf with yet some fangs left, coming to terms with his failings. In light of what you are doing with these types of essays I'd love to see your interpretation of that movie and it's themes. It was a far different movie than what I expected, and in my opinion far better than the original. There was a sadness to it as well, like the bittersweet realizations of life's twists as one ages.
Anyway, these have been really enjoyable, and inspiring. Gives me some ideas.
I’m glad you enjoyed it. Cruise really is underrated. He puts an enormous physical energy into all of his roles.
I maintain that his greatest moment was the ending of Tropic Thunder.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1EAEQnZiYVU
I once jested, "This is The Donald after every rally." I think that joke lands whether you love him or hate him. ^_^
“The Free win even in death.”
Your excellent essay recovers my hope that there will be some capacity of redemption to come from the ashes of burning Babylon to the ground.
I remember watching Glory in history class in middle school, and The Last Samurai a few years later in the theater with a friend--and not really getting either of them. Something about these themes went over my teenage head. The depth didn't click. But there was something about them that resonated, more than the battles (or Ken Watanabe's acting, and the ninja invasion scene from the latter, both artistic features that stood out). It's interesting looking back on them now. It's interesting to think that a movie like The Matrix, from the same time period, is the one that philosophically and ethically and aesthetically resonated in my teenage brain--and with many teenage and nonteenage brains--but also still resonates deeply with me and with many people today. I still think the Matrix is great art, and that it may continue to age well. I'm not convinced that all great art is right wing. This is an interesting claim, though. It seems maybe connected to the Camille Paglia school of thinking about art. Is The Magic Mountain right wing? The Matrix? Citizen Kane? East of Eden? Chekhov, Gogol? What about visual art, paintings like--The Garden of Earthly Delights? I'm starting to lose the thread. I guess my point is: great art straddles all "wings" and amalgamates varieties of beliefs present at the context of the time it is created. Something like that. Anyway. You can counter this argument. I think Glory and The Last Samurai are great, and they may be highly mature works of art in their Greatness. Reading about them again now I think I may see more in them, and so thank for writing this essay. It's piqued my interest to revisit both of them in light of the present moment. Well said and written. But at the same time, these movies fell short of capturing my younger imagination in its totality despite being curious and interested in their artistic representations of reality. Also, they seem not to have aged well, generally. Is this a feature of the liberal, progress-obsessed time we live in? Or is it that they missed capturing a certain totality that great art captures? I've grown a lot since then, but in that sense, I suspect they lacked some qualities of "great art."
In this model of right vs left, right is objectively true, while left is a rebellion/reaction against right.
In that frame: all great art says something true about life and reality. All that is in accord with reality is right wing, therefore all great art is right wing.
Yes this whole discussion hinges on the definition of right wing. Which I don’t subscribe to myself yet believe this essay is a valuable take, especially given the moment.
This is true.
On the other hand, I am also considering works of literature like The Brothers Karamazov/Crime and Punishment, The Magic Mountain, Grapes of Wrath/East of Eden, and (maybe) War and Peace and other works by Tolstoy, among other Russian authors--what's going in these works of literature is something like a "cast" of characters struggling with ethical and political issues from all realms of the spectrum. For example, in The Magic Mountain there's a series of dialogues between a Nietzsche-like character and an "Enlightenment/progress/rational world" type character. Their conversations unsettle all the other characters, from patients to doctors, who all have their own thoughts and feelings.
My examples above, yes, this represents kind of a rebellion/reaction to art. I kind of just listed things popping into my head.
The Matrix is a cinematic masterpiece in a long tradition of technologically anxious art, from Metropolis to Brave New World/1984. These aren't Renaissance masterpieces but commentary, I suppose, about the industrial paradigm we've been in since the 19th century. Are they great, or just good?
There's a certain kind of "Statue of Apollo" style of art that points towards the aspiration of order of the human Spirit, and soul.
There's also (I don't want to call it Dionysian) messy art--perhaps less "Great" but still crucial to society--that I think the authors above wrote in those novels. I'm not sure how to fit in any of the Russian literature giants, but I suppose they fit in somewhere--were they mostly on the right? Tolstoy strikes me as a left-leaning person when he talks about Christianity. Perhaps Picasso and John William Waterhouse, and other pagan/symbolist/myth-interested and Romantic, and experimental painters can fit into this vast category of not-right good art. Guernica is pretty good, and true, and real. But it's something else, neither right nor left. I suppose.
This is absolutely top-notch writing - in the top 5 movie reviews/cinematic analyses I've ever read. I would read an entire substack devoted to nothing but movie reviews by you.
Thank you very much. If you scroll through my posts, I have some others.
Can't agree with the attacks here on Liberalism, and its imperialism--from 1776 on, apparently! For one thing, no Liberalism, no Lincoln, slavey remains and expands, and no Glory. For another, it's 2024, sir, and our stand for freedom of speech must be Liberal in part. So this is where my conservativism part ways with your monarchism, or whatever it is. See my very latest, or my big essay on how to understand conservatism, "Conservatism in Relation to Perennial Wisdom." https://substack.com/home/post/p-124186033
That said, a wonderful work-of-art essay, just perfect.
It’s amazing how that pesky reality always seems to be required to tell good stories.
Beautiful peice! Some of my favourite movies, and so well explained.
Once again, unearthing new layers to classic movies! I especially related to the defeat of Liberalism in the soul, since that was my experience of the Culture War -- hairline fractures in my worldview splintered and shattered, as I was confronted with one outrageous absurdity after another. My personal conversion won't save the West, but every bit counts.
What superb insight, Librarian. I had never been interested in watching either of these films, assuming them to be the usual studio fodder. I will now seek them out keenly, not least to better understand your concept (all great art is rightist) - though instinctively I know you are correct.
I've never seen those films in that light before, thank you.