Replaying the Past Decade as a Scripted Rise of the Underdog Movie

As someone who lives for and through movies, it will come as not much of a stretch for me to assume that life may be an epic movie itself. I have written a few posts on films and filmmaking and have previously compared teaching to directing especially in relation to content, theme, and pacing so why not expand it all and include the rather tumultuous past decade of ours.

It is merely meant as an exercise, a thought experiment of sorts and not meant as disrespect nor parody and certainly not mockery. Various issues mentioned here have been a source of pain and suffering and I think this needs to be acknowledged and stated explicitly, especially in these volatile, excessively politically correct times of ours.

No harm nor ill will is intended but rather an open and flexible mind with a certain amount of playfulness is requested. I have refrained from using actual names, but it should be clear enough to most readers who it is referred to in each of these situations. It is recommended to distance oneself and to view and consider these issues and matters from a different angle and perspective and to allow for thinking outside of the box albeit there may or may not be some social and political commentary or asides embedded here.

So here it goes, starting off with a rhetorical question: What if the past decade were a scripted movie? What would be its genre, and would you consider it badly or rather well-scripted, sloppily, or carefully constructed? And more importantly, what would be its theme? I will not dive into my personal life with its unprecedented level of drama and upheaval including moments of comedy and irony, both of the intentional and the unintentional kind, but rather I want to look at more national and occasionally global events from and through this prism.

Leaving aside any potential author, be it God, the universe, evolution, regression, or just randomly strung and woven moments of sheer luck mixed with karma, let us look at certain groundbreaking and shapeshifting events. Most of my outlook is focused squarely on what has been going on in North America, and more precisely United States, but again, these do or did have worldwide ripples, effects, and repercussions.

I put the starting point a bit further past the needle of the decade, namely the historic moment in which a black man became the first American president eerily materializing a statement or wish made forty years earlier by another presidential candidate. What should have been a moment and occasion of joy and celebration for everyone was unfortunately marred by certain people who strongly objected to this. Add to it, a personal background and dimension for a man with distinguishable hair who was made fun of and did not take it lightly and who then started his own push and drive toward the presidency.

A given amount of order was then upturned by chaos. This is not necessarily a political statement, but we suddenly had a reality show host with practically no political experience really and actually become the president of a global superpower. Other previous presidents may not have been seen and considered as being up to par and standard for this distinguished and noble position, yet all this pales immensely in comparison.

Whoever penned this movie not only liked upheaval and dramatic unexpected twists and turns but also favored the noted underdog. In this case, a brash person who spoke before he thought and promised what people loved to hear was quickly propelled to power. When people claimed that it was a stunt or a belated and long-in-the-works prank by the man on the moon, then it did not seem as far-fetched. For the longest time, I was asking myself if this was indeed an elaborate you-have-been-punked show (and part of me is still waiting and hoping).

The events did not go as planned. From the first African American president, the glass ceiling was to be broken with the first woman president. Instead, what trumped was a media circus act mixed with elements of wrestling mania. In retrospect, there is an element of irony if not comedy here. It is certainly a case of innovative writing as no one would have expected it to turn out this way, including the elected man himself who could not have dreamt this up even in his wildest dreams.

Meanwhile, in Eastern Europe, a comedian who played a teacher who accidentally became president of his country and tackled corruption actually decided to run for president. He must have been inspired by the reality show host’s success and must have asked himself, why not, if he can become president, so can I, and what have I got to lose anyhow. And against all odds, or perhaps because people wanted someone new and different and chose the underdog, he was elected.

But the plot thickens. This ex-comedian who was not a career politician and only played one in his show, took this job most seriously even more than a serious-minded politician would. But suddenly, he was faced with one of the biggest moments of crises in world history since the Second World War. The ruler of his powerful neighbor who was generally considered strategical, practical, and even rational, had an unexpected change of heart. His character arc went downhill or berserk, and he acted on purely emotional impulses, grounds, and desires instead of the strategy and reason he was known and lauded for.

The stage and conflict were set between David and Goliath. What should have been a quick military operation of a few days and an overnight win for Goliath turned into a long-lasting and ongoing war. In fact, the novice, the one with practically no political experience ended up being much more up to the task than perhaps anybody else in his country or in the world would have been. What this David lacked in experience and stature, he made up in courage, and again the underdog seemed to have the upper hand or at least has been able to resist in remarkable ways until now.

But that is not where the plethora of underdog stories end. We also have a convicted criminal, addict, and ex-con turning into a saint but more importantly, sparking and becoming the name and the face of a worldwide movement toward much-needed and lacking justice and equality. The burning issue of climate change is not addressed and handled by seasoned experts nor politicians and statesmen who have been decrying it for years as inconvenient truths or upcoming and impending global disasters but instead, we get an emotional hot-headed emotionally unbalanced teen who does not mince words and chastises world leaders for their lack of action and their hypocrisy.

And what about those voices who had not been heard since what amounts to time immemorial? Apart from ethnic minorities, women also rose to the occasion with a movement of resistance that was rather ironically started by a group of privileged Hollywood actresses purporting to represent and speak for all women across the globe.

The pendulum seems to have swung to the other side as women and those who view and define themselves differently have gained a sense of empowerment and have come back resoundingly, their voices even overpowering and drowning those who up to now believed themselves in power and control.

The tables have turned, and some of the victims started using the power of victimization to become the new bullies and perpetrators in this cycle of control and domination. A quasi-biblical lesson and a reminder that we should not judge lest be judged by others and that the first will indeed end up coming last. Religion that considered itself the standard bearer of morality has been upstaged by others who similarly judge, point fingers, and punish but merely not in the name of religion. 

As if these conflicts were not enough on their own, why not throw in a global pandemic for good measure? This is the ultimate lesson of humility for those who think or thought they were in control of things; they were and are not. It was an equalizer of some sort where everyone was touched and affected in one way or another through suffering and ordeals – although even then there were different levels and degrees and certain malpractices and injustices would be revealed in the process.

At the same time, the script underscored the fact that despite some battles still ongoing and the immense amount of pain and suffering both in the past and the present, all things considered, we have weathered various storms, at least for the time being, and largely thanks to innovative science and actions. Although there are clouds on the horizon, we should have the strength and resilience to face the looming challenges but that is the subject and the theme of another movie (the sequel?) yet to be made.

The Hubris of Human Thought Vis-à-Vis The Existence of God

Do you believe in God? This is a common question we ask others or, in turn, we get asked by others. It is posed as a yes-or-no question. Some evade a direct answer by claiming to be agnostic, which is practically a different way of asking the pointed rhetorical question Who knows?

As a matter of fact, the only one who would know in this case would be God Almighty Himself but then that gets us entangled logically and semantically since God would only know whether He exists if He did exist and if God did not exist, then how could He know that He does not exist? It is like asking the question of whether you are asleep. No response could mean yes or simple annoyance with the silly question followed by the request just let me go to sleep, will you?

Cogito ergo sum. Our thinking and the capacity or lack thereof define whether we exist, or ipso facto, do not exist. This comes at the expense of feelings, which do not seem to matter here. Feelings can create doubt or incertitude whereas cold rational thinking is more rock solid in comparison. At the same time, this stance could also exclude a large portion of sentient beings. In fact, Descartes did not think (!) or believe that animals had reasoning capabilities or a soul for that matter. But he was and is wrong, and hamsters do have souls.

To the degree that Descartes underestimated human and animal capabilities, we have the unfortunate tendency of overestimating our own. Nowhere is this hubris clearer than when it comes to the discussion on the existence or non-existence of God. The question of whether there is a power higher than our own ends up boiling down to our own personal judgment and opinion. I believe so, and poof! God comes into existence, while the I don’t think so comment would just as quickly and easily believe and evaporate Him out of existence.

In existentialism, we often associate and equate meaning with one’s own personal view of what is meaningful and relevant to one’s core self and being. Meaning can take unique shapes, forms, and hues according to one’s desires, wishes, and belief systems. But it is quite a step and a steep jump when it comes to divine matters. If a belief in God is in fact wishful thinking, or worse, pure fantasy, then Freud would be absolutely right about projecting the ultimate father figure up there into the heavenly spheres.

But the fact remains that if God did exist, He would do so regardless of whether we believe in him or not. It would be a fact not contingent or dependent upon one’s personal belief system or convenience. For the longest time, we (including yours truly) used to judge people who believed in the existence of aliens rather harshly but by the looks and current appearance of it, the facts and evidence seem to be heading in their favor and direction. Worse, we went through a phase where belief and denial went headstrong against science when some opinionated people, perhaps to this day, held onto the belief that COVID did not exist. And further left afield, there are those who claim that the Earth is flat.

But their rejection of the disease did not simply make it vanish away nor does believing the Earth to be flat actually make it so in reality. It comes down to a simple matter of whether God or a higher power exists or does not exist. God, unlike Schrodinger’s unfortunate cat, cannot simply exist for some who believe in Him and at the same time not for others. Of course, there is also the possible outcome that God does not exist, which comes then with the charged claim that billions of people are not only wrong and misguided but downright delusional as they are simply praying into the void.

But facts are facts, and they should not be swayed or influenced by popular opinion, sentiment, or passion. It is certainly possible that God does not exist, but I think science if it is a science and not a dogmatic religion and if it does follow and abide by its own credo and criteria then at least under current knowledge and circumstances, science would not be able to prove without any doubt that there is no Creator or higher power so-to-speak. The hypothesis of the Big Bang can explain and account for what comes after the creation of the universe but not what came before it. Scientists are still puzzling over what was before the Big Bang or before time was born. Poetry seems to come much closer to the truth in this case, but poetry is elusive and a slippery slope for the logical mind.

But how could we know for sure that God does exist? Why do so many around the world claim and swear by it? We enter the realm of intuition and gut feeling combined with personal experiences of the paranormal that tend to be rather hard to verify and prove to those who do not believe this to be true. How to explain to someone what chocolate ice cream tastes and feels like if they have never had chocolate or ice cream before.

Just trust me is all that we could say here. In fact, we are asked to either bet on God’s existence, a kind of blind but cautious wager à la Pascal or to just hold our breath, close our eyes and take a leap of faith as Kierkegaard and others would suggest (please note that the leap is only figurative and never literal).

Existentially and essentially, there is this gap left by the void of God and so we look for ways of filling it with close-enough substitutes. Ironically, that could be science as well. Although Freud vehemently denied and decried the existence of the otherworldly or the mystical, we have his once protégé and projected successor later turned persona-non-grata Otto Rank who underscored the importance of the psyche in the field of psychology. Rank so wanted to believe in a soul but never seemed to fully accept and embrace the idea, something that felt and came more naturally to the more psychic-oriented, “spiritually” inclined Carl Gustav Jung.

And yet essentially, the question is the same. We either have a soul or we do not, and if we do, then denying or rejecting that we have a soul does not make it any less so. If you deny having a body, you would be seen as irrational and delusional, but it is more easily acceptable to deny the soul. We say we are more materialistic in outlook believing our own eyes and only what we can see, and yet, we live in a world where there are wireless devices that connect to invisible sources operated by unseen electromagnetic waves, not to mention the enigmatic and paradoxical and inherently entangled and bundled (not to say messed up) world of quantum physics.

But what would account for proof and evidence of God’s existence and presence? Then again, if God exists in my worldview only when, whenever, and as long as He makes my wishes and desires come true, then that would mean that He would not and does not exist if and when my prayers and wishes are not answered and are left hanging and dangling in the void. Again, the hubris of it all is that we would have the power to will or not will God into existence as long as He fulfills our will and demand or does not fulfill them. Put differently, God exists as long as He is on my side; if bad things happen to me, such as my prayers being left unanswered, then He must not exist. We are back at Square One.

Let me retrace my steps. This question about God’s existence independent of our belief in him came to me when watching Kiarostami’s movie Ten. In one of the segments, a young love-stricken woman was asking or pleading with God to unite her with her lover. He did not.

I then assumed that she would be angered and even doubt His existence because her wish had not been granted. But no, what if God did purposely not respond to her will and actually went against it. What if His will being done did not include the wishes and desires of this young female. If you prefer a more generic term, what if the universe did not give you what you asked for, does that mean that the universe did not exist?

Some would say that God acts in mysterious ways that are not always reasonable or fathomable or even logical to human minds. Although that seems to be the easy way out of a difficult dilemma and conundrum, which would also entail and assuage the problem of evil or which one was first, the chicken or the egg, there seems to be some uncomfortable and inconvenient truth to it all.

At least when seen and looked at from the human perspective. We would then not be as powerful as we think we are, nor are we immortal. It clips the wings of our flight and exposes the hubris we have created after our many discoveries and accomplishments. Instead of being the one who decides whether God may or may not live, we could attain a certain humility about it all and not just claim ignorance or lack of knowledge but openly state that despite all our knowledge and wisdom, there are certain things that we do not know and acknowledge our limitations. This does not make us less as we continue swirling around on a tiny orb in an endless expansive universe.

From Love and Anarchy to Prizzi’s Honor: When Politics, Romance and Family Collide

As a film buff, it was about time for me to finally enter the wonderful world of Lina Wertmuller. My entry of choice was her classic Love And Anarchy and I was left very much impressed. Although Fellinesque in outlook and style, the focus here is more political in nature. Essentially, it is exactly about the concepts mentioned in the title (at least in its abbreviated one), namely the complex intersection between following one’s heart and opting for radical and dangerous political action. The stakes are high because it is set in Fascist Italy and political opinions and choices do carry a death sentence with them. The original subtitle “this morning at 10, in via dei Fiori, in the well-known brothel” adds more context by clarifying and narrowing down the setting in terms of its physical location.

In this film, Tunin is sent by anarchists on a mission to kill Benito Mussolini and he receives help from the influential prostitute Salome who knows (in the biblical sense) various members of the political elite including the guard responsible for the dictator’s security trail. With the inside scoop and details combined with sharpshooting skills of Tunin, this looks like the perfect team to carry out and execute the assassination plot.

And yet, it gets messy. Tunin is internally struggling with the fact that this event could and would most likely and most probably lead to his death. But he is driven by a desire for revenge. This is briefly shown and alluded to at the inception of the film where Tunin is visited by an older friend who tells him of his plan to free the people by killing the ruling dictator but later ends up being killed by the military. This enrages Tunin, and he sets out to exact revenge on the main and principal source and agent at the top, Mussolini the head of state himself.

In the brothel, he is aided and guided by Salome who has not only her own vendetta, that is, the death of her to-be husband but also her intense personal hatred towards the Fascists. From the onset, Tunin, on the other hand, is less driven by elaborate political ideology but rather it becomes a matter of personal importance to him. His friend should not have died in vain. When Tunin ends up falling in love with Tripolina, one of the working prostitutes, he finds himself in a conflict between his desire for love and his desire for loyalty and vengeance.

This is intensified by his upbringing as simple and average-looking country folk with freckles and very limited experience in terms of love and lovemaking. At the same time, Tripolina herself has had her own share of suffering, and as a sex worker, she seems to have given up any hope of love and romance. Deep inside, she feels not worthy of love and so is confounded by this unusual and unexpected attention that she receives from Tunin who is not solely interested in her body but also in her mind, soul, and overall well-being. and happiness.

As she finally lets down her guard, she becomes vulnerable, as does he in the name of love. In a moving scene, Tunin who has lost his head and heart to this young woman shows up one morning burning with jealousy and pushes away one of Tripolina’s prospective clients while agreeing to pay the brothel owner to be and spend time with his beloved during her regular working hours. In this way, he prevents her from being with someone or anyone else. Tripolina then asks for two days off as they are planning to spend some time together. She does not know yet what is awaiting her at the end of this brief vacation.

As they spend time together roaming the city, walking through parks, and dining at restaurants, she is spotted by one of her customers. He makes fun of their innocent romantic date and then he lets his female companions know about them, and they whisper and gossip about this seemingly odd couple. It makes them very uncomfortable and hinders them from enjoying their otherwise beautiful and wonderful time together.

Tormented by feelings of guilt but also worried about impending death, Tunin then confesses his secret plan to her. As Tripolina unlike Salome tends to be much less interested in political affairs, she wants to preserve their romance; if that is essentially doomed, then at the very least she wants to save the life of her beloved. She is unwavering in this and after spending their final night together, she decides not to wake him up on the ill-fated morning of destiny when he is supposed to go out and kill.

I believe I have spoiled enough of the movie already and will not give away the ending, but I believe it underscores the conflict between love (the heart and passion) and anarchy (the head, anger, resentment, and supposed and anticipated liberation). The film is not condemning but rather justifying progressive politics, but it is reminding us that it often comes at a personal cost and sacrifice, including one’s own life and the lives of those who love us.

In the context of a dictatorship, it also has a moral underpinning to stand up and fight for one’s rights and human rights and personal freedom in general. And yet, the question that the film will leave you with is not whether the means justify the aim but whether it is worth sacrificing human lives for that aim. I have written about this at an earlier date, and you are free to read it here.

I think that human lives are worth more than causes or political outcomes, but I am aware that there are extreme times when one is called upon to fight or defend oneself and one’s loved ones. But if that is the case, it should be done not on a whim but with a full understanding of the seriousness and gravity of the situation and the consequences they would entail, not only personally but also the effects it would have on family, friends, and lovers. Tunin’s decision though seemingly selfless is at the same time selfish as it does not take into account the feelings, needs, and desires of Tripolina. Then there is the whole issue of anarchy, which is not, as is commonly believed, a form and expression of freedom but rather a different and more haphazard form of violence and tyranny, but more on this elsewhere.

Now let’s move on to the second bill: John Huston’s bizarre black comedy Prizzi’s Honor. This movie is about a mob world that would feel at home within the vicinities of The Godfather. From the start, we have a pledge to family and loyalty that is tied with honor and comes with protection. Jack Nicholson plays hitman Charley Partanna who is good and very efficient at his job until he meets Irene Walker (if that is indeed her real name) played by Kathleen Turner, and he falls head over heels in love with her. As this stormy and intense relationship appears to be reciprocated, they even talk about impending marriage and, in fact, follow up on the impulse to do so.

But Charley does not know that she is in fact a hired assassin as well. She has conned and robbed the Prizzi family of a substantial amount of money mainly due to her attractive looks but of course also due to her street-savvy smarts. Yet, one thing is clear: she is certainly not in the mobster’s good books. So there is obvious reluctance and resistance to accepting her into the family. As a matter of fact, Charley is later tasked to kill her for the good of and in the name of the family. At the same time, she has been hired by another source within the same family to kill Charley, and she is promised to be paid handsomely for it.

While this plays out as a pitch-dark comedy, it is far from the light and playful mood that accompanied movies like Mr. and Mrs. Smith nor does it have the satirical, hysterical, and vitriolic excesses of The War of the Roses. In some sense, Prizzi’s Honor, which is based on a novel, has a rather serious tone and underpinning underneath it all. Although the characters are important and are generally well-drawn, it is the theme of honor that pervades it all.

How much would you be able and willing to do for honor and to preserve family name and reputation? Would you be ready to kill for honor? In fact, at the beginning of the film, we meet a so-called dishonorable person, the wonderful Anjelica Huston as Maerose Prizzi in what may be her best role as the rejected mob daughter. She is Charley’s ex, but while they were together, she cheated on him with another guy and even lived with him “in sin”.

For a traditional Catholic family, this is unforgivable, so she has basically been not only dishonored but also disowned and disenfranchised at least from the point of view of her family. Her father will not even acknowledge her existence, let alone talk to her or accept and forgive her. At first, she is struggling to get his attention. Ironically, it is family loyalty and gentle but insistent and firm pressure from other mobsters that make him reconsider forgiving his daughter and letting her enter the family circle again.

And yet, she is not as innocent after all. She gets involved in her own type of personal vendetta in which both her father and her ex-husband are topping her list. The ending is in line with the whole movie itself by being bizarre and unexpected. It may or may not be satisfying for the viewer, but it shows and underscores how we can all get ensnared in different ideas and ideologies and that we may lose our will if not our mind in the process and along the way.

How important is honor in one’s life and to what extent does it guide our actions and decisions? And what is meant by honor? I believe that honor is quite different from dignity, and yet, the two can often be confounded. Dignity is something that we all have and should have, and it must be respected; it is a human right based on equality simply by the act of being a living sentient being and deserving to be treated as one no matter who we are or what we have done.

Yet honor is a more elusive and slippery concept, and, in many cases, I believe that it can stray and delude us and even misguide us. At times, not unlike pride, it can be used for good but it can also swerve and sway into arrogance and hubris. For instance, sex before marriage was and is still frowned upon by many cultures and traditions. The virginity of a female (but conversely not of a male) would then be considered a disgrace to a family’s honor and reputation. So much so that young girls have been banned and even killed because of it, a distorted practice referred to as honor killing. It goes without saying that there is no honor in killing.

Yet, at the same time, we are told to honor our commitments, duties, and parents. But what if what our society, parents, and communities are telling us goes against what we are and who we would like to be? What if we choose love over obligation, duty, and honor and go against the norms of our society and culture? What if we always say yes to love and hold it up as the ultimate guideline for all our decisions? We may condemn Romeo and Juliet for going against their respective families’ wishes and desires, but did they not end up bringing about peace to futile fighting and strife and becoming a symbol of eternal and doomed love everywhere? In the end, we must choose what matters most to us and to our lives.