"Soylent Green," and Hope and Despair
Last night, I watched the Charles Heston movie, "Soylent Green". It is a good movie, and well acted and well-made, but a dark commentary on human nature a la Thomas Hardy. Google describes a book called, The Pessimism of Thomas Hardy, by G. W. Sherman, as follows: "Explains the social reasons for Thomas Hardy's consistent pessimism expressed in all his major works. The author contends that this came from the failure of bourgeois society to correct the anachronisms in the social machinery of the day."
Without giving away the plot, I'd like to make some observations.
The movie cheapens women to the level of property and glorifies human trafficking in the form of long-term objects of on-demand sexual gratification. The Bible says that what is desirable in a man is his kindness. This is clearly demonstrated in the interactions of the main male character and the main female character, although his level of kindness is rough by degrees -- and most people would not describe the man as kind. The movie describes a time when the world is a hell-hole because of overpopulation, global warming, and over-consumption of resources; where jobs are scarce and actual food is scarcer. At one point, the main male character admonishes the main female character to stay in an unsavory situation because of the benefits she will receive (implied that which he will never be able to provide).
The movie portrays what would in all cases be mass desperation, humanly speaking, in a less than desperate light . . . possibly because the needs of the populace were still being met by the government -- to an extent. The Bible describes a time, not yet, where most people's love will grow cold, where everyone will do what is right in their own eyes, and where the cost of living will be exorbitant. In my mind, this will have to do with loss of hope and with despair (at least despairing of good, or good in others).
This is what society eventually becomes without God -- an every man for himself scenario that cheapens life -- especially once the chips are down. Desperation without morals leads to doing what is right in your own eyes, to ensure your own survival. In this case, the movie portrays a positive that is also true of human nature: the kindness of the main male character decreases the desperation in the main female character and leads to hope. Indeed, up to a point in the movie, it is the female characters who have stable living situations that have the least cynicism (by degrees). They gladly act as "Furniture", without giving it second thought . . . until the kindness of the main male character provides sharp contrast to the nastiness of the others. The presence of light exposes darkness, as it says in the biblical book of Ephesians.
Hope informs our actions. The movie makes this clear as well. Once hope is lost, desperation has full sway and cynicism of the people becomes the norm. In that sense, the movie portrays what happens to people when the one thing that is making life bearable (in this case, a constant source of affordable food) is for naught.
But the movie also portrays -- again, in lighter terms than would actually be the case -- what happens when the government, or some other form of control, steps in and takes the place of human freedom bound by morals, and when corruption leads to opulence at the top (a la Animal Farm) and indifference toward others. Provision using that type of control can only go so far, and it slowly destroys people's souls. People like to malign the rich. However, riches do not have to go down that road, and often they do not -- when obtained as honest gain.
There is a verse in Psalm 32 that talks about seeking God while He may be found -- before problems become so thick you are almost drowning in the consequences of your own actions; before it almost becomes too late. In my mind, the movie describes a scenario where it is almost too late. When the movie ended, I reflected that even if the light did expose the darkness, represented by the main character's struggle throughout the movie, it would have little effect because the systems and structure to fix the situation were not available.
I'm listening to Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom, by Condoleeza Rice, on CD. In it, she describes how events in Russia after/since the fall of the Soviet Union, led to desperation, followed by opening a path for return to autocratic rule, and made it almost impossible for civil institutions to continue to stand as functional units and checks and balances. What will happen to Russia when actions to give a sense of prosperity -- that the people did not have when things were spiraling out of control after the fall of the Soviet Union -- collapse like a house of cards? People need to have something to hope in -- that makes life bearable. The United States is pampered in most places -- we vote people out of office when the economy is not doing well. But could we all agree that placing hope in material success is transient?
The movie provides a small, albeit cynical, contrast between the godless, believers who have lost or are losing their hope, the poor, and those who take comfort in riches. In the end, all suffer the same fate -- loss of hope -- but only those with hope in Heaven die peacefully. In the end, the one person who sustains that hope, loses it in the final seconds of his life. Dark, a la Thomas Hardy, indeed.
The movie also describes the in-between: those who are blissfully unaware of the suffering of those around them, or who maintain their hope based on levels of material comfort, whether or not it is through ill-gotten gains . . . but whose circumstances could change.
Someone I spoke with about the movie described it as a commentary on overpopulation. I look at it as a commentary on hope without God as a foundation: it is transient. I also look at it as a window into the future, but for different reasons -- and not from the standpoint of overpopulation. The Bible describes what happens to society when God is removed -- even if, generally, the society is experiencing material success. But none of us has to turn to the Bible to see what happens to society when actions of the few destroy society and where government control of that society has failed or is failing. Check out Venezuela . . . as stated above, the movie portrays this "in a less than desperate light . . . possibly because the needs of the populace are still being met by the government -- to an extent." Correction: squalor is prevalent in the movie, but the level of desperation in the eyes and hearts of the people is tampered down some and sanitized. For example, in Venezuela, well-educated people are resorting to prostitution to put food on the table.
Beyond all that, does the movie's warning about overpopulation hold sway? Perhaps in that the world's availability for living wages has not kept up with the needs of the populace. For example, I've been told that in India, the number of paying jobs is smaller than the need, which is resulting in an undercurrent of desperation. This would also be true of extended unemployment, but I am referring to something else. Whether or not this is true, in that sense, yes, the movie portrays a reality and is a fair warning. But in my mind, the movie takes overpopulation to an illogical conclusion, although one that might be plausible. Why do I say that? Because history (e.g. Venezuela) has shown that those conditions can exist without overpopulation. Does that mean that the portrayal in the movie is invalid? No. That would be a logical fallacy: ruling out the one because of the presence of the other. However, it is just as much a logical fallacy to state that just because what the movie portrays is plausible given certain conditions (if corruption and greed have sway and society places its hope fully in what is transient), that the conclusion will follow. From the perspective of probabilities Venezuela is a reality; if what is said of India is true, the cause in India would be less overpopulation, and more the possibility that the cost of living has increased. The movie makes the claim that the one causes the other. Perhaps India, with its billion plus people, can still overcome its challenges.
So in my mind, that is the take-away: act before it's too late to address societal ills, but do so with a moral foundation that neither punishes the rich, nor forsakes the poor to their affliction. And shine light on corruption and its effects: famine caused by war or by public policy can be addressed before its effects are so far reaching there is no return. A "Tipping Point" principle probably applies to this.
The Bible describes a time when the center of the world (Mesopotamia and Egypt) were experiencing a severe famine lasting 7 years. In that case, the powers that be had ample warning to prepare and appointed Joseph to make it happen. He spent 14 years administrating over preparations, then administrating over distribution of stores, that saved the Egyptian people even though the measures taken to make that happen were extreme. In that sense, knowing what we know, perhaps some countries have a chance to act in advance to prevent the level of tragedy being seen in Venezuela.
And the amount of work that will be necessary to restore Venezuela, if the current regime is replaced with a regime that puts the needs of its people first, will require an unprecedented level of coordination over time and a willingness to start small after stabilizing the essentials.
You may be aware of the financial difficulties in Puerto Rico prior to the hurricanes in 2017. In the case of natural disasters, like the hurricanes in Puerto Rico, in 2017, perhaps people from that island would describe a need to have sufficient resilience in the financial / civil structures to rebuild after natural catastrophes of that magnitude. What happened in Puerto Rico is an ongoing tragedy.
What could happen in the United States if we do not reduce our national debt?
Should you watch this movie? Yes. But do so with an eye for how it describes human nature; and do so with an eye toward Venezuela and other countries experiencing desperation to different degrees, for different reasons.
Beyond that, consider the role of faith-based hope in God, and the difference it can make in your life -- but from a less than cynical view inherent in Thomas Hardy novels and what is portrayed in the movie.
And remember -- I've read -- that even in the Great Depression, some people managed to maintain their hope and their resilience, and hardy attitudes and ingenuity.
Without giving away the plot, I'd like to make some observations.
The movie cheapens women to the level of property and glorifies human trafficking in the form of long-term objects of on-demand sexual gratification. The Bible says that what is desirable in a man is his kindness. This is clearly demonstrated in the interactions of the main male character and the main female character, although his level of kindness is rough by degrees -- and most people would not describe the man as kind. The movie describes a time when the world is a hell-hole because of overpopulation, global warming, and over-consumption of resources; where jobs are scarce and actual food is scarcer. At one point, the main male character admonishes the main female character to stay in an unsavory situation because of the benefits she will receive (implied that which he will never be able to provide).
The movie portrays what would in all cases be mass desperation, humanly speaking, in a less than desperate light . . . possibly because the needs of the populace were still being met by the government -- to an extent. The Bible describes a time, not yet, where most people's love will grow cold, where everyone will do what is right in their own eyes, and where the cost of living will be exorbitant. In my mind, this will have to do with loss of hope and with despair (at least despairing of good, or good in others).
This is what society eventually becomes without God -- an every man for himself scenario that cheapens life -- especially once the chips are down. Desperation without morals leads to doing what is right in your own eyes, to ensure your own survival. In this case, the movie portrays a positive that is also true of human nature: the kindness of the main male character decreases the desperation in the main female character and leads to hope. Indeed, up to a point in the movie, it is the female characters who have stable living situations that have the least cynicism (by degrees). They gladly act as "Furniture", without giving it second thought . . . until the kindness of the main male character provides sharp contrast to the nastiness of the others. The presence of light exposes darkness, as it says in the biblical book of Ephesians.
Hope informs our actions. The movie makes this clear as well. Once hope is lost, desperation has full sway and cynicism of the people becomes the norm. In that sense, the movie portrays what happens to people when the one thing that is making life bearable (in this case, a constant source of affordable food) is for naught.
But the movie also portrays -- again, in lighter terms than would actually be the case -- what happens when the government, or some other form of control, steps in and takes the place of human freedom bound by morals, and when corruption leads to opulence at the top (a la Animal Farm) and indifference toward others. Provision using that type of control can only go so far, and it slowly destroys people's souls. People like to malign the rich. However, riches do not have to go down that road, and often they do not -- when obtained as honest gain.
There is a verse in Psalm 32 that talks about seeking God while He may be found -- before problems become so thick you are almost drowning in the consequences of your own actions; before it almost becomes too late. In my mind, the movie describes a scenario where it is almost too late. When the movie ended, I reflected that even if the light did expose the darkness, represented by the main character's struggle throughout the movie, it would have little effect because the systems and structure to fix the situation were not available.
I'm listening to Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom, by Condoleeza Rice, on CD. In it, she describes how events in Russia after/since the fall of the Soviet Union, led to desperation, followed by opening a path for return to autocratic rule, and made it almost impossible for civil institutions to continue to stand as functional units and checks and balances. What will happen to Russia when actions to give a sense of prosperity -- that the people did not have when things were spiraling out of control after the fall of the Soviet Union -- collapse like a house of cards? People need to have something to hope in -- that makes life bearable. The United States is pampered in most places -- we vote people out of office when the economy is not doing well. But could we all agree that placing hope in material success is transient?
The movie provides a small, albeit cynical, contrast between the godless, believers who have lost or are losing their hope, the poor, and those who take comfort in riches. In the end, all suffer the same fate -- loss of hope -- but only those with hope in Heaven die peacefully. In the end, the one person who sustains that hope, loses it in the final seconds of his life. Dark, a la Thomas Hardy, indeed.
The movie also describes the in-between: those who are blissfully unaware of the suffering of those around them, or who maintain their hope based on levels of material comfort, whether or not it is through ill-gotten gains . . . but whose circumstances could change.
Someone I spoke with about the movie described it as a commentary on overpopulation. I look at it as a commentary on hope without God as a foundation: it is transient. I also look at it as a window into the future, but for different reasons -- and not from the standpoint of overpopulation. The Bible describes what happens to society when God is removed -- even if, generally, the society is experiencing material success. But none of us has to turn to the Bible to see what happens to society when actions of the few destroy society and where government control of that society has failed or is failing. Check out Venezuela . . . as stated above, the movie portrays this "in a less than desperate light . . . possibly because the needs of the populace are still being met by the government -- to an extent." Correction: squalor is prevalent in the movie, but the level of desperation in the eyes and hearts of the people is tampered down some and sanitized. For example, in Venezuela, well-educated people are resorting to prostitution to put food on the table.
Beyond all that, does the movie's warning about overpopulation hold sway? Perhaps in that the world's availability for living wages has not kept up with the needs of the populace. For example, I've been told that in India, the number of paying jobs is smaller than the need, which is resulting in an undercurrent of desperation. This would also be true of extended unemployment, but I am referring to something else. Whether or not this is true, in that sense, yes, the movie portrays a reality and is a fair warning. But in my mind, the movie takes overpopulation to an illogical conclusion, although one that might be plausible. Why do I say that? Because history (e.g. Venezuela) has shown that those conditions can exist without overpopulation. Does that mean that the portrayal in the movie is invalid? No. That would be a logical fallacy: ruling out the one because of the presence of the other. However, it is just as much a logical fallacy to state that just because what the movie portrays is plausible given certain conditions (if corruption and greed have sway and society places its hope fully in what is transient), that the conclusion will follow. From the perspective of probabilities Venezuela is a reality; if what is said of India is true, the cause in India would be less overpopulation, and more the possibility that the cost of living has increased. The movie makes the claim that the one causes the other. Perhaps India, with its billion plus people, can still overcome its challenges.
So in my mind, that is the take-away: act before it's too late to address societal ills, but do so with a moral foundation that neither punishes the rich, nor forsakes the poor to their affliction. And shine light on corruption and its effects: famine caused by war or by public policy can be addressed before its effects are so far reaching there is no return. A "Tipping Point" principle probably applies to this.
The Bible describes a time when the center of the world (Mesopotamia and Egypt) were experiencing a severe famine lasting 7 years. In that case, the powers that be had ample warning to prepare and appointed Joseph to make it happen. He spent 14 years administrating over preparations, then administrating over distribution of stores, that saved the Egyptian people even though the measures taken to make that happen were extreme. In that sense, knowing what we know, perhaps some countries have a chance to act in advance to prevent the level of tragedy being seen in Venezuela.
And the amount of work that will be necessary to restore Venezuela, if the current regime is replaced with a regime that puts the needs of its people first, will require an unprecedented level of coordination over time and a willingness to start small after stabilizing the essentials.
You may be aware of the financial difficulties in Puerto Rico prior to the hurricanes in 2017. In the case of natural disasters, like the hurricanes in Puerto Rico, in 2017, perhaps people from that island would describe a need to have sufficient resilience in the financial / civil structures to rebuild after natural catastrophes of that magnitude. What happened in Puerto Rico is an ongoing tragedy.
What could happen in the United States if we do not reduce our national debt?
Should you watch this movie? Yes. But do so with an eye for how it describes human nature; and do so with an eye toward Venezuela and other countries experiencing desperation to different degrees, for different reasons.
Beyond that, consider the role of faith-based hope in God, and the difference it can make in your life -- but from a less than cynical view inherent in Thomas Hardy novels and what is portrayed in the movie.
And remember -- I've read -- that even in the Great Depression, some people managed to maintain their hope and their resilience, and hardy attitudes and ingenuity.
posted by The Lamplighter at 2:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home