Manderlay, I always wanted to write about it
I’m into Lars Von Trier’s movies last few days. First with Dear Wendy, then The boss of it all and yesterday I was watching Manderlay together with a girlfriend.
It wasn’t the first time that I saw the movie; I think the third time or something. But I’m still convinced that the movie is even better than Dogville, about which I wrote a few years ago that it’s the best movie I ever saw.
Don’t listen to the U.S. critics. In their struggle not to see the world from a U.S. point of view, they don’t understand what it’s about (it’s not really about slavery). I guess Lars Von Trier carefully selects his audience.
The movie Manderlay, like Dogville, has a (hidden) morality. Even more than Dogville, which is basically about the moral necessity of assertiveness, is Manderlay a movie that tries to make you think. In my case about the failure of only using assertiveness to educate people (about) a new reality. Also about the failure of using democratic voting for every issue (ownership of a tool). And about the necessity of a law system: no matter how moral, or, immoral; it’s still better than absolute freedom - people need a law -. But with “freedom” being some sort of piece of shit ideological word among many readers of my blog, I’m sure many wont understand what I mean with that. I try to carefully select my audience. I’m not against “freedom”, just against its naive interpretations. Especially the “anarchy”-ones.
So Manderlay dances with the morals in Dogville. Both movies are part of a trilogy, so I guess that makes sense.
I’m grateful that Lars carefully selects his audience. You don’t create art by appeasement.
Looking forward to Wasington, the last part of this trilogy.
July 22nd, 2010 at 5:45 pm
I agree any self-described anarchists are naive.
However anarchy means “no rulers.” Do you think there should be rulers? Would you like to be the ruler, or do you need to be ruled?
Anarchy
“A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder.) But is bound by a social code.”[2]
The social code is, of course: don’t hurt, don’t steal, and if you do someone wrong, make amends to their satisfaction. Sounds terrible.
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:54 pm
@big A: yes, I think there should be rules (and a ruler). Because our species has not evolved enough to be left without. Answering your question I would not like to be the ruler, I think I’m not smart enough to be a ruler.
If not hurting somebody is a social rule, then I wonder how one of two partners can ever break up a relationship without breaking that rule? What about the use-case where one of the two doesn’t love the other anymore? How does “the social rule” deal with that? How does it deal with real-estate ownership of two former lovers? How does it deal with the kids? It doesn’t at all, or does it? How? And is that “how” still the lawless anarchy that anarchy portrays?
You see, even for the most common emotional thing in life (it is the most common, isn’t it?), that “social rule” is inadequate & incomplete. It’s a naive person’s utopia. Infinite reduction of the problem doesn’t mean the problem is solved. It just means the problem is infinitely reduced (without said reduction having any meaning, any meaning whatsoever).
Given that the “social rule” doesn’t deal with the “most common emotional thing” in life, I conclude that this “social rule” is garbage. Any “social rule” should at least take into account the most common social problems (you can expand “lovers” to “best friends”, too).
What it comes down to is that you cannot not hurt anybody and still be alive (and yet not be a robot). It’s impossible. So this part makes anarchism’s “social rule” impractical and utopian.
Among other things does this state of being require laws and rules. And this renders anarchy naive (and you can expand this to multiple domains, not just the social and/or emotional ones).
Back to zero (at least for the anarchists).