2dogs
January 14, 2003, 08:55 AM
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/13/01856.shtml
Braveheart or Weakheart?
David C. Stolinsky, M.D.
Monday, Jan. 13, 2003
In the climactic scene of the film "Braveheart," Scottish leader William Wallace as played by Mel Gibson is being tortured to death by the English. The executioner asks if he has any last words, hoping he will beg for mercy and acknowledge the English king.
Instead, with his last breath Wallace shouts "Freedom!"
The film won awards. But it is easy to cheer for a hero from a faraway place and a long-ago time. In cheering for him, we need not form any personal connection to his heroism. We need only feel an emotional "rush" from an exciting image.
But what if the story took place in present-day America? How would the screenplay be written, and how would the film be cast?
First, we would fire Mel Gibson. He is just too gritty, too muscular, and definitely too much of a rebel and a maverick. He exudes a kind of disrespect for authority and for rules in general. If he were an animal, he would be a lone wolf, not a sheep. Such a person would not be thought suitable to portray a modern American.
We would choose someone who was handsome in a softer way than Gibson. His face would be smooth, with no wrinkles suggesting suffering, struggle or even deep thought. He would have spent his time looking at things nearby, so there would be no crows?feet around his eyes from peering into the distance.
His muscles would be well rounded from a fitness program, not stringy and lumpy from actual work. Of course, there would be no scars. Scars would suggest that he believed in anything enough to fight for it.
The hero would have no strong beliefs, so there would be no reason for arguments, much less fights. In the unlikely event a dispute arose, he would not become upset regardless of the reason, because he had attended anger-management workshops.
And with no strong beliefs, there would be no reason to be a rebel. Besides, one does not advance his career by displeasing those in authority, or by sticking with friends who do so.
At school he was taught that religion and patriotism are obsolete, so the chief causes of strong beliefs were removed. And with no God to be the center of his universe, he himself would be the center. But many people would not see this as narcissism, because they have a similar approach to life.
His teachers insisted, "I don't care who started it – you're both going to the principal's office." So he learned to tolerate bullies.
He would have many acquaintances and business associates, but few close friends. He would have married and divorced repeatedly, and probably fathered children by other women as well. Lasting commitments were not his "thing."
Having replaced the star, we would now update the screenplay. The scene would be set in modern-day America, because studio executives would correctly suspect that much of the audience would have learned little history or geography in school, and would therefore have difficulty relating to anyone unlike themselves.
True, they might have had a "multicultural" curriculum, but it would not have included actual knowledge of other cultures.
The basic theme of an oppressive ruler might be retained, but in the form of an evil corporate executive. However, the relation of the hero to the executive would not be one of rebellion, which would be viewed as bad career-wise and therefore unbelievable.
There could be conflict, but in the end it would be resolved amicably. The hero might regain his boss's support by stabbing out-of-favor associates in the back - figuratively, of course. Loyalty also wasn't his "thing."
Of course, there would be no battle scenes or fighting of any kind. The hero would depend on police to protect him from criminals at home, and military personnel to protect him from enemies abroad. Despite this, the hero would look down on his defenders as ignorant Neanderthals. Gratitude wasn't his "thing" either.
But he would conceal his cowardice and apathy under the mantle of nonviolence. He would see himself as too elevated for such a primitive notion as personal responsibility for defending himself and those around him.
In short, the hero would be no hero.
On the personal side, the hero would dump his longtime sweetheart and get the boss's daughter pregnant, but an abortion would solve this trivial problem. The story would end with the hero celebrating his promotion and large bonus in his new luxury townhouse with several scantily clad young women, who of course would be co?workers with equal salaries. Just as he was climaxing with one or more of these beauties, the hero would shout, "Stock options!"
Freedom would not be important enough to him to think about, much less shout about.
This film might not be an Oscar winner, but it would depict characters and situations more in keeping with many modern-day Americans:
Government agents shoot to death Randy Weaver's dog, son and wife (in that order), but few complain.
An unpopular religious cult is surrounded near Waco by government agents, and 84 human beings including 26 children are gassed and burned to death, but few complain.
Six-year-old Elian Gonzalez is found clinging to an inner tube after his mother drowns trying to bring him to America, and he is returned to the communist dictatorship in Cuba at the point of submachine guns, but few complain.
Consumer debt reaches new highs despite the recession, but charitable contributions drop.
Both Republicans and Democrats propose tax cuts and new spending for more government programs, but many people ask only how they will benefit personally.
Universities and businesses decree speech codes, and those who express unpopular ideas are punished, but few complain.
Senate Democratic leader Daschle blames threats to his life on Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk-show hosts, but few protest this blatant attack on free speech.
The crime rate has fallen, but the government tries to disarm law-abiding citizens, and few object.
Many people see themselves as children and the government as a parent, so they expect the government to take care of them and make important decisions for them.
Over 3,000 Americans are crushed and incinerated as airliners crash into office towers, but many believe we should do nothing for fear of provoking more attacks.
There are complaints that security measures taken after 9/11 are decreasing our civil rights. But many of the complainers said nothing about Weaver, Waco, Elian or speech codes. Their concern lacks credibility and seems to be politically motivated.
There are complaints about the living conditions of al-Qaeda detainees. But the complainers are untroubled that many American military personnel live under worse conditions. Their concern lacks credibility and seems to be politically motivated.
Academics and liberals assert that we must follow the Europeans' example in dealing with aggressors, but why we should emulate abject failures is not explained.
Three Democratic congressmen visit Iraq and declare that they trust Saddam Hussein more than they trust President Bush, while a Democratic senator praises bin Laden as a humanitarian. But their party does nothing to repudiate them.
Homicidal dictators develop nuclear, biologic and chemical weapons, but many insist that we should remain submissive and not "cause trouble."
Is it any wonder that the Liberty Bell has cracked?
William Wallace shouting "Freedom!" with his last breath made an exciting scene, but one we have difficulty relating to today. Some of us just don't have the heart for it.
[This article is based on one published in the Sept. 2000 Liberty, and appears by permission.] Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He may be contacted at dcstolinsky@prodigy.net
Braveheart or Weakheart?
David C. Stolinsky, M.D.
Monday, Jan. 13, 2003
In the climactic scene of the film "Braveheart," Scottish leader William Wallace as played by Mel Gibson is being tortured to death by the English. The executioner asks if he has any last words, hoping he will beg for mercy and acknowledge the English king.
Instead, with his last breath Wallace shouts "Freedom!"
The film won awards. But it is easy to cheer for a hero from a faraway place and a long-ago time. In cheering for him, we need not form any personal connection to his heroism. We need only feel an emotional "rush" from an exciting image.
But what if the story took place in present-day America? How would the screenplay be written, and how would the film be cast?
First, we would fire Mel Gibson. He is just too gritty, too muscular, and definitely too much of a rebel and a maverick. He exudes a kind of disrespect for authority and for rules in general. If he were an animal, he would be a lone wolf, not a sheep. Such a person would not be thought suitable to portray a modern American.
We would choose someone who was handsome in a softer way than Gibson. His face would be smooth, with no wrinkles suggesting suffering, struggle or even deep thought. He would have spent his time looking at things nearby, so there would be no crows?feet around his eyes from peering into the distance.
His muscles would be well rounded from a fitness program, not stringy and lumpy from actual work. Of course, there would be no scars. Scars would suggest that he believed in anything enough to fight for it.
The hero would have no strong beliefs, so there would be no reason for arguments, much less fights. In the unlikely event a dispute arose, he would not become upset regardless of the reason, because he had attended anger-management workshops.
And with no strong beliefs, there would be no reason to be a rebel. Besides, one does not advance his career by displeasing those in authority, or by sticking with friends who do so.
At school he was taught that religion and patriotism are obsolete, so the chief causes of strong beliefs were removed. And with no God to be the center of his universe, he himself would be the center. But many people would not see this as narcissism, because they have a similar approach to life.
His teachers insisted, "I don't care who started it – you're both going to the principal's office." So he learned to tolerate bullies.
He would have many acquaintances and business associates, but few close friends. He would have married and divorced repeatedly, and probably fathered children by other women as well. Lasting commitments were not his "thing."
Having replaced the star, we would now update the screenplay. The scene would be set in modern-day America, because studio executives would correctly suspect that much of the audience would have learned little history or geography in school, and would therefore have difficulty relating to anyone unlike themselves.
True, they might have had a "multicultural" curriculum, but it would not have included actual knowledge of other cultures.
The basic theme of an oppressive ruler might be retained, but in the form of an evil corporate executive. However, the relation of the hero to the executive would not be one of rebellion, which would be viewed as bad career-wise and therefore unbelievable.
There could be conflict, but in the end it would be resolved amicably. The hero might regain his boss's support by stabbing out-of-favor associates in the back - figuratively, of course. Loyalty also wasn't his "thing."
Of course, there would be no battle scenes or fighting of any kind. The hero would depend on police to protect him from criminals at home, and military personnel to protect him from enemies abroad. Despite this, the hero would look down on his defenders as ignorant Neanderthals. Gratitude wasn't his "thing" either.
But he would conceal his cowardice and apathy under the mantle of nonviolence. He would see himself as too elevated for such a primitive notion as personal responsibility for defending himself and those around him.
In short, the hero would be no hero.
On the personal side, the hero would dump his longtime sweetheart and get the boss's daughter pregnant, but an abortion would solve this trivial problem. The story would end with the hero celebrating his promotion and large bonus in his new luxury townhouse with several scantily clad young women, who of course would be co?workers with equal salaries. Just as he was climaxing with one or more of these beauties, the hero would shout, "Stock options!"
Freedom would not be important enough to him to think about, much less shout about.
This film might not be an Oscar winner, but it would depict characters and situations more in keeping with many modern-day Americans:
Government agents shoot to death Randy Weaver's dog, son and wife (in that order), but few complain.
An unpopular religious cult is surrounded near Waco by government agents, and 84 human beings including 26 children are gassed and burned to death, but few complain.
Six-year-old Elian Gonzalez is found clinging to an inner tube after his mother drowns trying to bring him to America, and he is returned to the communist dictatorship in Cuba at the point of submachine guns, but few complain.
Consumer debt reaches new highs despite the recession, but charitable contributions drop.
Both Republicans and Democrats propose tax cuts and new spending for more government programs, but many people ask only how they will benefit personally.
Universities and businesses decree speech codes, and those who express unpopular ideas are punished, but few complain.
Senate Democratic leader Daschle blames threats to his life on Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk-show hosts, but few protest this blatant attack on free speech.
The crime rate has fallen, but the government tries to disarm law-abiding citizens, and few object.
Many people see themselves as children and the government as a parent, so they expect the government to take care of them and make important decisions for them.
Over 3,000 Americans are crushed and incinerated as airliners crash into office towers, but many believe we should do nothing for fear of provoking more attacks.
There are complaints that security measures taken after 9/11 are decreasing our civil rights. But many of the complainers said nothing about Weaver, Waco, Elian or speech codes. Their concern lacks credibility and seems to be politically motivated.
There are complaints about the living conditions of al-Qaeda detainees. But the complainers are untroubled that many American military personnel live under worse conditions. Their concern lacks credibility and seems to be politically motivated.
Academics and liberals assert that we must follow the Europeans' example in dealing with aggressors, but why we should emulate abject failures is not explained.
Three Democratic congressmen visit Iraq and declare that they trust Saddam Hussein more than they trust President Bush, while a Democratic senator praises bin Laden as a humanitarian. But their party does nothing to repudiate them.
Homicidal dictators develop nuclear, biologic and chemical weapons, but many insist that we should remain submissive and not "cause trouble."
Is it any wonder that the Liberty Bell has cracked?
William Wallace shouting "Freedom!" with his last breath made an exciting scene, but one we have difficulty relating to today. Some of us just don't have the heart for it.
[This article is based on one published in the Sept. 2000 Liberty, and appears by permission.] Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He may be contacted at dcstolinsky@prodigy.net