Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds is a film never to forget, and on its way to become a cult in the upcoming years. The film has a strong element of satire, and humor is blended inside the plot so well, we have nothing to do but admire the work which consists of unexpected or maybe shocking scenes, subtle messages on contemporary politics and the film industry, and a completely distorted even crooked viewpoint to the history. Although this unconventional point of view may seem like hypocrisy, as Jewish revenge depicted as it is equally be bloody as Nazi deeds, but it can also be seen just as an entertaining fictional movie using the icons of the Second World War.
The historical inaccuracies of this film cannot be examined, for it is made of those inaccuracies. Actually, the film itself is not a typical Tarantino work, since it is dealing with the Second World War, and the director is never known to work on these kinds of war topics. Thus, it is best to talk about the historical background of the film, and how it presents history with sarcasm, dark humor, satire and subliminal messages.
Firstly, within the film, we encounter scenes what we can deem as breaking the fourth wall. A truly remarkable scene at the end, where Shosanna changes the films and switches from a Nazi propaganda movie to a piece of film made by her, which is a statement of punishment, is shown to a theater full of Nazis. Stygian laughs in the burning theater and the image of Shosanna’s face reflected in the smoke are all references to a revenge taken by the Jewish people. The smoke with Shosanna’s face on it can be considered as the spirits of all the Jews who were killed and suffered. The locked burning theater is undoubtedly a parallel to the concentration camps. How those can be deemed as breaking the fourth wall is clear; as it can be seen at the end of the movie, Aldo Raine says that it might be his masterpiece, could very well attributed to the director himself, for the director, with the script and the scenes wanted to get an absolute intellectual and artistic revenge from the Nazis, and in broad sense, racism.
This war and revenge by the movies is the basis of the film. When Lieutenant Hicox is being charged to join the Basterds, he briefly interrogated by Winston Churchill, asking that who Goebbels (who is the propaganda officer and film producer of Hitler) can be a rival of in the Hollywood film industry, Louis B. Mayer or David O. Selznick, two Jewish film producers. The movie inside the film, Nation’s Pride is a propaganda movie and that movie too has its answer when the Bear Jew and Omar kill all the Nazi Party members with machine guns from a “bird’s nest”, as the same words used by the star of the movie, Frederick, who tells Shosanna where he has defended his country and killed nearly three hundred enemies.
Nazis were very well pictured in the movie too. Apart from the extremely picturesque and pathetic Hitler, all characters are well developed and precise. Colonel Hans Landa, a truly remarkable character maintains a new dimension to the movie with cunning, evil but also polite and cultured attitude. Also, the German officer in the shootout scene in the basement French tavern also has cunning and dangerous qualities among his characteristics. A good example how the Nazis see the world is when they play the game of guessing who their characters are by asking questions. After a number of questions, we see that the script is so carefully written, that we think the officer goes straight to the answer, King Kong, but eventually his answer would first be a “negro in America”. This may show that Nazis never saw black people or Jews as more than a mere animal, or a beast that needs to be taken care of. Another example to this can be Landa’s explanation of the Jewish people as rats. They see rats as a nuisance and objects for abhorrence, but there is no visible reason behind it; it is just a state of being of the Nazis.
While the Nazi characters are carefully developed, because of the story of Shosanna, the story does not focus enough on the Basterds. The Bear Jew, Donny Donowitz and Hugo Stiglitz could be unforgettable characters just like Tarantino created in his earlier films, like Jules Winnfield or Mr. Wolf in Pulp Fiction, who both and along many more have become cults, for example Winnfield’s constant quotations from the Book of Ezekiel has become a popular culture figure. The absence of the scenes of these characters can be seen a necessary measure for the film is already too long, but those characters could be worked on for the viewers’ pleasure.
There are several aspects which can be discussed for the film as the points where film does not have success. Firstly, it needs to be stated that a careless mistake has been made. While Hitler talks with the soldier who has been let to live by the Basterds, there is a huge map behind Hitler which contains where the German army and other countries are. There writes Otmanien (Ottomans), in contemporary borders of Turkey. This is either an overlooked mistake or the lack of knowledge.
Moreover, the historical references in the movie are only remotely connected with the real history. While no special Jewish American army groups or brigades served in the Second World War, the British Army had a volunteer Jewish Brigade from the British colony of Palestine. They also had German origin Palestinian Jews and they were very fluent on the German language.
Also, fighting behind the enemy lines in France is not completely fictional. In the same year as the film, 1944, nearly a hundred Jedburgh teams (among a secret operation of Britain and US secret services) were sent to France to create a fear as a part of psychological warfare. However, these Jedburgh teams only consisted of three or four men and they got their training in guerilla warfare.
Alongside the lack of real historical data considering the Second World War, a criticism can be made if we consider American History and how “war” is pictured in this film. An old enemy of Americans is the Native Americans and now the enemy is the radical Islamists for decades. As told by the Americans, this subjective history shows Native Americans as barbarous and primitive savages, who scalp their enemies as a tradition. They do not take prisoners in the war, for that is not in their culture. They make guerilla war, basically. When it comes to the radical Islamists, the most gruesome fact and the most feared thing attributed to them is the suicide bombings, where they have no intention to separate the military and the innocent civilians. In Inglourious Basterds, Jewish American soldiers use all this aspects, what Americans fear and oppose the most.
Basterds scalp their enemies, take no prisoners, and kill people with baseball bat. They literally use the Apache tactic to fight their enemies. Just like the Taliban tried to create a fear and terror by videos of killed American troops, Basterds mark their enemies to create a psychological pressure where they go. In the theater scene of the movie, Basterds decided to send two soldiers with dynamites wrapped around their legs to kill the top Nazi officers and to effectively end the war, just like the radical Islamist suicide bombers, but as it is also stated in the movie, there are not only the army officers, Gestapo or SS; there are also film critics, civilians and actors. The most feared and criticized civilian death is deemed as nothing in this fictional movie.
However it can be seen as a bit exaggeration if we attribute the making of this film to the US as a whole. Tarantino himself talks about the movie as follows: "... despite its being a war film, Inglourious Basterds is my spaghetti western, but with World War II iconography." Therefore this completely fictional and even distorted film cannot be seen as a historical film but as an action thriller, using the characters of the Second World War.
The movie, Inglourious Basterds is a really successfully shot, heavily satirical and humorous, and sentimentally revenge seeking masterpiece-to-be. The inadequacies of the film are not about the cinematography but the way it deals with the material. It can be seen as a mere hypocritical action thriller regarding the Americanization of the history, or a very innovative way to tell a story, using a history told by many people with many films and other medium, in a new and unconventional way. It is better to be seen as the latter one for the film never claimed to be a historical war movie, but an ingenious attempt of entertainment.
27.5.10
4.5.10
Submission, Delusion and Manipulation: The Art of Islam
The world of phenomena and objects are often cannot be seen as what they are, but they are perceived as what previous generations have told it to be. Controversies and challenges to existing values often undermined with learned wrongs. For example, atheists long supported that the image of god and the existence of religion is nothing but mere sedatives and directives of power focuses. Just like every other counterpart throughout the world, Islam in Turkey, like other dominant religions in other countries can be seen like misdirection from certain matters that some interest groups dictated on regular and inadequately educated people.
It would be best to start with the etymologic background of the word, Islam. Although it may be seen like a long shot and an inference can be too literary, it gives a hint to what kind of society that we sociologically grow into. The word, Islam comes from the Arabic root “s-l-m” which means acceptance or submission, not necessarily to god, but a general surrender. Oddly enough, we use the word not only to utter the dominant religion in our country, but we greet each other with a different derivative of this root, “selam”. All in our country use this word to greet each other, either formally or informally. Again, this may seem like a speculation, but saying each other that we submit to the will of someone, or we surrender ourselves into the hands of the people we greet, is a deep scar originated in Turkish language, adapted from Islamic religion.
Turkic people, who are originally from middle Asia, indigenously have Tengriism, a polytheistic religion that originated according to their lifestyles and behaviors. Until the 8th century, Turkic people scattered around the world, either continued to believe in Tengri or assimilated into other religions. 8th century marked a significant event, Battle of Talas, between Arabs (and Turks) and Chinese. With the success of the Arabs, and the cooperation formed in the war, Islam began to expand over Turkic people and culture. Arabs had close bonds with Turks for various reasons, and the question needs to be raised here, why Arabs, specifically Abbasids treated Turks well.
The answers lie within future profits of the Arabs. In the 9th century, a new form of army, Mamluks (also known as Kolemen – which means slave man or owned man) appeared within the ranks of Arabian army. They have gathered immense strength and become a powerful military caste. The military needs of Arabs could only be fulfilled by the decisive Islamic promises. Islam used as a sedative and a way for Memluks to go to heaven, and in return, Arabs ask them to fight Arabic wars for them.
After the battle of Manzikert, the peninsula of Anatolia was ultimately under control of the Seljuq Turks. The decline of the Seljuqs gave way to Ottoman State to be established. The primary goal of the Ottoman State has been to conquer Byzantium and Istanbul. For nearly two hundred years, it has been seen as a “Muslim crusade” and a job that has been given by the prophet Mohammed. The hadith –which means the sayings of Mohammed – about Istanbul is widely spoken at those times, and even it is widely known and revered today’s Turkey is goes like this: “What a beautiful commander who conquered Istanbul, and what a beautiful army who conquered it.” This hadith become a motto while motivating the conquest, and the army. However, while Islam is used to motivate the public again, Sultan Mehmed II has declared himself as Kayser-i Rûm, which means Caesar of Rome. That shows his true intentions are rather becoming a new Roman emperor, and using the words of the prophets is an effective way to do it.
Curiously enough, his grandson, Selim I went to Egypt to get the protectorate of Caliphate. It is hard to believe it is only for the religious matters, but he showed his people that the reason to attack Egypt was to protect the Caliph. However, the riches and the spoils of the war with Mamluks were immense, and there rose questions, that if he used Islam to gather more wealth for Ottomans. After he captured the caliph and put him “under protection”, he has become a savior of the Islamic faith. However the caliph suspiciously surrendered the title caliph to Selim I willingly.
The caliphate has provided many advantages to Ottomans. All Islamic lands and people were somehow under control of Ottoman Empire regarding religious matters; and the sharia (religious law) was the prominent law of that time. Thus, it provides a great power over people. Caliphates have continued until the modern state of Turkey established in 1923. Mustafa Kemal has made an attempt to abolishing caliphate in 1924. Laicism, which also means secularism, was one of the Kemalist ideologies and a blooming modern Turkey. According to Mustafa Kemal’s reformation programs, Islam and therefore the identity of Muslim was belong to Ottoman Empire, and without the caliph, and with a secular system will create a new “Turk” identity.
However, the abolition was a critical and controversial matter. The Islamic faith in Turkey is extraordinarily strong for a secular country, and establishment of secularism in Turkey was not a step-by-step process of separation of church and state like in the West. In the Ottoman Empire, all spheres of life, at least theoretically, had been organized according to sharia, and Sunni religious organizations had been part of the state structure. With abolishing the caliphate, the head of the Islamic faith, the importance of being Muslim in state matters have disappeared, and while religious people found it disturbing, they also tried to sustain their religion in every aspect of the state. That led to confusion in politics, like conservative parties in Turkey have become mostly religion oriented, and they usually exploited common people’s religious beliefs. These religion-oriented parties have more and more dominant in the politic sphere, and conservatism has gained a new meaning in Turkey. They used religious elements for their own benefit, like making the Islamic tradition of wearing turban into a sense of crusade, where women supposed to protect the right to wear a headscarf in public areas and universities, where secular education and life is going on. It became a symbol of freedom for some people, but secularism, which is the foundation of this country, was now endangered.
As told by Karl Marx “religion is the opium of the people.” Throughout the history, we have seen that Islam has affected Turkish people in many ways, but this effect was mostly used by power focuses to gain advantage over people. Thus, Marx’s argument cannot be retaliated; religion is a perfect sedative and also stimulating product of mankind.
It would be best to start with the etymologic background of the word, Islam. Although it may be seen like a long shot and an inference can be too literary, it gives a hint to what kind of society that we sociologically grow into. The word, Islam comes from the Arabic root “s-l-m” which means acceptance or submission, not necessarily to god, but a general surrender. Oddly enough, we use the word not only to utter the dominant religion in our country, but we greet each other with a different derivative of this root, “selam”. All in our country use this word to greet each other, either formally or informally. Again, this may seem like a speculation, but saying each other that we submit to the will of someone, or we surrender ourselves into the hands of the people we greet, is a deep scar originated in Turkish language, adapted from Islamic religion.
Turkic people, who are originally from middle Asia, indigenously have Tengriism, a polytheistic religion that originated according to their lifestyles and behaviors. Until the 8th century, Turkic people scattered around the world, either continued to believe in Tengri or assimilated into other religions. 8th century marked a significant event, Battle of Talas, between Arabs (and Turks) and Chinese. With the success of the Arabs, and the cooperation formed in the war, Islam began to expand over Turkic people and culture. Arabs had close bonds with Turks for various reasons, and the question needs to be raised here, why Arabs, specifically Abbasids treated Turks well.
The answers lie within future profits of the Arabs. In the 9th century, a new form of army, Mamluks (also known as Kolemen – which means slave man or owned man) appeared within the ranks of Arabian army. They have gathered immense strength and become a powerful military caste. The military needs of Arabs could only be fulfilled by the decisive Islamic promises. Islam used as a sedative and a way for Memluks to go to heaven, and in return, Arabs ask them to fight Arabic wars for them.
After the battle of Manzikert, the peninsula of Anatolia was ultimately under control of the Seljuq Turks. The decline of the Seljuqs gave way to Ottoman State to be established. The primary goal of the Ottoman State has been to conquer Byzantium and Istanbul. For nearly two hundred years, it has been seen as a “Muslim crusade” and a job that has been given by the prophet Mohammed. The hadith –which means the sayings of Mohammed – about Istanbul is widely spoken at those times, and even it is widely known and revered today’s Turkey is goes like this: “What a beautiful commander who conquered Istanbul, and what a beautiful army who conquered it.” This hadith become a motto while motivating the conquest, and the army. However, while Islam is used to motivate the public again, Sultan Mehmed II has declared himself as Kayser-i Rûm, which means Caesar of Rome. That shows his true intentions are rather becoming a new Roman emperor, and using the words of the prophets is an effective way to do it.
Curiously enough, his grandson, Selim I went to Egypt to get the protectorate of Caliphate. It is hard to believe it is only for the religious matters, but he showed his people that the reason to attack Egypt was to protect the Caliph. However, the riches and the spoils of the war with Mamluks were immense, and there rose questions, that if he used Islam to gather more wealth for Ottomans. After he captured the caliph and put him “under protection”, he has become a savior of the Islamic faith. However the caliph suspiciously surrendered the title caliph to Selim I willingly.
The caliphate has provided many advantages to Ottomans. All Islamic lands and people were somehow under control of Ottoman Empire regarding religious matters; and the sharia (religious law) was the prominent law of that time. Thus, it provides a great power over people. Caliphates have continued until the modern state of Turkey established in 1923. Mustafa Kemal has made an attempt to abolishing caliphate in 1924. Laicism, which also means secularism, was one of the Kemalist ideologies and a blooming modern Turkey. According to Mustafa Kemal’s reformation programs, Islam and therefore the identity of Muslim was belong to Ottoman Empire, and without the caliph, and with a secular system will create a new “Turk” identity.
However, the abolition was a critical and controversial matter. The Islamic faith in Turkey is extraordinarily strong for a secular country, and establishment of secularism in Turkey was not a step-by-step process of separation of church and state like in the West. In the Ottoman Empire, all spheres of life, at least theoretically, had been organized according to sharia, and Sunni religious organizations had been part of the state structure. With abolishing the caliphate, the head of the Islamic faith, the importance of being Muslim in state matters have disappeared, and while religious people found it disturbing, they also tried to sustain their religion in every aspect of the state. That led to confusion in politics, like conservative parties in Turkey have become mostly religion oriented, and they usually exploited common people’s religious beliefs. These religion-oriented parties have more and more dominant in the politic sphere, and conservatism has gained a new meaning in Turkey. They used religious elements for their own benefit, like making the Islamic tradition of wearing turban into a sense of crusade, where women supposed to protect the right to wear a headscarf in public areas and universities, where secular education and life is going on. It became a symbol of freedom for some people, but secularism, which is the foundation of this country, was now endangered.
As told by Karl Marx “religion is the opium of the people.” Throughout the history, we have seen that Islam has affected Turkish people in many ways, but this effect was mostly used by power focuses to gain advantage over people. Thus, Marx’s argument cannot be retaliated; religion is a perfect sedative and also stimulating product of mankind.
25.3.10
Rome as a Metaphor of Human Mind
In essence, Freud assumes it right that the history of Western civilization is part of our unconscious mental history as well. He uses the terms Eros for love and Thanatos for death, from the Greek Mythology which basically is the foundation of the Western civilization. Freud had an advanced classical education and love of literature, so it is no wonder that this book was abound with analogies. We see clearly in this part of the book, Freud uses many Italic and Latin cultural structures and famous people to maintain the metaphor between a city to human mind (Freud 18).
In this part, Freud relied on the city of Rome to represent the historical birthplace of society, and to explain the bad effects civilization had on the human mind. Rome has been destroyed and rebuilt in the same spot countless times since it has been founded. Rome contains ruins from all previous eras, which are mentioned as metaphors extensively by Freud himself in the book. This allows one to observe every stage of its developmental history and character.
Moreover, for the observation of the development process of human mind, Freud uses Rome as a metaphor. Similar to Rome, our unconscious possess ruins and signs of past, which make up a similar multi-leveled structure of the mind as well. The mind is the safe keep for all of its earlier stages of development and it allows them to coexist with the later stages of development.
Using Rome as the psychological development of mankind takes the interaction of individuals in the society into account, not just the psychological traits of them. Like Rome, different character traits can clash through individual lifelines, and like Goth attacks on Rome, the psyche or our mind may be harmed, but to grow new perceptions and approaches.
Also we can see the metaphor extends until towards the end of the book. While mentioning the sense of guilt, the civilization acts as superego and the ego‘s need of punishment, Freud draws a conclusion by saying that civilization takes the command over individual‘s desire of aggression, by weakening it, “and by setting up an agency within him to watch over it, like a garrison in a conquered city” (Freud 84).
Furthermore, Freud finds another use of this metaphor in the book. He argues that the same space cannot have two distinct structures, but by thinking Rome as a structural representative, we need to put different buildings on one another but in a timely basis. Freud says that we have not yet mastered our characteristics of mental life even to put them in a picturesque manner. Indeed, we would think as the buildings as blurred objects if we think the same spot in a timeline, that still shows us how the respective priorities affect our perception; a blurred building can only mean a respectively less important era of the Rome, and a barely remembered feeling is that less important in human mind.
The mind of a person remains intact on normal circumstances and it learns every time and unlearns or corrects mistakes of itself. This can be compared to a demolition and rebuilding of a city, no real ill effects strike the mind, but a mere reestablishment occurs. Also Freud points out that the destructions which are never lacked in a history of a city can be compared to the serious illnesses. However Freud thinks that a city like London, which hasn’t really suffered a enemy attack cannot be a viable metaphorical device to the human mind. This can be argued as it is said above, even a peaceful human mind, learns and corrects itself, without having ruins in itself; thus a peaceful city will still be suitable.
Also with the third section of the book, we can extend the metaphor even more, that the section argues the paradox of civilization that it is created to protect us from unhappiness but also this protection is a source of discontent. A city is now not the human mind but both the civilization and the social superego that develops with the impositions of the ideals of society.
For the last words, this metaphor establishes an alive understanding of human mind comparing to a city, built and destroyed many times over the centuries. Also it shows that how incompetent we are to depict our mind graphically, and how our perception is still narrow. And lastly, Freud maintains a metaphor so useful, that we can read as anything we like; psyche, superego and the civilization itself.
In this part, Freud relied on the city of Rome to represent the historical birthplace of society, and to explain the bad effects civilization had on the human mind. Rome has been destroyed and rebuilt in the same spot countless times since it has been founded. Rome contains ruins from all previous eras, which are mentioned as metaphors extensively by Freud himself in the book. This allows one to observe every stage of its developmental history and character.
Moreover, for the observation of the development process of human mind, Freud uses Rome as a metaphor. Similar to Rome, our unconscious possess ruins and signs of past, which make up a similar multi-leveled structure of the mind as well. The mind is the safe keep for all of its earlier stages of development and it allows them to coexist with the later stages of development.
Using Rome as the psychological development of mankind takes the interaction of individuals in the society into account, not just the psychological traits of them. Like Rome, different character traits can clash through individual lifelines, and like Goth attacks on Rome, the psyche or our mind may be harmed, but to grow new perceptions and approaches.
Also we can see the metaphor extends until towards the end of the book. While mentioning the sense of guilt, the civilization acts as superego and the ego‘s need of punishment, Freud draws a conclusion by saying that civilization takes the command over individual‘s desire of aggression, by weakening it, “and by setting up an agency within him to watch over it, like a garrison in a conquered city” (Freud 84).
Furthermore, Freud finds another use of this metaphor in the book. He argues that the same space cannot have two distinct structures, but by thinking Rome as a structural representative, we need to put different buildings on one another but in a timely basis. Freud says that we have not yet mastered our characteristics of mental life even to put them in a picturesque manner. Indeed, we would think as the buildings as blurred objects if we think the same spot in a timeline, that still shows us how the respective priorities affect our perception; a blurred building can only mean a respectively less important era of the Rome, and a barely remembered feeling is that less important in human mind.
The mind of a person remains intact on normal circumstances and it learns every time and unlearns or corrects mistakes of itself. This can be compared to a demolition and rebuilding of a city, no real ill effects strike the mind, but a mere reestablishment occurs. Also Freud points out that the destructions which are never lacked in a history of a city can be compared to the serious illnesses. However Freud thinks that a city like London, which hasn’t really suffered a enemy attack cannot be a viable metaphorical device to the human mind. This can be argued as it is said above, even a peaceful human mind, learns and corrects itself, without having ruins in itself; thus a peaceful city will still be suitable.
Also with the third section of the book, we can extend the metaphor even more, that the section argues the paradox of civilization that it is created to protect us from unhappiness but also this protection is a source of discontent. A city is now not the human mind but both the civilization and the social superego that develops with the impositions of the ideals of society.
For the last words, this metaphor establishes an alive understanding of human mind comparing to a city, built and destroyed many times over the centuries. Also it shows that how incompetent we are to depict our mind graphically, and how our perception is still narrow. And lastly, Freud maintains a metaphor so useful, that we can read as anything we like; psyche, superego and the civilization itself.
Sarpedon’s Tale: Fate or the Gods
Sarpedon was a king from Lycia, today’s southwestern Anatolia. In Iliad, he fought alongside the Trojans, and he became one of the heroes of Trojan War. He is the one who tells off Hector, that Trojans were not fighting the hard battles, and leaving all the fights to the allies of Troy, like Lycians. The Trojans attack the wall that the Achaeans recently built, led by Sarpedon on the front lines. Great Achaean warriors like Ajax and Teucer’s attention turns to his division, which included Glaucus who will be wounded by an arrow fired from Teucer‘s bow.
Sarpedon comes across Patroclus in the battlefield and they met in combat. Just then, Zeus thinks over if he should save his son’s life, even if it means intervening the fate, that Sarpedon would die at the hands of Patroclus. According to the book, he would have eventually done that, if Hera would not come and reminded him that there are far too many sons of Gods, demigods on the battlefield, dying and fighting, and she states that if Zeus protects his son from inevitable destiny, all the immortal gods would like to do so, and that would cause chaos, both in Olympus and in the war itself.
Nevertheless, despite the noble demand of Sarpedon from Glaucus, the Greeks seize the corpse and strip it from his armor to give it to Patroclus. Even though Zeus cannot save his son, he preserves his dead body from Greek ravagers, washes it, rubs it with ambrosia (ritualistic drink of gods), and delivers it to Hypnos (the Sleep) and Thanatos (the Death) that they may carry it to Lycia where his kin and townsfolk will bury it.
Then Zeus weeps a rain of blood, which plays no part in the continuity of the events. Not any of the fighters in the battlefield seem to notice the darkness which falls to the field and the remove of the corpse. As it can be seen, legendary elements like, bloody rains, the darkness falling and that the Apollo’s arrival are subordinated and undermined by the epic chivalrous deeds. This also can lead to a different perspective, which is to be argued in later paragraphs.
What is remarkable here is, Hera’s words, saying “his doom sealed long ago.” regarding Sarpedon. Even if Zeus tries to go beyond the rules of the fate, he does not, by the warning of Hera. However this also can be seen as, Hera’s warning was a part of the fate, and Zeus is never meant to spare his son from the battlefield. The gods, with all their immortality, farsightedness and their might, are subjects to the destiny. This is what happens throughout the book, all the deeds, good and bad things attributed to gods, but every time there is a logical explanation for those occurrences.
As a literary work, Iliad seems to have gods all throughout its pages, however as it is said before, the godly actions are always explainable by logic, and if not, it has nothing to do with the plot. In Sarpedon’s tale, Glaucus was wounded by an arrow, and prays to Apollo to ease his pain and that he can continue fighting according to the will of Sarpedon, and than suddenly his pain is eased, which we can now explain by current science, as adrenaline, not god’s work.
In summary, in Iliad an attitude which is to do with only self purposes influences only the “image” of God. The believer selects a "god" like Achilles selects Athena, that is supposedly related with his powers and his self-image. That leads to the bliss comes from loving Gods, and damnation from non-loving Gods, but in Iliad, people are subject to fate and even if it is not mentioned also Gods; the external control is related to controlling Gods; which is science today, fate in those times and Gods in Iliad.
The easiest of the explanations is this, even those times, without today’s scientific achievements, the fate is seen as the most prominent factor that affects human lives. Gods’ presence in these epics, shows only the lack of science and explanations by a long lasted tradition. Their actions are not effective and their presence is vague. Only the literary supernaturalism makes Hera and Zeus argue about Sarpedon’s life, not that anything will change whatever Zeus decides.
Sarpedon comes across Patroclus in the battlefield and they met in combat. Just then, Zeus thinks over if he should save his son’s life, even if it means intervening the fate, that Sarpedon would die at the hands of Patroclus. According to the book, he would have eventually done that, if Hera would not come and reminded him that there are far too many sons of Gods, demigods on the battlefield, dying and fighting, and she states that if Zeus protects his son from inevitable destiny, all the immortal gods would like to do so, and that would cause chaos, both in Olympus and in the war itself.
Nevertheless, despite the noble demand of Sarpedon from Glaucus, the Greeks seize the corpse and strip it from his armor to give it to Patroclus. Even though Zeus cannot save his son, he preserves his dead body from Greek ravagers, washes it, rubs it with ambrosia (ritualistic drink of gods), and delivers it to Hypnos (the Sleep) and Thanatos (the Death) that they may carry it to Lycia where his kin and townsfolk will bury it.
Then Zeus weeps a rain of blood, which plays no part in the continuity of the events. Not any of the fighters in the battlefield seem to notice the darkness which falls to the field and the remove of the corpse. As it can be seen, legendary elements like, bloody rains, the darkness falling and that the Apollo’s arrival are subordinated and undermined by the epic chivalrous deeds. This also can lead to a different perspective, which is to be argued in later paragraphs.
What is remarkable here is, Hera’s words, saying “his doom sealed long ago.” regarding Sarpedon. Even if Zeus tries to go beyond the rules of the fate, he does not, by the warning of Hera. However this also can be seen as, Hera’s warning was a part of the fate, and Zeus is never meant to spare his son from the battlefield. The gods, with all their immortality, farsightedness and their might, are subjects to the destiny. This is what happens throughout the book, all the deeds, good and bad things attributed to gods, but every time there is a logical explanation for those occurrences.
As a literary work, Iliad seems to have gods all throughout its pages, however as it is said before, the godly actions are always explainable by logic, and if not, it has nothing to do with the plot. In Sarpedon’s tale, Glaucus was wounded by an arrow, and prays to Apollo to ease his pain and that he can continue fighting according to the will of Sarpedon, and than suddenly his pain is eased, which we can now explain by current science, as adrenaline, not god’s work.
In summary, in Iliad an attitude which is to do with only self purposes influences only the “image” of God. The believer selects a "god" like Achilles selects Athena, that is supposedly related with his powers and his self-image. That leads to the bliss comes from loving Gods, and damnation from non-loving Gods, but in Iliad, people are subject to fate and even if it is not mentioned also Gods; the external control is related to controlling Gods; which is science today, fate in those times and Gods in Iliad.
The easiest of the explanations is this, even those times, without today’s scientific achievements, the fate is seen as the most prominent factor that affects human lives. Gods’ presence in these epics, shows only the lack of science and explanations by a long lasted tradition. Their actions are not effective and their presence is vague. Only the literary supernaturalism makes Hera and Zeus argue about Sarpedon’s life, not that anything will change whatever Zeus decides.
The Last of the Mohicans: Historically Manipulated or Completely Fictionalized?
Michael Mann’s The Last of the Mohicans presents a widely known historical issue, from a different perspective, which seems it is intended to be neutral, but ended with the distortion of the image of Indians. The movie tries to lean on the romantic aspect of the book that it has been adapted from, but at the same time, it has historical inaccuracies.
During the Seven Years War, even though the sizes of the battles were smaller in the Americas, the dynamics of the continent made these battles more significant. A whole different culture, Native Americans participated in this war, under the command of both belligerents, France and England. The movie, The Last of the Mohicans, deals with the cultural ethic differences and gives an open ended justification for all views. The acts of some of the characters make this open-endedness even more apparent, as Magua’s tragic life story takes him outx of the stock villainous character.
However the simple historical truth cannot be denied; there had been a massacre at Fort William Henry. The different perspectives and cultural ethos are represented in the film, based on historical evidences and the book that the film was based on. The massacre of the surrendered folk of Fort William Henry is a matter of perceiving of the surrender terms. Indians did not have the tradition of letting go, or treating the surrendered well; for according to their point of view, the only surrender term was, ‘waiting death without any struggle.’
Although, the term “massacre” can have an exaggerated meaning here. The film does not correct a historical misunderstanding created by the early adaptations of J.F. Cooper’s book, and in the book itself. Indians were promised with the possessions and “scalps” by the French, but the surrender terms says that British can bear arms and have their possessions. The historical truth is that Indians were mad, but among the 2300 British soldiers, only 69 was killed, and most of them captured and sold to Canadian government, for money and brandy (Steele 1180). Another historical inaccuracy is the General Munro’s tragic death at the hands of Magua in the film. After General Munro killed in a brilliantly shot scene of the battle, Magua victoriously tears General’s heart out. However the historical evidences show that all British officers including General Munro survived the battle without harm (Steele 1180)
While the cultural ethic differences are apparent, Native Americans are represented as allies with really weak bonds. They do not want to blend in with the white society, even the ones like Hurons (in the film, Magua) who want to be like whites, but apart. Hawkeye’s quote from Chingachgook, the Last of the Mohicans, makes it clearer to understand how the Native Americans see the white people: “Do not try to understand them and do not try to make them understand you. That is because they are a breed apart and make no sense.”
But how it can lead to the unavoidable assimilation of Indians? In the film, we see Indians fighting alongside the French and British, but they stay strictly bonded with their traditions and language. On the other hand, British policy of that time was stated clear enough to Webb by Duncan: “I thought British Policy is ‘Make the World England’, sir.” This approach was the prominent tenet of British Imperialism; and the Puritan ideal most probably supported it in the continental America. Even though the race issue was less important than religion in those times, national identities played a part. In the film, Webb, who is depicted as a somewhat irritable and grudging character, shows this national prejudice clearly, first by saying that the French do not have the nature for war, but for eating and making love. Also he constantly mentions Colonel Munro as the “Scotsman” with the hint of contempt. Therefore, it is expected that the Indians were suffering from discrimination and as a nature of those times, assimilation.
The tone of the film, with the romantic moments and battle scenes, is rather serious, but as a comic relief, the Hawkeye character is depicted to have a sense of dark sarcasm, which lightens the tone of the film. As it can be interpreted from the seriousness of the tone, the genre of the film can be thought of as historical epic, but immense romantic elements can be seen throughout the film. The character Cora’s actions changes the plot significantly and the change shifts the genre towards colonial romance.
As Hawkeye, Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance seems appropriate in the film; however, like all of the actors in the film, it cannot be said that he is actually acting. All he does -apart from the romantic moments and the sarcastic touch- is to aim and shoot with a rifle and stand in picturesque, charismatic poses. The film, as some kind of epic journey tale, maintains the direction by having the characters run away from obstacles. This creates little opportunity for us to see extraordinary acting or expressions. What we see mostly is the fear, and that is the limitation of some really great actors.
Although the acting is limited, the scenery, the stunt performance and the music are spectacular. The place that the movie has filmed is North Carolina and it has a real beauty and resemblance to the actual setting, New York. Fort William Henry is constructed according to the actual one, and the lifelike canon fight, and the large stunt armies of French, British and Indians, adds more realistic sense to the film. Lastly, the music can be thought of as the most important element in this movie. Alongside the setting, the place and of course director and screenplayer’s interpretation of the story, the music makes the most effective contribution on creating the ambiance. The tracks like “The Kiss” (can be heard on mostly romantic scenes) and “The Courier”, as well as the Main Title creates the atmosphere from the beginning and maintains to the very end (Jones & Edelman 1993).
The movie The Last of the Mohicans is a really successful historical epic - colonial romance adaptation, regarding the ambiance and historical accuracy of the setting. However, director Michael Mann did not correct the long continued mistakes about the real history, but he perpetuated them in the minds of general viewer. The negative but controversial image of the Indians in this film can be discussed a lot more; and until a historically accurate film about this events, the misinformation will stay on public viewers mind.
Bibliography
Jones, Trevor, and Randy Edelman. The Last of the Mohicans Original Motion Picture Soundtrack. 1993. Germany: Morgan Creek Music Group, 1993. CD-ROM.
Mann, Michael, dir. The Last of the Mohicans. Perf. Daniel Day-Lewis. 1993. Morgan Creek Productions.
Steele, Ian K. "The Last of the Mohicans by Michael Mann." The Journal of American History 80.3 (1993): 1179-81. Web. 7 Dec. 2009.
During the Seven Years War, even though the sizes of the battles were smaller in the Americas, the dynamics of the continent made these battles more significant. A whole different culture, Native Americans participated in this war, under the command of both belligerents, France and England. The movie, The Last of the Mohicans, deals with the cultural ethic differences and gives an open ended justification for all views. The acts of some of the characters make this open-endedness even more apparent, as Magua’s tragic life story takes him outx of the stock villainous character.
However the simple historical truth cannot be denied; there had been a massacre at Fort William Henry. The different perspectives and cultural ethos are represented in the film, based on historical evidences and the book that the film was based on. The massacre of the surrendered folk of Fort William Henry is a matter of perceiving of the surrender terms. Indians did not have the tradition of letting go, or treating the surrendered well; for according to their point of view, the only surrender term was, ‘waiting death without any struggle.’
Although, the term “massacre” can have an exaggerated meaning here. The film does not correct a historical misunderstanding created by the early adaptations of J.F. Cooper’s book, and in the book itself. Indians were promised with the possessions and “scalps” by the French, but the surrender terms says that British can bear arms and have their possessions. The historical truth is that Indians were mad, but among the 2300 British soldiers, only 69 was killed, and most of them captured and sold to Canadian government, for money and brandy (Steele 1180). Another historical inaccuracy is the General Munro’s tragic death at the hands of Magua in the film. After General Munro killed in a brilliantly shot scene of the battle, Magua victoriously tears General’s heart out. However the historical evidences show that all British officers including General Munro survived the battle without harm (Steele 1180)
While the cultural ethic differences are apparent, Native Americans are represented as allies with really weak bonds. They do not want to blend in with the white society, even the ones like Hurons (in the film, Magua) who want to be like whites, but apart. Hawkeye’s quote from Chingachgook, the Last of the Mohicans, makes it clearer to understand how the Native Americans see the white people: “Do not try to understand them and do not try to make them understand you. That is because they are a breed apart and make no sense.”
But how it can lead to the unavoidable assimilation of Indians? In the film, we see Indians fighting alongside the French and British, but they stay strictly bonded with their traditions and language. On the other hand, British policy of that time was stated clear enough to Webb by Duncan: “I thought British Policy is ‘Make the World England’, sir.” This approach was the prominent tenet of British Imperialism; and the Puritan ideal most probably supported it in the continental America. Even though the race issue was less important than religion in those times, national identities played a part. In the film, Webb, who is depicted as a somewhat irritable and grudging character, shows this national prejudice clearly, first by saying that the French do not have the nature for war, but for eating and making love. Also he constantly mentions Colonel Munro as the “Scotsman” with the hint of contempt. Therefore, it is expected that the Indians were suffering from discrimination and as a nature of those times, assimilation.
The tone of the film, with the romantic moments and battle scenes, is rather serious, but as a comic relief, the Hawkeye character is depicted to have a sense of dark sarcasm, which lightens the tone of the film. As it can be interpreted from the seriousness of the tone, the genre of the film can be thought of as historical epic, but immense romantic elements can be seen throughout the film. The character Cora’s actions changes the plot significantly and the change shifts the genre towards colonial romance.
As Hawkeye, Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance seems appropriate in the film; however, like all of the actors in the film, it cannot be said that he is actually acting. All he does -apart from the romantic moments and the sarcastic touch- is to aim and shoot with a rifle and stand in picturesque, charismatic poses. The film, as some kind of epic journey tale, maintains the direction by having the characters run away from obstacles. This creates little opportunity for us to see extraordinary acting or expressions. What we see mostly is the fear, and that is the limitation of some really great actors.
Although the acting is limited, the scenery, the stunt performance and the music are spectacular. The place that the movie has filmed is North Carolina and it has a real beauty and resemblance to the actual setting, New York. Fort William Henry is constructed according to the actual one, and the lifelike canon fight, and the large stunt armies of French, British and Indians, adds more realistic sense to the film. Lastly, the music can be thought of as the most important element in this movie. Alongside the setting, the place and of course director and screenplayer’s interpretation of the story, the music makes the most effective contribution on creating the ambiance. The tracks like “The Kiss” (can be heard on mostly romantic scenes) and “The Courier”, as well as the Main Title creates the atmosphere from the beginning and maintains to the very end (Jones & Edelman 1993).
The movie The Last of the Mohicans is a really successful historical epic - colonial romance adaptation, regarding the ambiance and historical accuracy of the setting. However, director Michael Mann did not correct the long continued mistakes about the real history, but he perpetuated them in the minds of general viewer. The negative but controversial image of the Indians in this film can be discussed a lot more; and until a historically accurate film about this events, the misinformation will stay on public viewers mind.
Bibliography
Jones, Trevor, and Randy Edelman. The Last of the Mohicans Original Motion Picture Soundtrack. 1993. Germany: Morgan Creek Music Group, 1993. CD-ROM.
Mann, Michael, dir. The Last of the Mohicans. Perf. Daniel Day-Lewis. 1993. Morgan Creek Productions.
Steele, Ian K. "The Last of the Mohicans by Michael Mann." The Journal of American History 80.3 (1993): 1179-81. Web. 7 Dec. 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)