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.
25.3.10
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)