The Era of Mediocrity - Part I.
If I pinched myself every time that I felt myself to be a stranger on the planet, I would certainly end up being mistaken for an alien, or an earthling with a repugnant skin disease. On a corporal level, the purplish-blue color and swollen features, the result of pinching myself, would be the equivalent of what I feel inside when I assess, in general, that which occurs in "dignified”, artistic, political and sometimes legal areas. Furthermore, I guarantee that, when reading newspapers or watching television, a good number of the most demanding readers with a craving for information feel the same daily sensation of strangeness. “Could it be that I am dreaming? Did I read or hear correctly that which is in even the most respectable media?”
Decadence hangs in the air, like a fog. Sometimes brilliantly colored, although with a suspicious odor, suggesting that a few cultural sewer rats have not been buried in time. In all likelihood, some of the gravediggers of this drivel are drugged, drunk with an excess of commercial facts and interests tumbling into the braincase, insufficiently spacious to “separate the wheat from the chaff”. It wouldn't surprise me if, very soon, natural product stores come to sell — correcting the aforementioned expression — chaff in capsules, arguing that it is more nutritional and anti-carcinogenic that wheat, this vulgar developer of obesity.
Unfounded generalizations? A crisis of depression with no objective basis? We shall see.
Initially, choosing at random, let us look at the mediocrity that occurs in the cinema, traditionally referred to as the “seventh art”, although it is doubtless the first, in terms of economics and social influence. Most notably, North American cinema.
It is impressive to know that the founders of the “seventh art” — the Lumiére brothers, Auguste and Louis — supposed that the so-called “cinematograph” was only a scientific instrument, without any kind of future commercial use, for demonstrating the unpredictability of all the effects of that which happens in the world. A way of looking, a friendly or brusque gesture, or a tone of voice — at the right or wrong moment — could arouse thoughts and feelings capable of altering the destiny of individuals and even countries. This is due to the fact that something hazardous, treacherous or redeeming exists known as “interpretation”. We interpret everything that we see and hear; however, not always correctly. Legal science has been attempting to create rules regarding the hermeneutics of laws and contracts, although it is never possible to assert that the value of such rules is absolute, given that a simple lapse in the use of a word alters the result. If the word came out by mistake, something that is not easily demonstrable, the interpretation will also be erroneous. And we will stop here, because generalizations are more misleading than concrete situations.
I like action films, which are generally American. Rather, I currently like them less as they are ever more decadent, too interested in box office returns, without any concern for quality. They are exceedingly repetitive in their mediocre plots, exaggeratedly bloody and full of clichés. If, for example, the police officer who is a friend of the hero is mature, good guy and rashly says that he is going to retire in a few days time, you can be sure that a villain's bullet will kill him before the end of the film. Goodbye pension! His own fault! Who made him say that he was going to retire?! The mediocre scriptwriter, even though he does not have a criminal brother in prison — which would partially justify his resentment — seems to think that no police officer deserves the recompense of a tranquil old age.
Another cliché is the harsh manner in which the heroic police officer, without any justification, treats his new work companion, which ends up being transformed into friendship because the rookie saves his life.
In high-speed automobile chases, the director, violating the most elementary laws of physics — and convinced of the stupidity of spectators —, believes it to be indispensable that an automobile, after colliding with another, becomes airborne and, like an ice skater, spins in the air before falling, as if this were possible without the presence of a launching ramp (rather askew) hidden behind a parked vehicle. This is without even mentioning the vehicle that falls into the abyss and explodes before impacting the ground. The special effects technician, positioned at a distance, pressed the explosion button too soon on his remote control. — “Repeat the scene? Of course not! The audience won't even notice! Besides, gasoline is not cheap!”. Is it no wonder, therefore, that the USA has to toughen its foreign policy in the Middle East, thus reducing its dependence on oil, because half of all imported oil is burned in action films. Of course, I am exaggerating, it is necessary to clarify why overall decadence includes the misinterpretation of everything that one reads and hears.
It is taken for granted that, in detective films, it would be difficult to avoid a few violent scenes doused with raspberry syrup or red wine. Where the knife or the bullet goes in, the blood comes out. This is inevitable, normal and befitting in conflicts between law and order and criminality. Crime involving blood is a short-cut taken by a rather desperate — or, more rarely, cold — individual who has neither patience nor discipline to satisfy his need, justifiable or not, for the tiresome traditional approaches. He does not even have the patience for adequate planning of the crime. Eagerness is his downfall; both his and the victim's. When the latter reacts, there is no going back. Hence the blood. A reality of life in any society.
However, the current decadence of this type of film shows itself in its insistence on repeated sadism for endless minutes, with the victim screaming. Criminals in films are no longer solely content with shooting their victims. They submit them to prolonged scenes with electric shocks. They break hands and feet with hammer blows or baseball bats. They pull out nails with pliers. In films, insistent torture seems to meet the supposed "sadism requirement" of the market. It is sufficient to see the success of the “Friday the 13th” series of films, in which a muscular and “unkillable” madman, with a white hockey mask — he never runs, but always catches the victims that run —, experiences pleasure in wantonly cutting off heads and other body parts.
Such deliberate promotion of barbarity is destined for mass consumption, being purchased on DVD, seen in the cinema and on television and even imitated by criminals who are immensely ignorant, or were already born with an extremely low level of compassion, or who have been subject to many hard knocks and privations in life and are eager to avenge themselves. Holding a firearm, in groups, invading residences, they are not simply content to demand money from their victims. The thrill lies in terrorizing. They think that it is “great” or “cool” to do what they have seen in films, threatening to kill and taking pleasure in the terror evident in the eyes of the defenseless “bourgeoisie”. And the climax of the sense of power is reached when they coldly kill, with a shot in the head, the victim who has already handed over everything that it was possible to hand over. The aristocratic chic of elimination, prior to the criminal leaving, lies exactly in the detail of killing on a whim. After all, killing for necessity would be very “vulgar”, expectable. It is not my belief that they kill solely in order to not be recognized, given that the assailant is often masked or wearing a helmet and, even so, ends up killing.
In order to “enrich” the o detective type of film, it is ever more the tendency of the film industry to accept plots in which the criminal is a serial killer, because it would simply be “too reserved” to kill only one person: — “If everything evolves for mass production, why should the screen criminal be an exception?”
Even in secondary details, imitation is the rule. It has become stylish for a character to vomit on seeing the state of the disfigured cadaver. Years ago, girls and hotel chambermaids only gave long and hysterical screams when they came across a dead body, even lying on the ground in a dignified position. A slight wound and the fact of being dead was enough — a reaction that was already far from reality, given that women do not react in this way in real life, giving long piercing screams. Currently, the director requires them to vomit. Preferably, with their faces in the toilet bowl, a requirement of realism. Then they can faint — and so on.
Intellectual infantilism is also being intensely encouraged with films that compensate a lack of coherence and critical sense with an excess of brilliant special effects. Brilliant in technical terms, but stupid and infantile in terms of the storyline. Films that should only be seen by children — for example “Godzilla”, a monster without parents, composed of thousands of tons of protein (around 30 films) — are seen with pleasure by adult men, unaccompanied by their children or grandchildren. Even the box office success “Avatar”, the winner of a large number of awards, is an insult to our intelligence, although well-intentioned in its ecological message and promoting peace among mankind. In my opinion, the director James Cameron deteriorated in his biography, despite gaining awards. I hope that he becomes rehabilitated, as he is a director of great talent and attention to detail. Art is also detail, which is not something said by Picasso, a smart guy who attained success.
The person who directed the masterpiece “Titanic” is capable of producing something much better than those green extraterrestrials with tails that I saw in “Avatar”. I do not remember if, in the film, the creatures used this appendage like small monkeys, in order to grasp branches and avoid falling from the trees. Or if the tail only functioned as a touch of originality. In the case of monkeys, the sole function of the tail is that of safety. In large apes, nature has eliminated this fifth member, as can be seen in the case of gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees.
Another affront to our intelligence: the “Predators”, extremely strong aliens, with a much more advanced technology that our own, therefore more highly evolved and intelligent — they can become invisible at will —, appear with immense claws, of the kind possessed by more primitive mammals that need to secure their prey like lions or dig the earth like anteaters. “E.T.”, with all its awards, was biologically inconsistent, given that the creature's head did not have sufficient space for a highly evolved brain. It was only eyes. It is not possible that the inhabitants of an advanced civilization had a miniscule brain, as in the case of “E.T.”
Another annoyance with respect to lack of imagination lies in the insistence of oft-repeated “vampires” and “werewolves” transmitting “vampirism” with a bite on the neck. And the films that speak of “black holes”, without the director having the least idea of what they really are? A black hole is a star that has collapsed from its own gravity, forming an object of infinite density. It is certainly not the gateway to “another dimension”. And those “angels” transformed into flesh and blood? At least these absurd beings attempt to transmit ideas of kindness and altruism. And what about those scenes in which two characters, who hate each other, aim their weapons at one another and exchange insults and threats, without either one of them firing a shot? It is difficult to imagine that such a situation would occur in real life. And how is it possible to justify, unless it is just laziness, the practice of the cameraman shaking the camera during the most difficult scenes of violence — confounding the understanding of the spectator — or when the director cannot manage to construct a more convincing “monster” that is not just a copy of the creature in “Alien, the 8th Passenger”?
The reader is likely asking: — “Why are you grumbling so much? People only want to enjoy themselves! Nobody is ignoring the fact that it is all fiction”. Of course they don't believe it. What concerns me is formation of the mental habit of continual acceptance of insults to one's intelligence, with total abdication of a critical spirit. Could it not be that this longstanding practice leaves a certain callus of passive stupidity, principally in young people? It is interesting to note the contrast in reaction between the easy acceptance of such films and the manner in which a person reacts when someone insults their intelligence, trying to deceive them. If a stupid salesman insists on convincing someone to purchase an item that only a half-wit would buy, he or she reacts with indignation. Why is it that a similar reaction does not occur when the same person watches a film?
Finally, a few thoughts on sex in films, abusive and in bad taste, exhibited in an unrequested manner and watched by whoever happens to be present in the room. In order to fill the emptiness of the plot, quasi-explicit sex scenes last too long. Nothing simply suggestive. Wholly explicit, including the vulgar parlance related to use of the mouth for purposes other than the communication of ideas. It cannot be argued that it is only necessary to change the channel. This assumes that the father or mother of the child or adolescent is always at home, which is blatantly not the case.
I am not saying these things with the intention of being an outdated moralist. I am even quite “advanced” in my understanding of relationships between men and women. I am simply describing a fact: decadence in cinematographic art, principally in films produced in America and those European countries that imitate the USA in an ever greater manner. I do not believe that future historians — if there is a future... — will describe current cinema as a period of global progress in the arts.
In much the same way as governments that are concerned with food quality — cholesterol, sugar and salt, together with an infinite number of potentially carcinogenic products in the diet —, it would be recommendable for some kind of concern to be shown regarding so many “poisons” affecting the “mental and moral nutrition” of our population of young people who are arriving in mass at a field of “knowledge” that is evermore simply “visual”, thanks to increased income. And I am not sure whether boys and adolescents, encouraged by the financial success of the bad and smart guys, will know how to distinguish between that which they should imitate or avoid. Principally when felons, young and charming, of both sexes, end up doing very well, heading for Brazil by plane, with a bag full of stolen dollars.
Obviously, it is not up to the government to prohibit the cinematographic industry from producing films with idiotic plots, spreading ignorance or stimulating values of the kind chosen by criminals. It is not suggested here that the government finance films with this concern in mind, as the risk always exists of bad faith, the government losing money and the film never coming to fruition.
In another article, I will address the subject to mediocrity in other areas. The overall feeling is that we live in a world in decadence. Well-made “things” should be the rule, rather than the exception. Perhaps a Third World War, or even the threat of such a war, would come to improve mankind, because it is only in this way — based on suffering and fear — that we, jackasses with two legs, actually manage to learn something.
(16-01-2012)
