House of Eratosthenes

The Hunny wanted to get ahold of the original Battlestar Galactica movie. We finally got it done, now all we have to do is find some time to watch it together.

I was sneaking a peak at the first few minutes of it and, as is my habit, I noticed something more philosophically deep than what was intended by the people who made the movie. But I dunno. Recall a week ago, I had torn into xXx: State of the Union, homing in on a scene at the mid-point of the film lasting a mere 39 seconds, and yet defining everything in the story taking place at the political level. In sum: The good guy, the current President played by Peter Strauss, wanted to “turn enemies into allies” and take a pacifist approach…about something. Something that was never mentioned, in fact, just, something. And of course the bad guy wanted to make war just for the hell of it. Gave him an erection, or maybe he was in bed with the defense contractors. Maybe both. That went undefined too…which is fine, I guess, it’s a kids’ movie.

I was noticing if you flipped the scene over like a pancake, and set things up in complete opposites, you would have a perfect encapsulation of real life. Blogger friend Buck Pennington also noticed this. The President, who is the good guy, is about making war as needed so that evil men can be made into the dead things they should be; the “bad guy,” which is the personification of incorrect policy decisions, wants to appease in situations where it is not appropriate. And the bad guy tries to usurp the authority of the good guy. That’s exactly the situation we’re in now.

Well, recall that when the original Battlestar Galactica movie came out, the President was a “bad guy” who liked to appease. Didn’t work out so hot. Folks who think he had the right idea, call him “America’s best ex-President” — not flattering, to say the least.

You do know, don’t you, that Lorne Greene’s character used to have two sons? He named them Apollo, and Zack. Side point: It has been extremely rare for old men in science fiction movies, of any kind, to need women to procreate. “Welcome to my planet, Captain Kirk, this is my extremely lovely daughter who has never seen a man before and doesn’t know how to kiss. Yet. She has no mother, of course, and we all speak perfect English.”

Anyway, I digress. So Lorne Greene, all by himself, produced a son with the name of a greek deity and then another son with the name of a hillbilly.

Well, the scene where the second son is killed by Cylon warriors, about twenty minutes into the movie, is the opposite of the scene in xXx: State of the Union. See, Lorne Greene didn’t have just a second son, he also used to have a boss, “The President.” The President ordered Lorne Greene to take the pacifist approach, and not to launch any enforcement fighters to save the other guys who were already on patrol — not to do anything that could have been interpreted as a sign of belligerance. The “don’t wanna make ’em mad” approach.

It seems when we already have the “don’t wanna make ’em mad” approach in the Oval Office, it’s okay to make a movie showing what could be the downside of such a thing. Of course, you can’t make a movie like that today. We have a Texan in the White House, one who actually has some balls, and calls evil men evil men. And so when you make an entertainment-movie addressing the pacifist-versus-concealed-carry conundrum, you’re supposed to make concealed-carry look like the wrong idea, and glorify the pacifist approach. Since, in real life, that’s what we don’t have running things.

I just think it’s interesting. Whether approaching a conference table with a sidearm is a sensible idea, or not, is a philosophical question rooted in the fundamental nature of how people operate. I think both sides would agree, this is a cognition that does not change with the passage of time. And yet, in popular culture, it does.

Well, my own opinion is that Hollywood had the right idea, back when we had the wrong President in real life. The capacity of the “don’t wanna make ’em mad” approach to prevail — actually, to simply not get you killed — depends on the dubious prospect of hitherto-sworn enemies telling the truth all the time. Obviously, the first time an antagonist chooses to lie to you about his intentions, the “I’m unarmed, and they’ll follow my superior example” approach will be bad for you. It is bound to happen. This is just a matter of solid logic and simple common sense. The debate, therefore, ends up being about whether there are people in the world who are willing to lie about things.

And that is a question to be left to history. The way history resolves it, is not friendly to the pacifist approach.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Battlestar NuanceThursday, August 10th, 2006

Battlestar Nuance
Thursday, August 10th, 2006