False prophets and ‘message’ movies: Ben Hur, Hollywood and the …

The movie Ben Hur occupies a special place in my sister’s cabinet and her heart. Each time I try to watch it with her, I get excited and start screeching Judah! Judah!; alternately I push our couch around the house (like a chariot) with my sister still on it …
But even in my (vicarious) state of being Judah Ben Hur, it’s difficult to stomach the subtle but crappy propaganda that becomes blatant when the viewer is historically inclined, not yet retarded by the pervasive ever-present chemicals, or quite simply, someone with a weak digestive system (that would be me).
Ben Hur was written in 1880 by Lew Wallace, US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, and released in 1959 as a must-see blockbuster; it is listed as one of the top 100 greatest movies by the American Film Institute and won a total of eleven Oscars matched only, I think, by Titanic; though I cried like a melting iceberg for James Cameron’s masterpiece — a labour of love which lost him his beautiful wife Linda Hamilton, for its period Ben Hur was a cinematographic spectacularity.
But like Troy, Alexander, Gladiator and other ‘Our Kind of Good will Triumph Movies’, Ben Hur was the product of US propaganda that contained a very political message pertaining to the geo-strategic status quo in the Middle East during Eisenhower’s reign as the 34th President of the US; as usual the thread connecting the movie to real life was rooted in foreign policy, the aim of which was to mould interpretation, discussions and perceptions of world events and to control and filter the various ways such events (read: wars) played out tangibly and in the collective psyche of the public.
Ben Hur is very indicative of the age: The old Anglo-French colonialists are in the process of being removed via Independence; New America — only recently freed from “distant shore” colonialism — rapidly developing into an economic mercenary, steps in to fill the vacuum by acting as a counterweight.

thoughtleader.co.za

Tags: gun, movie, under

12 Responses to “False prophets and ‘message’ movies: Ben Hur, Hollywood and the …”

on 08 Apr 2008 at 3:16 pm Jem

I’m sorry, perhaps I’m out of line here, but I just don’t have a problem with a police officer disarming someone temporarily after they have broken the law. Tension is high, as is risk, and the circumstances usually do not warrant weaponry being involved. The individual in no case will be overthrowing an unjust government by shooting a police officer. Grievances about violations of rights should be taken to the courts, not remedied with a few bullets. If the individual is responsible enough to have a carry permit and to volunteer the information that he is carrying, great. I’m still ok with the officer taking a basic precautionary step.Yes, the actions of the police can go too far. Calling backup without being threatened is probably unreasonable, unless the officer senses something truly odd about the situation. That said, citizens need to do their part too.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 4:06 pm Eddie

The risks to police officers is always way overstated. There are many more everyday jobs that are much more unsafe than that of a cops. When did it become the perceived safety of the police is more important than the rights of the people that pay their salary? Besides, the act of handling a firearm and handing it over the officer actually creates a situation where more crap can happen. It is safer to leave it holstered or in the location where it is. It is scary how many people believe we should blindly follow police orders when they are not based in any law. I always think of it like this. If you have a disagreement with a merchant at a store you don’t get tasered by them for speaking your mind. Why should it be any different when talking to the police? As soon ask you as questions cops don’t like (repsect my authority!)they think they can taser you and arrest you for disobeying a police order. How did we get to this point?
on 08 Apr 2008 at 4:57 pm Latoya

They have an uncomfortable wooden chair for people who do that sort of thing, but don’t worry, it won’t be uncomfortable for very long!
on 08 Apr 2008 at 5:47 pm Carly

I see the direction you’re coming from, but I look at it from the other. You mention that you do not see any pubic benefit in legally allowing a concealed weapon, for example. I do not see any public benefit in making them illegal. Such actions to me are like politicians telling their people all about the new tax on X or Y industry, designed to bring them down and give money magically to the people. Next day, price for product X or Y is raised to offset said tax.There must be a reason that concealed weapons, just for the specific example, must be banned. Specific, non fear based “what if” scenarios, but actual problems. And the problems with such weapons must outweigh the good of it.I see the same line of thinking with the right vs privilege argument. You’re looking at this in the context of the federal government giving us permission to own a handgun, which I strongly disagree with. Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU, puts it better than I can: “Let’s assume for the sake of argument it does protect an individual right, it is no more absolute than freedom of speech or any other right in the Constitution. No right is absolute; the government is always allowed to restrict the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of compelling importance.”The car example is different than firearm training in the context that cars take much longer to master than the simple mechanical device that is the common handgun. When I got my hunting license at thirteen, the class was a Saturday afternoon. We learned the history of the firearm, covered legalities with it, discussed hunting ethics/morals/safety, and fired a shotgun twice, each. The rest of the experience one needs is easily learned through the first hunting trip. That is the only reason I even mentioned handgun training, because the instilling of responsible use takes up most of the time it takes to be taught how to use one.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 6:38 pm Seanna

Only the complete collapse of america militarily or financialy will stop bush.Lets just hope only the economy has to die before Bush and co are forced out.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 7:28 pm Dena

I read your rant.FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.Thats’ my response.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 8:19 pm Chaz

i’m not, that’s my opinion. if a cop feels like abusing people, shoot ‘em first and ask questions later. they’re public servants after all, not the other way around. they don’t get to order us around, we order them.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 9:10 pm Joy

Yes, Paraguay: http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/10/14/11926/843
on 08 Apr 2008 at 10:00 pm Ingram

BraveSirRobin ran away to fight another day.If you think you can beat the cops why don’t you set up a compound somewhere? I hear Waco has an opening.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 10:51 pm Lexia

I think the word you meant to use was “founder”: to become wrecked; fail utterly.”Flounder” is to struggle clumsily or helplessly
on 08 Apr 2008 at 11:41 pm Delmar

The only thing the terrorist United States Government fears is exposure.United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.9-11 was an inside job! What happened to building 7?Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!

on 08 Apr 2008 at 3:16 pm Jem

I’m sorry, perhaps I’m out of line here, but I just don’t have a problem with a police officer disarming someone temporarily after they have broken the law. Tension is high, as is risk, and the circumstances usually do not warrant weaponry being involved. The individual in no case will be overthrowing an unjust government by shooting a police officer. Grievances about violations of rights should be taken to the courts, not remedied with a few bullets. If the individual is responsible enough to have a carry permit and to volunteer the information that he is carrying, great. I’m still ok with the officer taking a basic precautionary step.Yes, the actions of the police can go too far. Calling backup without being threatened is probably unreasonable, unless the officer senses something truly odd about the situation. That said, citizens need to do their part too.

on 08 Apr 2008 at 4:06 pm Eddie

The risks to police officers is always way overstated. There are many more everyday jobs that are much more unsafe than that of a cops. When did it become the perceived safety of the police is more important than the rights of the people that pay their salary? Besides, the act of handling a firearm and handing it over the officer actually creates a situation where more crap can happen. It is safer to leave it holstered or in the location where it is. It is scary how many people believe we should blindly follow police orders when they are not based in any law. I always think of it like this. If you have a disagreement with a merchant at a store you don’t get tasered by them for speaking your mind. Why should it be any different when talking to the police? As soon ask you as questions cops don’t like (repsect my authority!)they think they can taser you and arrest you for disobeying a police order. How did we get to this point?

on 08 Apr 2008 at 4:57 pm Latoya

They have an uncomfortable wooden chair for people who do that sort of thing, but don’t worry, it won’t be uncomfortable for very long!

on 08 Apr 2008 at 5:47 pm Carly

I see the direction you’re coming from, but I look at it from the other. You mention that you do not see any pubic benefit in legally allowing a concealed weapon, for example. I do not see any public benefit in making them illegal. Such actions to me are like politicians telling their people all about the new tax on X or Y industry, designed to bring them down and give money magically to the people. Next day, price for product X or Y is raised to offset said tax.There must be a reason that concealed weapons, just for the specific example, must be banned. Specific, non fear based “what if” scenarios, but actual problems. And the problems with such weapons must outweigh the good of it.I see the same line of thinking with the right vs privilege argument. You’re looking at this in the context of the federal government giving us permission to own a handgun, which I strongly disagree with. Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU, puts it better than I can: “Let’s assume for the sake of argument it does protect an individual right, it is no more absolute than freedom of speech or any other right in the Constitution. No right is absolute; the government is always allowed to restrict the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of compelling importance.”The car example is different than firearm training in the context that cars take much longer to master than the simple mechanical device that is the common handgun. When I got my hunting license at thirteen, the class was a Saturday afternoon. We learned the history of the firearm, covered legalities with it, discussed hunting ethics/morals/safety, and fired a shotgun twice, each. The rest of the experience one needs is easily learned through the first hunting trip. That is the only reason I even mentioned handgun training, because the instilling of responsible use takes up most of the time it takes to be taught how to use one.

on 08 Apr 2008 at 6:38 pm Seanna

Only the complete collapse of america militarily or financialy will stop bush.Lets just hope only the economy has to die before Bush and co are forced out.

on 08 Apr 2008 at 7:28 pm Dena

I read your rant.FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.Thats’ my response.

on 08 Apr 2008 at 8:19 pm Chaz

i’m not, that’s my opinion. if a cop feels like abusing people, shoot ‘em first and ask questions later. they’re public servants after all, not the other way around. they don’t get to order us around, we order them.

on 08 Apr 2008 at 9:10 pm Joy

Yes, Paraguay: http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/10/14/11926/843

on 08 Apr 2008 at 10:00 pm Ingram

BraveSirRobin ran away to fight another day.If you think you can beat the cops why don’t you set up a compound somewhere? I hear Waco has an opening.

on 08 Apr 2008 at 10:51 pm Lexia

I think the word you meant to use was “founder”: to become wrecked; fail utterly.”Flounder” is to struggle clumsily or helplessly

on 08 Apr 2008 at 11:41 pm Delmar

The only thing the terrorist United States Government fears is exposure.United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.9-11 was an inside job! What happened to building 7?Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!

kimblr.com