It's a man's world...
Last Sunday, The Madame and I sampled our new local movie theater down at the South Coast casino by way of The Illusionist. (I strongly recommend the film, although that's not really the point of this post.) Afterwards, I observed that great love stories -- particularly those that involve being fortuitously re-united with a lost love -- always take place in the past. Not always the distant past, but definitely in the past. The English Patient, for example, takes place between the Wars in north Africa; Gone With the Wind took place during the Civil War; and Romeo and Juliet takes place in medieval Italy, at least a century before Shakespeare decided to write it. I would also point out that when we have contemporary love stories, they don't generally function the same way these "great love" stories do: oftentimes they are funny or silly or even zany. The implication, of course, is that we don't love today the way we did a century ago. That romance is dead, and can only to found in stories from the past. Is this true? And why do we think this?
A few weeks ago, I finished reading a book called From Chivalry to Terrorism: War and the Changing Nature of Masculinity by Leo Braudy. It is a fascinating book, particularly if, like me, you're interested in what makes a man and what does it mean to be a man in contemporary society. One of Braudy's central assertions all through the book is that men -- especially men acting as a society's warriors and soldiers -- have always looked to the past as a golden age of manhood. Men consistently believe, according to Braudy, that whatever age they inhabit is in a crisis of masculinity, and that previous ages were fully populated with "real men." In our own time, think of films like Saving Private Ryan or The Memphis Belle. Both films are infused with the idea that men in these previous times were more loyal, more honorable, and in general better than men are today. Or, for a different vision of masculinity, consider films like L.A. Confidential or another excellent 1950s film in current release called Hollywoodland. These films don't represent the warrior mystique, but they do show us that in the fifties, men were men. Not like now. Damn.
Both of these themes -- that both great love and great manliness were essentially superior in the past -- are strong tides in art and literature, and in the coming months we'll see more of this thread: today, we'll see the fifties man again in The Black Dahlia; next week, we'll see honorable warriors from the past in Flyboys; and in November, we'll see great love from the past in The Fountain. Why do we want to believe that the past did things so much better than we can? It doesn't matter how much historical evidence we amass to the contrary: we want to believe that the past was better and that the present is dull.
This point of view fascinates me, especially since I can't help but buy into it, at least a little bit. I'm particularly interested in the making of a new golden age out of the recent past, one that I have no trouble believing was actually better. In his new book, Andrew Sullivan spends an entire chapter constructing the period from 1989-2000 as a recently-occurring golden age. It's an interesting trend, and I've been delighted to observe it. As with many historical trends, the distance between the present and these so-called golden ages continues to shrink. So the real question is this: will we live to see a time when a golden age of love and/or masculinity is the present?
I think not. The pull of the past is too strong. And besides, if we stopped believing that the past was better, Hollywood would go out of business.
A few weeks ago, I finished reading a book called From Chivalry to Terrorism: War and the Changing Nature of Masculinity by Leo Braudy. It is a fascinating book, particularly if, like me, you're interested in what makes a man and what does it mean to be a man in contemporary society. One of Braudy's central assertions all through the book is that men -- especially men acting as a society's warriors and soldiers -- have always looked to the past as a golden age of manhood. Men consistently believe, according to Braudy, that whatever age they inhabit is in a crisis of masculinity, and that previous ages were fully populated with "real men." In our own time, think of films like Saving Private Ryan or The Memphis Belle. Both films are infused with the idea that men in these previous times were more loyal, more honorable, and in general better than men are today. Or, for a different vision of masculinity, consider films like L.A. Confidential or another excellent 1950s film in current release called Hollywoodland. These films don't represent the warrior mystique, but they do show us that in the fifties, men were men. Not like now. Damn.
Both of these themes -- that both great love and great manliness were essentially superior in the past -- are strong tides in art and literature, and in the coming months we'll see more of this thread: today, we'll see the fifties man again in The Black Dahlia; next week, we'll see honorable warriors from the past in Flyboys; and in November, we'll see great love from the past in The Fountain. Why do we want to believe that the past did things so much better than we can? It doesn't matter how much historical evidence we amass to the contrary: we want to believe that the past was better and that the present is dull.
This point of view fascinates me, especially since I can't help but buy into it, at least a little bit. I'm particularly interested in the making of a new golden age out of the recent past, one that I have no trouble believing was actually better. In his new book, Andrew Sullivan spends an entire chapter constructing the period from 1989-2000 as a recently-occurring golden age. It's an interesting trend, and I've been delighted to observe it. As with many historical trends, the distance between the present and these so-called golden ages continues to shrink. So the real question is this: will we live to see a time when a golden age of love and/or masculinity is the present?
I think not. The pull of the past is too strong. And besides, if we stopped believing that the past was better, Hollywood would go out of business.
posted by Buckwalter at 8:36 AM
1 Comments:
"This is the tale of a man who was never at loss..." You just can't outdo that beginning, no matter how long history goes on. Ask The Madame if I quoted that right.
Speaking of which, the high school I teach at has an annual festival which, among many other events, include about 9 plays written and produced by the students. They're freaking sweet! You really haven't lived until you've seen Troy in 25 minutes by Japanese students.
Post a Comment
<< Home