Man of Steel: Frihedens kamp mod kontrolsamfundet

Jeg er netop hjemvendt efter en tur i biffen i selskab med the Man of Steel, og jeg må indrømme at jeg var noget overrasket over tydeligheden af symbolikkerne i filmen. Jeg vil her prøve at dele nogle overvejelser...

Jesus aka Clark Kent
Superman fremstår om noget som en Kristus-figur. Dette er ikke en ny ting for ham, men jeg er alligevel overrasket over den grad, hvormed Snyder vælger at understrege denne symbolik.

1. Superman kaldes Kal-El af sine forældre, hvilket efter sigende skulle minde om / betyde "Guds stemme" på hebræisk. Superman sættes altså i en guddommelig rolle blot i kraft af sit navn, og hvis man tager et par skridt mere, er der ikke langt fra stemme til ord - og jf. Johannes Evangeliet er Jesus jo netop ordet der "blev kød og tog bolig blandt os".

2. Supermans far Jor-El påpeger hvordan jordens befolkning vil regne Superman for en Gud

3. Superman kommer til jorden som barn, for at oprejse dem og lede dem.

4. Clark Kent bliver Superman som 33 årig, hvilket er den alder man mener Jesus havde, da han døde. 

Denne her kunne man godt gå mere ned i, men det er der vist ikke meget grund til.

Krypton aka Platons Staten
Fjenden, Superman skal bekæmpe, repræsenteres af General Zod, der står som fortaler for Kryptons strengt opdelte system, der er som taget ud af Platons Staten. I Staten og på Krypton bliver børnene nemlig opdelt lige fra fødslen til at være enten arbejdere/forsørgere, vogtere/krigere eller ledere/filosoffer. Problemet med dette system er ifølge Super
mans far Jor-El, at det fratager det enkelte individ dets frihed til at vælge, og derved dets mulighed for at udrette noget for alvor stort. Denne fortolkning understrege filmen tydeligt, ved at lade en ung Clark Kent læse Platon, idet han bliver mobbet. Coincedens? I think not.

Frihedens kamp mod kontrol
Herved bliver et af filmens helt centrale temaer kampen mellem på den ene side et platonisk og kryptonistisk (?) samfundsideal, hvor kontrol er det centrale emne, det gode liv består i at udfylde sin opgave så godt som muligt. SPOILER ALERT: Dette er i øvrigt grunden til at Zod fortvivler sådan over at have mistet sin funktion som vogter idet han ingen har at vogte - hermed ophører hans liv med at have noget som helst formål, da den instans, der gav det dets formål; Nationen Krypton, er ophørt med at eksistere. 

Dette ideal kæmper imod idealet om frihed tæt knyttet til the American Dream. Heri har individet selv ret og frihed til at vælge sin sti, og ønsket om kontrol, erstattes af appel til håb - hvilket Supermans 'S' ifølge filmen betyder. Sættes denne værdi ind i den kristne fortolkningsramme, har vi således en Jesus-figur, der ønsker at sætte fri fra kontrol og udefra givne ramme, til fordel for håb og frihed. En pointe Superman selv understrege tydeligt i en af filmens sidste scener.

Den anonyme ungdom
Et andet af filmens centrale temaer, er det klassiske teologiske spørgsmål: Hvorfor ventede Jesus til han var 30 med at træde ud i sin gerning. Unge Clark har mange diskussioner og snakke med sin jordiske adoptivfar om netop dette spørgsmål, hvorfor han ikke bare kan give sig til kende for verden. Faderen står dog stærkt på, at verden endnu ikke er klar, og at Clark derfor må ligge lidt lavt. Dette er et spørgsmål filmen gør meget ud af, og parallellen bliver især tydelig, idet, som nævnt, Clark træder ind i rollen som Superman som 33 årig.

Hvad tænker i om det? Man of Steel som fortællingen om en veltrimmet og velfriseret Jesus fra det ydre rum, der skal frelse menneskeheden fra de onde, platoniske fascister, og således være "The Hero of the American Dream"? 

Disney køber Star Wars

Jeg ved ikke om i havde set denne her komme, men det havde jeg ikke...

Walt Disney har netop opkøbt Georg Lucas' Lucasfilm ltd. De planlægger at udgive 3 nye Star Wars film, med den første så snart som i 2015. Mere info i følgende artikler:

Moviepilot
deadline.com
cbc.ca

Her er et kort interview med Georg Lucas om salget:

Umiddelbart befinder jeg mig nok med den gode gamle holdning der siger: Lad nu bare de film ligge som de mesterværker de er.. De 3 nye film (episode 1-3) var allerede på grænsen i forhold til de gamle klassikere, og man kunne frygte, at nye Disney film ville afmytologisere sagaen yderligere...

MEN på samme tid er det jo lidt trist at tage nej-hatten på med det samme. Kunne man ikke forestille sig Disney faktisk kan tage historien videre i en god retning, og puste lidt nyt liv i galaksen, på samme tid med de bevarer de gamles charme?

Jeg synes det er spændende om de Star Wars film, jeg er vokset op med, går en tid i møde, hvor de udvikler sig til et James Bond-format. Altså nye udgivelser med nye skuespillere etc.. Star Wars har jo allerede bjerge af bøger skrevet om tiden før, under og efter filmene, så det bliver interessant at se, hvordan Disney forholder sig til disses forløb.

Hvad tænker i? Overrasket? Glæder i jer? Synes i det er blasfemi?

Justin Timberlake

Idéhistorisk analyse af "Like I Love You" af Justin Timberlake

Her er videoen fra mit foredrag om sangen "Like I Love You" af Justin Timberlake. I foredragen tegner jeg masser af paralleler til forskellige idéhistoriske elementer og skaber derudfra en tolkning af sangen, der nok vil overraske de fleste. Foredraget blev afholdt som en del af rusugen for Idéhistorie på Aarhus Universitet august 2012.

Teksten kan findes Her!!!!

Snow White and the Huntsman

Så er der eventyr for alle pengene!

Jeg kom til at love, jeg ville lave en anmeldelse af filmen "Snow White and the Huntman", som jeg så i Cinemaxx igår. Denne anmeldelse kommer her:

Snow White and the Huntsman (IMDB) er et eventyr, og så er det sagt. Filmen kaster sig over genren med stort engagement, og blander de klassiske eventyr fænomener (tallet 3, trolde under broer, prinsesser i tårne etc.) med flotte effekter og nogle interessante plot tvists.

Lad det dog være sagt med det samme: Har du i forvejen en aversion mod Twilight-prinsessen Kristen Stewart, er dette ikke en film for dig. Hvis du mener pigebarnet lider under kun at have et enkelt ansigtsudtryk i samtlige scener, vil Snowwhite nok kun underbygge din teori. Så er det sagt.
Hvis du derimod har et mere moderat syn på Kristen Steward, eller måske er i den lejr der mener hun er den bedste/sødeste/smukkeste skuespillerinde på denne side af ækvator, er der ingen alarm. Hun klarer sig nemlig rigtig fint, og får egentlig ramt Snehvides uskyldige karakter på en måde, så den ikke bliver kvalmende. Og så burde alle kvinder i øvrigt have et sæt pladerustning liggende i gemmerne - det ser jo fremragende ud!

Det øvrige skuespil i filmen er det ikke til at sætte en pølsefinger på. Chris Hemsworth som jægeren klarer sig rigtig fint, og har et par sjove kommentarer. Der er ikke helt så mange som i Thor, men til gengæld får vi lov at se lidt flere følelser manden i denne film, hvilket ikke er dumt.

Dronningen, spillet af Charlize Theron er fremragende. Hun er betagende, dominerende og fuldstændig manisk når hun råber af folk (og det sker altså et god håndfuld gange).

Plottet kender vi jo i grove træk fra eventyret, men filmen formår at lave mange nye vinkler, og på en håndfuld steder fuldstændig at afvige fra den gamle fortælling. Dette bevirker, at man som tilskuer føler sig hjemme i historien, men alligevel ikke kan vide sig helt sikker på, hvad der lurer om hjørnet. Prinsen i fortællingen (Sam Claflin) spiller også en spøjs rolle, og der antydes et trekantsdrama mellem Snehvide, jægeren og ham selv. Dette er dog på ingen måde et drama der fylder filmen, og det er rart.

Som sagt er det en eventyrfilm der fortæller en god historie. Filmen har ikke de mest interessante enkeltpersoner, og den efterlader heller ikke ligefrem en med en susende følelse i maven, eller en skam over egne materialistiske vaner. Ser man film, for at få nye perspektiver på livet, eller for at lave psykoanalyse af hovedpersonerne, er Snowwhite nok ikke sagen. Til gengæld genskaber den den barnlige stemning af at få læst et eventyr op. Den bliver ikke kedelig, og trykker elegant på følelsesregisterets knapper med uhygge, kærlighed, glæde etc.. Som film er den meget flot skruet sammen, og effekterne er meget overbevisende.
Jeg synes også det var rart at se en middelalder film, der ikke var bange for at spare lidt realisme, til fordel for den ridderlige stil. Når parterne i filmen drager i krig, er det med lancer og store pladerustninger all the way, og det synes jeg er forfriskende.

Er filmen en tøsefilm? - Nej, men lad være med at gå alene i biffen og se den som dreng.
Er filmen for sukkersød? - Nej, men den nærmer sig til tider.
Er filmen forudsigelig? - SPOILER: De gode vinder over de onde, men ellers slet ikke.
Skal den ses i biografen? - Nej, men det det gør den godt, da det er mange flotte scener.
Kommer der en 2'er? - Ja, efter sigende er der lige blevet givet grønt lys til én film mere. Mere info her

Og så lige et clue til en måde måske at gøre filmen en kende mere underholdende. Jeg fik i hvert fald ret stor morskab ud af den slående lighed mellem Dronningens bror, og gode gamle Jespler Klein. De to ligner drabeligt meget hinanden, og det førte til en omgang GUH (grinen ud højt), da karakterens navn råbes for første gang. Men den vil jeg lade dig glæde dig til.


Smid gerne en kommentar med, hvad du syntes om filmen, eller hvis du har spørgsmål.

 - Nikolaj

Misfortune - A categorization

Misfortune – A categorization

Do you sometimes find yourself in a situation, where you do not know if some misfortune was just bad luck or due to your own clumsiness? Or perhaps you are annoyed with people blaming the goddess of luck, when in fact their own stupidity is the cause for their current situation? Dear friend, be concerned no more. I bring you the categorization of misfortune!

We will be working with three types of misfortune for this schema: Stupidity, clumsiness and bad luck. Naturally there are a lot of cases in between and we will have a look at them, when we have dealt with the archetypes.

A. When some misfortune is caused by stupidity it simply means, that you could have foreseen the outcome of the act, had you only given it a bit more thought. Example 1: I unplug an unsafe electronic device, without turning off the power. Ex 2: I spray paint my avantgarde art in my living room without covering the floor/furniture. Pretty simple really.

B. Clumsiness is our physical coordination/motor skills failing. Ex 3: This could be your mother knocking her little toe into the door again or ex 4: You tripping over a rock.

C. Sheer bad luck is the situations where you had no real chance of foreseeing the incident or effecting the result. Ex 5: Dude A throws a water balloon at dude B, and hits you, while you're standing with your back to them both. Or ex 6: you keep on rolling 1's on an honest die.

A. Stupidity	B. Clumsiness	C. Bad luck
The result of poor/lack of consideration	Failing motor skills	Unforeseeable incidents, or random chance
Ex. brushing your teeth while peeing standing, believing it won't make a mess.	Ex. dropping your Iphone on marble floor.	Ex. getting hit by a meteor, or falling in love with your sister whom you've never met before.

There you have it. However it doesn't take much of a brainiac to see, that these three categories will overlap in pretty much every single situation. How so? Let's take some more examples. 
Ex 7: You get hit by a car while crossing the road – auch! This is part bad luck (C) since the car being there at the time is not really your fault. It's also clumsiness (B) since you should have watched your step instead of rushing out on the road. It could also be part stupidity (A), if you knew the road was heavily trafficked, and therefore perhaps should have chosen a better crossing spot. In general I would say the main reason for getting run down by a car is clumsiness, unless the driver is in some unusual state.

Ex 8: Being to lazy to walk twice you decide to stack up your plates, cups etc. to a small mountain and try to balance it down the stairs. Of course you drop a glass or two and they shatter. This can be bad luck (C), if somehow the conditions were different from usual, and you perhaps had no way of knowing the stairs were slippery today. However it is mainly the cause of your failing to estimate (A) your own motor skills (B). In this way the first time it happens it may be primarily a matter of clumsiness. However the fifth time you try the same trick and break more stuff, this will have turned into stupidity (A).

Many more examples could be made, and arguably no misfortune does not include some of all three elements, however this may be an aid in realizing if you a unlucky, clumsy or just plain stupid.

Comment away!

Hipster Culture Part 3

When the Overman listens to George Michael

Having accounted for solution 1 and 2, I will now dive into the third and last option for the trendsetting hipster in his quest to be alternative. In part 1 I called it to “Distance yourself from the new hipsters by diving right back into the mainstream”. This is actually a bit wrong, since this last stage describes settling wherever you want, no matter how many others are already in that spot. But does this not mean giving up on the entire hipster-dream? Let me explain...

Søren Kierkegaard's final character in his theory of stages is the religious 'Knight of Faith'. This character represents the individual, who has gone beyond the average 'culturally religious' person. Earlier characters in the religious stage are part of the religious congregation, and find their personality as a part of that group (the mainstream). The religious character of the Knight of Faith is impossible to see. He acts, talks and lives as any other man, and it is impossible to see, that this individual has taken the leap of faith and made himself independent of the recognition of others. To Kierkegaard, the character at the end of the religious stage is indistinguishable from all others.

How does this tie in with the hipster? Or should I say meta hipster, for this is when he steps into the picture. The meta Hipster has abandoned his search for alternativity on the outside and may as such look in any way possible. He has internalized his alternativity and hipsterness, and become a one-man culture – a meta hipster (meta = greek for 'after', ie meta hipster = that which comes after the hipster). Like the Knight of Faith, the meta hipster no longer needs the recognition of others to sustain his alternativity. He can now satisfy his alternatomania simply through the knowledge, that he is a unique individual, who has chosen his own way.

Having seen the meaninglessness in the eternal struggle for alternativity, the meta hipster makes his own cultural meaning. To be able to make the meta hipsters 'leap of faith', one must first realize the nihilism that is as much hipster-culture as it is the mainstream, and through that knowledge create his own cultural values. Exactly this character, that rises above nihilism, is by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) called “Der Übermensch” or “the overman”, and in his writings this means seeing through the system that is Christian morals, and making your own values. In our context it could mean listening to George Michael, well knowing that it is some of the least cool tunes imaginable (at least in my social circles), simply because one chooses to.

The meta hipster is indistinguishable from everyone else. He may look mainstream or goth. He may seem nerdy in the hip way, or nerdy in the real way. Only he himself knows, that he has in fact made the leap of faith from the meaninglessness of fashion and trends, into a world that is his own construction, where individuality and alternativity has been internalized to a silent wisdom: “I am who I am – And I'm the only one.”

Please feel free to comment!

Hipster Culture Part 2

Hipster culture – a philosophical take Part 2

Last time I ended up with the hipster's three choices after breaking out from the mainstream. He may (1) settle himself where he is, knowing that others will mimic him, and end up forming a new subculture. Another option for our newborn hipster is (2) to keep on distancing himself from not only the mainstream, but also the other newer hipsters, by continuingly ironizing against all others, as we saw in Kierkegaards esthete 'A', thus fighting for his own uniqueness. Lastly there is the possibility for the hipster (3) to dive right back into the mainstream he just barely escaped. We'll get back to this one later on. In short the hipster can stay where he is, move forward to something new, or go back to where he was...

The first choice is probably the most common, and this is where our average hipster ends up. But would this not be giving up on the hipster dream of alternativity? That depends on the subject in question, and the degree of his “alternat-omania” - ie. his hunger for the alternative. This is a driving force in pretty much all of mankind through all time (tho' we weren't always conscious of it), and it has become more clear and extreme in the postmodern age. In the most light degree this means that we all want to be just a tiny bit different from everyone else. After all, if we were completely similar, there would be no room for personality and individuality. So even if I would want to look like, talk like and in pretty much every single way be similar to some role-model, I would not want to become him. That would imply loosing myself and thereby becoming nothing in the process.

So the lightest degree of this mania only means the will to retain one's own existence. At higher degrees we see changes at first in music, clothing and hobbies growing into new social circles, personality and morals.

We find our average hipster in the middle of this, where style, music and more of the outer characteristics have been alternated from the mainstream, while the deeper constitutions (religion and morals etc.) remain pretty much the same as the mainstream's.

Others however can not be satisfied by settling with a smaller group of supposed like-mindeds, they are constantly driven towards the point of ultimate, absolute, cultural solitude and alternativeness. Their styles will change as soon as they discover someone else with a similar style as their current. However with the great diversity we find in our modern culture(s), this will lead to a never ending evolution, that does not aim towards a 'better' or 'higher' state, but only a different one. And this may very well lead to any kind of degeneration (ex. a moral one). It is curious that these individuals tend to become trendsetters, due to the sole fact that they are truly unique – or at least as close as it gets. Hereby not having said, that the truly “alternat-omaniacs” necessarily become evil, degenerated demagogs, but they are however more exposed to this risk.

Enough for now. I will bring my explanation of the third possibility next time.

Comment away!