Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Reactionary Adventures in Cinematic Time Travel
Being a reactionary, I’m a sucker for high-production-value period piece movies. The period piece is the native genre of the reactionary. A really good period piece creates the optical illusion of time travel – backwards, of course, to a place with worse hygiene, but better costumes and manners. As everyone knows by now, according to Oakeshott, “To be conservative … is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant….” etc., etc. Well, the past is most of these things by definition.
Time travel into the future, by contrast, is for liberals. To be a liberal is to believe that history is an orderly procession toward the broad, sunlit uplands of enlightenment and flying cars; to believe that certain ways of thinking are outmoded, while others are modern and progressive, with good people marching forward and bad people standing athwart history yelling “Stop!” This view is popular with Whig historians, Hegelian idealists, children, H.G. Wells and Lincoln Steffens (who, in Soviet Russia, saw the future, and it worked!). But such people are wrong: history is not an unstoppable freight train of progress – it’s a bunch of half-blind people stumbling around in the dark from one dead end to another, stepping on each other’s fingers.
Not all retro time travel works for me. Star Wars doesn’t, even though it takes place a long, long time ago. Nor does The Hobbit. Yes, Tolkien’s vision of a green and pleasant mythical arcadia appeals to a certain kind of conservative anglophilia. But all the magical flimflam is in violent conflict with Oakeshott’s precepts. A good period piece is all about gritty, granular realism; it abhors magic, mysticism and CGI.
I was thinking about all this last weekend, while thoroughly enjoying the Coen Brothers’ masterpiece, Inside Llewyn Davis. The movie takes place in 1961, eight years before my birth – distant, yet familiar. What is also interesting about that year is that it marks the approximate high water mark of American civilization. Shortly thereafter, the long, slow slide began, although there was enough momentum to carry the country through another few years to the Apollo moon landings, which are without question the apex of mankind’s (personkind’s?) achievement. In this respect, Inside Llewyn Davis tills the same furrow as Mad Men, but without the belabored, semi-ironic adherence to mid-century authenticity. What Mad Men accomplishes studiously and self-consciously, Llewyn Davis achieves seemingly without effort or artifice. It just picks you up and dumps you unsentimentally into 1961 Greenwich Village.
The Coens are absolute masters of the period genre. To appreciate a good period piece, a conservative temperament helps; to recreate the past convincingly on screen requires not only genius, but a love for the past. The Coen Brothers are conservative geniuses. No wonder Harry Reid keeps denouncing them from the well of the Senate (although I don’t understand how they can be responsible for global warming).
I am always looking for a good period piece. My short list of favorites includes the following.
Russian Ark (2002). The entire film, all 96 minutes, is a single-take uninterrupted stroll with a steadicam through the Hermitage Museum and Russian history. It’s a dazzlingly choreographed piece of czarist propaganda. Doesn’t get much more reactionary than that. My favorite part is where Nicholas I, sovereign of a mature and self-confident world power, receives and accepts the abject apology of the Persian Shah for the massacre of Ambassador Alexander Griboedov and his diplomatic staff at the hands of an Islamic mob. It starts at the 54:05 mark here. Notice that what Nicholas does not do is throw an innocent filmmaker in prison and then crawl on his belly to the United Nations to explain that the mob had a number of understandable grievances and that Russia basically had it coming. Nope, he is upright throughout.
HBO’s Rome (2005; first season only – season 2 sucks). Deftly scripted and lavishly produced, only actual time travel back to the last days of the Roman Republic could rival this almost tactile experience for sheer spectacle. I would take only slight issue with the politics. Caesar’s rise, and the terrifying descent of the Republic into anti-constitutional lawlessness and civil war, are an object lesson in what happens when a charismatic populist transforms politics into a conspiracy between the super-rich and the underclass. This is a political pattern that would have some slight resonance with us today, if only we had an effective charismatic populist politician somewhere in the picture. Personally, I would have played up this angle. But in any case, you get the sense that the Republic was running on fumes. The anti-Caesareans are a disaster: Pompey is vain and bungling; Cicero is effete; Brutus dithers. On the other hand, Cato, the one true defender of conservative Roman virtue, is admirably crusty and curmudgeonly. Again, echoes of the present abound.
Ragtime (1981). What I love about this movie is not its time machine quality, which is merely OK, but that it is not what it appears to be. Taken at face value, E.L. Doctorow’s book, as realized by Milos Foreman, appears to be a lush romp through turn-of-the-20th-century America that uses a story of racial injustice as its narrative vehicle. But in fact, the whole thing is a slick and highly entertaining piece of political agitprop masquerading as a period piece. The movie and the book feature a number of historical figures, notably Booker T. Washington. At the climactic moment, the authorities bring in Booker T. to try to talk some sense into Coalhouse Walker, Jr., the movie’s magnetic protagonist, by appealing to Walker’s intelligence, sense of justice, and the fact that his reckless and selfish actions are about to undo decades of Washington’s work on behalf of black Americans. Walker rejects these appeals and the standoff ends badly. I read the book years ago and enjoyed it, but didn’t really understand what it was about until I saw the movie recently. It’s basically a brilliant race revenge fantasy. Doctorow was a leftist writing in the early 1970s at the height of the black liberation movement. Both Walker and Booker T. Washington are portrayed sympathetically, but ultimately Booker T. loses the argument. W.E.B. DuBois is out of the picture, but casts a shadow on the message of the movie. His approach was far more radical than that of the bourgeois-leaning Booker T.
Ultimately, Ragtime is not about the early 1900s; it is about the 1960s and 70s, when bourgeois values were crumbling and the Constitution-inspired civil rights movement of MLK was being hijacked by the Black Panthers. Doctorow was cleverly taking sides in that argument. The cast is great: Samuel L. Jackson, James Cagney, Norman Mailer, Mandy Patinkin and Howard Rollins Jr. Jack Nicholson and Fran Drescher also make appearances. And Elizabeth McGovern is much more fun here than in Downton Abbey 30 years later. (Downton Abbey is good too, of course, as Rob Long, James Delingpole and other prominent Ricocheti have noted.)
Finally, The Three Musketeers/The Four Musketeers, (1973, 1974, respectively), with Michael York, Raquel Welch, Charlton Heston, Faye Dunaway, Richard Chamberlain and Oliver Reed. This has been a favorite of mine since about age 10. The makers of this version had the good sense to know they couldn’t improve on Dumas’ original, stuck to the book and just concentrated on transporting the viewer into the realm of Louis XIII and Richelieu – an arch-reactionary’s paradise. It is easy to forgive the several charming anachronisms (e.g., a proto-submarine, flying the Union Jack, for the Duke of Buckingham to steal away the Queen of France (the Union Jack is the anachronism)).
Addendum: Sorry, I am now being told that it is the Koch Brothers – not the Coens – who are the main cause of global warming. Apologies for any confusion.
Published in General
Hank, I’ve got it all worked out. “A Soldier, A Statesman, and a Man of God”. We’ll use CGI of dead actors–damn those pesky estates with their hands out; Charlton Heston, Fred MacMurray (potentially the best Nixon ever) and Phil Silvers (who else).
The poster’s tag lines could be something like, “There’s a Bit of the Con Man in All of Us. There’s a Bit of the Visionary in All of Us. There’s a Bit of the Ruthless Royal Torturer in All of Us”. But it’s been suggested that a more mainstream approach t a tag line might be “Sometimes Peace is Worth the Gamble”.
You should see my post on Llewyn from a couple months ago, offer your opinion as to the question i asked about it.
I saw your handle movie a couple of years ago. Very interesting and well done.
Oblomov, Kubrick was something of a DINO; part of the reason he moved to London from New York was a horror of the rising street crime of the mid-Sixties; it’s hard to remember that “2001” was conceived over blintzes and bagels in SK’s apartment and tea at Arthur Clarke’s suite at the Chelsea. He basked in the adulation that liberals gave him after “Strangelove”, and he was stung when the influential sophistos (at first) shrugged off his “2001” because it wasn’t, you know, engaged in, like “contemporary issues”.
After that, his relations with mainstream liberalism were barbed. “Clockwork” and “Lyndon” are conservative at heart and treated that way by increasingly cold critics. “Full Metal Jacket”, admittedly no recruiting poster, was nasty and cynical but not notably political (in the usual Left movie way) about reasons for US involvement in Vietnam.
2001 A Space Odyssey does not depict a utopia.
It depicts a deep space mission. It says very little about conditions on Earth, except that the USSR and the USA are still rivals, and that private corporations control space hotels, orbital transportation, and videophones. So, no socialist post-scarcity utopia there.
In 2010, the rivalry between the USSR and the USA nearly boils over into World War III, and is only averted thanks to one great big giant deus ex machina.
One could argue that the whole message of the Odyssey series is that humanity is doomed without deus ex machina.
If I could live in a fictional world set in the past, I’d choose Jeeves & Wooster. There’s really no contest. I’d love to throw up in a policeman’s helmet on boat night.
I’d like to add Amadeus to the mix, and I second The Right Stuff.
For a period piece that falls flat (or sinks low?) — Titanic. What a hot mess of vulgarity and improbable cross-class romance. A real disaster movie.
Possibly the greatest silent film ever made.
My opinion is “Long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.” means “A long time ago in a kingdom far, far away.” I think Star Wars is a fairy tale ostensibly being told from the point of view of some unimaginably distant future.
I don’t think it was that improbable. Lots of people have flings on cruise ships.
;-)
Indeed. It is myth and fairy tale. It is Tolkien fantasy with technological trappings. Heck, it even has dragons, for crying out loud.
Basically, because magic exists in the Star Wars universe, it is not truly science fiction.
I still love it, but it has little to teach about actual human progress here on Earth.
(Oh, and it’s not just your opinion. George Lucas admits it freely. He got the idea for Star Wars in the first place after reading Joseph Campbell’s Hero With A Thousand Faces.)
My father’s been harping on me to watch this for years, and I finally just started it earlier this week. Very curious to see where it’s going, as I know next to nothing about the subject.
As far as conservative dystopian futurism, I would put Mike Judge’s Idiocracy (2006) at the top of my list. It’s hilarious, HIGHLY subversive, and highly quotable, inlcuding such gems as:
OK, maybe futurism isn’t just for liberals. But I stand by all the rest of it.
Re the “Jewel in the Crown” series, can anyone provide views on whether the DVD transfer/picture quality is bad?
A lot of reader (viewer) reviews on Amazon complain about this, and it has scared me off of purchasing the set.
(I don’t own a Blu-Ray player; strictly DVD.)
Also, I think someone on here has also mentioned Jeeves & Wooster, and again, the verdict of many on Amazon is that the picture quality/transfer on DVD is crummy.
Anyone able to share perspective on this?
Again, I’ve been scared off of buying the Jeeves & Wooster complete-set DVDs as a consequence of these negative reviews (strictly about the picture/transfer quality, not about the actual performance content.)
(It looks as if a lot of the A&E-issued British series, the ones transferred from older VHS-era originals, are as a general matter deemed problematic picture-quality-wise per Amazon.)
I have several of the DVDs, and I haven’t noticed poor picture quality compared to other British tv shows of the same era.
These shows were shot on 16mm film and originally encoded for broadcast as PAL video. Once converted to NTSC and burned to DVD, they are always going to look different from American shows. Not worse, per se, but different.
For comparison’s sake, look at Amazon reviews for other British DVD sets for shows of similar vintage, like the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes series for example.
Misthiocracy takes today’s Edwin S. Porter cinema technology prize. Congrats, Misty; you are a steely-eyed movie man. 16mm isn’t great to begin with, then the electronic conversion (in this case, a fancy euphemism for “deliberate slight blur”) from 625 line European TV to 525 line (old school) American TV could be tough on quality. But spare some pity for our British and other European friends; 525 line US shows “blown up” to 625 looked ever worse.
And there’s one other major factor. US TV is 30 frames (pictures) per second because our electric current is 60 cycle; Euro/Brit TV is 25 frames because they have 50 cycle (“Hertz”).
That’s why panning shots in “Upstairs Downstairs” have a strobe effect. It’s national character: we do better with dynamic motion, they do better with scenes of static beauty.
Digital mitigates the differences, making for a nearly world standard. The TV has an internal clock running at the equivalent of 300 frames a second that can be split either five or six ways, depending on the country.
Yup, yup, and yup.
It’s improbable because DiCaprio is such a boy! If you’re Kate Winslet going slumming on a cruise ship, at least do it with a male with secondary sex characteristics. Puhleaze!
Thanks very much, Misthiocracy and Gary McVey.
So I guess the verdict here is, Just go ahead and buy the “Jewel in the Crown” and “Jeeves & Wooster” DVD sets, and damn the format/transfer torpedoes.
Good thing my local Barnes & Noble is having a “3-for-2” DVD sale at the moment — it slightly mitigates the worry factor.
Look at it this way, Danny: there’s no secret stash of 70mm negatives of “Jeeves and Wooster” that will someday make master transfers to BluRay 4K, invalidating what you buy today. It’s about as good as it’s going to look. It ain’t never gonna be “Barry Lyndon”. So just enjoy it. BTW, if more of the American lefties were like Stephen Fry, we’d be better off. He’s an eminently decent guy.
I’m more of a Gregg Toland fan.
;-)
I dunno. He has the capacity for descending into really mean-spirited antitheism when he wants to.