Skip to main content

Misanthropy, the New Hollywood Trend?

Wikipedia, that unauthoritative authority on all things, says that misanthropy is...

...a general dislike, distrust, or hatred of the human species, or a disposition to dislike and/or distrust other people.

This has clearly been the environmental movements' opinion for some time. You can tell this simply by listening. When they warn of environmental dangers it is always coached in terms of threat to the planet, not to humans. Extreme examples of this can be found in most any flyer from ELF, ALF, and Greenpeace. It's also the subtle undertone to any intonations from the Goreacle.

This now seems to be a trend in Hollywood, at least for this year. First there was The Happening, which pretty much says that humans don't deserve to live. Depending on how you spin it, some have commented that WALL-E is another, but I've heard contrary arguments and will wait 24 hours before commitment (which is when I plan on actually seeing WALL-E).

And coming soon, the sacrilege that is known as the 2008 remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still. The original is one of my favorite films, regardless of genre. A lot of people find it annoying because it's vaguely anti-McCarthy and vaguely pro-Communist. I find both objections weak.

I might agree with objections to the new one, though, especially given its declared pro-environment leaning. The recently released trailer holds a hint of that bent, as the robot Klaatu played by the robot Keanu Reeves intones:

If the earth dies, you die. If you die, the earth survives.

Wow, deep, And such utter crap. If somehow, someway, tomorrow the human race actually found itself in possession of The Big Red Button of Earthly Destruction and someone, just for grins, giggles, and the sake of misanthropic adventure, were to actually press it and "kill" the planet, what result?

If you believe in a loving, omnipotent God we'll probably get a lecture about being better stewards or some such. He will then hit the reset switch and on we'll go.

If you are of a more atheistic bent, however, you know what will happen. Tides will rise and fall according to the assorted laws of physics at play. The planet will continue to spin about the sun for the same reasons. At some point an amino acid will come into existence and entire evolutionary parade will begin again.

In other words, humans can't kill the planet. The planet just doesn't care. We are millimeter marks on the measure of the planet's life. This entire attitude, this hubris, infects the entire modern environmental movement and it defies logic and reason.

Now, if you want to say that we, the human race, might be in danger, well then that's more honest. But honesty is not a strong trait within The Movement and certainly not in the latest misanthropic films we're seeing.

Oh, and why is the remake such a sacrilege? Because first there's that general rule of thumb that great classics should be left the hell alone. If someone were to remake Casablanca I would have to hunt them down and wreak all levels of mayhem upon them. (I'm sure Roger Ebert would get to them first, though.)

More to the immediate point is the turning upside-down of Klaatu's mission to earth and the message he delivers. In the original, the message is simple: Don't export war. Do whatever you like to yourselves and your own planet. Come out to the stars, join us, have fun, bring tequila, wait until you try our margaritas. But leave the guns at home 'cuz if you come out here and start a ruckus then Gort and his buddies will kick your ass from here to breakfast and back again. Peace!

In other words, the aliens were not busy-bodies sticking their noses into human business. In the remake, it appears that they are precisely that. They are here to annihilate mankind in defense of the planet, because the planet is far more important than we are. Misanthropic bastards!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.