The Idealist vs. The Materialist

(image courtesy of conniewonnie.com)

The idealist and the materialist are somewhat distinct characters yet they are two sides of the same coin. They often appear as contradictory characters and their approaches to certain situations are quite distinct based on the progress of society and particular stages of development.  The idealist character is one that believes that thoughts or ideas are the primary basis for action and these thoughts are very influential in shaping the perception of the objective reality.  This perception of the objective reality through ideas or thoughts then becomes the basis for how we operate in the world and how the objective world operates around us. These ideas or thoughts that we perceive then  becomes a distinct element that is known as an ideal or a set of organizing principles that  determine the actions by particular groups or for society as a whole.  The philosophical approach which says that ideas shape the world we live in is known as idealism. This approach brings it into conflict with the other side of the coin represented by materialists who embody the values of materialism. Materialism is a philosophy which says that the objective reality beyond the realm of our thoughts shapes how we perceive the world. The material elements  represented by the objective world therefore have a significant bearing on how we perceive the world.  The materialistic elements that are represented by the objective reality  therefore shape how people respond. Materialists state, therefore,  that the world  exists  independently of our thoughts.  Materialism then allows for a constant appreciation of the fundamental reasons for  movement or progress in human  society and in the natural world. It is not bound by a rigid set of principles and has a greater appreciation for how various elements interact in the objective world.  The primary differences between idealists and materialists  appear contradictory but they are a  part of the same coin.  The contradictions  between these two groups of individuals  influence how society functions and operates.  In the end it all depends on whether or not you  stick to your principles or if you go with the flow of progress regardless of how your moral, ideated compass is altered.  I am focusing primarily on how these characters interact in the social sphere and how they collide.

The  Idealist

The idealist in society is one that sticks firmly to his or her principles. The idealists share the belief that our world functions based on a set of organizing principles that shape how we interact with the objective reality or the material world beyond our perceptions or thoughts. We function based on how we perceive the world based on our level of consciousness. There has to be an object to perceive and that would explain why as human societies began to develop and mature into settled civilizations religion was very important in allowing individuals to understand the world. Instead of a scientific basis for the examination of certain elements humans were decidedly influenced by our beliefs that were not based on the examination of empirical data. From the beginning nature was not seen as a chaotic force that brought about a certain order to how the world operated. It was seen as a creation of the gods who had enhanced human qualities. Nature appeared as if by design or ordained by the creation of supernatural forces. Most of the concepts learned in the early stages of human societal development were organized by these religious principles. These religious principles were based on ideas about the nature of the earth and the wider universe that was created by the gods of various religions.  These gods laid the basis for the classification of various elements in nature and the objective reality that involved how human beings interacted. Each group believing in their right to rule based on their religion. All the laws of society were laid down by  the gods instead of seeing it as a means of ensuring a certain level of social bonding amongst humans that would guarantee a certain level of cooperation based on various class distinctions. Then there were the philosophers, particularly the Greeks,  that offered a challenge to the religious dogma by offering various fantastic interpretations of the world around us. They might have challenged religious dogma but they did so by fantastic idealistic reasoning. Plato was one of the top idealistic philosophers of Ancient Greece.  Language was created based on our conceptual understanding of our environment and our ability to identify and classify certain elements. Language also reinforced the cultural basis for interaction amongst a particular group of individuals. This is why in order to identify a particular group of individuals one must identify the cultural principles that bind them together. These cultural principles are based on the ideas that shape how a group of people perceive the objective reality. This is why many cultures are similar but they identify the natural world in superficially different ways or based on the various natural elements that they encounter or the shared experiences of particular peoples.  In some cases they give the same thing different names.  It is still important to embrace idealism in such a regard because based on our means of communication through language we are able to identify and classify these elements. If you want to communicate an idea to another human being then language is important. Language is based on the symbolic interaction between humans and the perception of the world we inhabit. It is still an idealistic notion that we live in a world shaped by how we classify certain elements or other human beings. It is effective for those people that believe strongly in the cultural values that shape their perception of the objective world. This world can be classified because of the regularity of certain elements. Once there is not enough occurrence of a particular element then it is difficult to classify. It is the regular occurrence of living beings, natural cycles and the mode of operation of  societies  etc that give rise to the notion that this world was designed in a particular way according to certain thoughts.

Ideals are important in shaping not just how we communicate and see the world but the structure of society along class lines.  The political structure of society  becomes reinforced by idealistic principles. Those that adhere strictly to these principles are clearly idealists. From a political point of view what is reinforced is the right to rule by a particular group and those that are subject to their rule. Every political principle is organized along idealistic lines and this puts it on par with the idealistic influence of religion. When it comes to the history of the two dominant world religions,  Islam and Christianity, politics is closely aligned with religion.  Many rulers have to convince their supporters of their right to rule whether by conquest and subjugation, using the moral high ground (trace their descent to the gods) or by making promises that can’t be kept.  This is an idealistic element because there has to be some means of convincing others that your way is the best.  The destruction  of a particular way is normally as a result of a new nation,  group, association or party that is able to tear down or significantly challenge  the ideals of the incumbent. When the legitimacy of a  particular group, association or party is smashed by a new group their ideas become dated or old fashioned. The people will eventually adopt the principles of the new group based on the influence of their organizing principles which are primarily idealistic although there is a materialistic basis for this; it is called conquest.  A lot of the major shifts throughout human history have occurred strictly along idealistic lines. The challenge posed by some Greek philosophers to religious dogma,  Jesus Christ vs. Mohammed,  the pharaohs, Buddha,  The Roman Catholic Church replacing the so called pagan religions, the challenge Islam made to Christianity, the role played by Christianity in the colonizing and conquering  missions of the European powers, the justification used by the white race to subjugate those of other races and how these subjugated races fought back etc. Obviously there is also Capitalism vs. communism. In a lot of cases the material destruction of an ideal comes in the form of conquest by certain means. With this material destruction also comes the destruction of the organizing principles. The destruction of the organizing principles means that new principles will have to emerge in order to  effectively challenge again. This cannot be done without the material backing however. The ability to challenge effectively comes because the material foundation allows for it. If the new challenge is effective then a new set of organizing principles is required.

The organizing principles bind people in  particular ways. This occurs through various alliances such as marriage, the family code, peer socialization. This is all done along class and racial lines because each race and class exist according to various cultural and natural experiences. In such a situation these factors affect how people interact. The bourgeoisie/capitalist class has to create idealistic principles that justify its rule over the oppressed working classes. It is these organizing principles that ossify the various class and racial distinctions over time.  People then adhere to them in order to maintain the functions of the state/nation, group or association. This is enforced through various laws that are based on primarily idealistic principles that regulate how people should interact in society. Law abiding citizens are hailed as upstanding individuals even though the law may reinforce the oppression of particular groups in society for the benefit of others. It is in the interest of those that benefit from the law to be upstanding citizens. The rule of law therefore does not guarantee prosperity in such an instance hence why new laws are constantly updated or revised to accommodate those oppressed groups that challenge the status/static quo.

The history of science also suggests that it was highly influenced by ideals. One can see this with various pronouncements made about the  earth being at the centre of the universe or that it was flat at one point. These pronouncements seem comical or quixotic now but back then they were taken very seriously until they were actually disproved. This does demonstrate how effective an ideal can be although it is faulty or has no bearing on reality. It can shape how men interact with the objective environment although it does not affect this objective reality. Even some of Einstein’s theories had to be proven and a lot of his work was theoretical in nature. Some of it still yet to be proven by empirical data. Any work that is theoretical in nature is idealistic or informed by a certain idea of the world. Some elements of these theories may be verified by certain empirical data but this means that it was not idealistic but based on an objective assessment of the objective reality. There are some theories that do go beyond the data to make some pronouncements that still await confirmation. Until then they remain utopias in the mind of many.

Most organizations, business, scientific or professional, are reinforced by organizing principles. These principles remain the basis for how they function until the material basis for their ideals are shattered.

As a result of these organizing principles throughout a particular nation, group, or association there emerges a grand ideal that becomes the basis for unity. All these organizing principles are supposed to lead to something grand or major that represents the supposed outcome that is as a result of adhering to these principles.  For instance in religion adhering to certain principles will lead you to the home of the gods and those that do not adhere to said principles are sentenced to eternal damnation or torture. The principles of philosophy lead to absolute knowledge. In business the organizing principles of the company are supposed to lead to profits and in school adhering to the principles lead to a pass or a certificate of completion based on the requirements. Man and woman relationships aspire to the ideal of love.

The idealist character of society is very principled.  These people normally adhere to a rigid mode of operation that is dictated by the demands of the organizing principles of the nation or particular organization. One basis for idealism is its ability to classify various elements based on their regularity or frequent occurrence. The individual eventually realizes that he or she belongs with a particular group or the various groups that form the basis for the nation. This goes back to the original basis for idealism based on how we conceptualize the world through language. This expression comes to make us identifiable as groups or individuals and then we realize that we are not as unique when we stand alone. If we were all so unique then we would not need each other. We are social beings and so there are idealistic principles that bind some people together. A man and woman come together because they want to build a family unit;  on social media outlets like facebook or twitter you must have friends or followers or those that support you in some way no matter how small.  Each individual fits in somewhere and this is determined by shared experiences, perceptions, beliefs, physical makeup etc.  Idealists like to believe that the ‘fundamentals still apply as time goes by’ or ‘the more things change the more they remain the same’. This rigid approach can make them intransigent or intolerant because they have to stick to the organizing principles that decidedly influences how they interact with the objective reality and the grand ideal that they want to achieve.

The Materialist

The materialist is decidedly influenced by the precepts of materialism. As stated before the materialist philosophy means that everything is determined by the activity in the surrounding material world. Therefore they are in direct opposition to the idealists that believe that it is our thoughts that shape the world we live in. Materialism, therefore,  cannot adhere to the absolute principles that is cherished by idealism. Materialism adheres to a more relative conception of the world because nothing is eternal. Adhering to something that is eternal can lead to stagnation and a rotten core because there are movements in objective reality that are taking place and are constantly challenging the organizing principles or concepts of a particular nation, organization, group or association. For materialism change is constant as opposed to things remaining the same.

Materialism assumes a more empirical and scientific basis for the examination of particular elements or spheres of influence.  This makes a strict materialist unwilling to assign a theoretical basis for the examination of a particular subject because the facts constantly erode the basis for ideology.  Materialism dictates that everything must be judged on its own merit. Everything is unique and must be examined on such grounds. It is difficult to extrapolate using a particular element or sphere of influence and apply it on a general basis unless it applies to all the elements that comprise a particular sphere of influence. Therefore if you discuss all the elements of the earth then it does comprise the whole that is the earth. But one cannot apply studies related to the earth and its inhabitants to Mars or Jupiter.  Similarly if you study all the elements that comprise capitalism one cannot apply these elements to another system of economy such as feudalism, the plantation economy, colonial economy, peasant economy, slave economy, petty bourgeois economy etc.  Only when you study all the parts that comprise a particular whole can you then generalize about it. If you only study a ½ then how will you know that it can apply to the other half. There does not necessarily have to be another planet exactly like earth that we can look on but it is clear that for life to form or thrive fresh water must be present. Because water means that there is a hospitable atmosphere for life. The planet does not have to be another earth. The earth is not absolute. If there are other life forms out there in the universe they don’t necessarily have to look like the life forms on earth.  Basically there are many different parts in a particular whole. There is never just one way  or that whole will be or become very small. Meaning there are many diverse elements. There are different life forms and the object is life. A developed capitalist system is characterized by the production and sale of various commodities in the market. A capitalist economy that is not developed sufficiently is characterized by a limited amount of commodities produced for sale in the market.  A developed peasant economy is characterized by a large number of peasant holdings. Basic examples that there can be many parts to a particular whole. Those nations, organizations, groups or associations that do not have much diversity are quite small and insignificant. It is a fact and does not require a theoretical justification.

This diversity means that it is difficult for a materialist to assign a set of principles to a particular whole without coming to terms with its diversity. In another case it is also difficult to create a set of organizing principles on the basis of one whole while not accounting for other wholes. Who is to tell which one is absolute in its conception? Particularly as a absolute conception reveals a very limited or finite base in the long run. The absolute normally paves the way for a more relative conception.

The materialist character is a character that tries to be all encompassing or someone that moves with the tide. They are against idealists because they frown on making arbitrary judgments. They detest a absolute conception of the world or the belief that things are eternal. This is because they subscribe to the position that everything is relative up to a certain point because most things are finite in nature. There are fundamentals for every element but not every element is the same because from the base each element becomes something distinct. The resources of the earth and the labour of humans are the original basis of economy for humankind but these fundamental elements become the basis for different modes of social organization along class lines with capitalism being the most advanced. The earth’s resources and the labour of humans is utilized in all forms of economy but on top of these fundamentals are built various structures that add to the diversity of economy. Therefore while the resources of the earth and the labour of humans are fundamental they do not remain in the same shape when utilized by different economic structures.  The capitalist mode of development is the most advanced form of economy because humans become divorced from the land which is the original source of wealth in the other forms of economy. No longer do humans live off the land as if bound by mother earth. The wealth of nations which was previously tied to having a agricultural surplus is now replaced by industry with all its technical requirements. Even agriculture is taken over by the industry and its precepts. The development of a wage labour force (those that only sell their labour) that exists only to provide surplus value/profit for the capitalist or the owners of the means of production. Money is now more important than owning a piece of land because money is the equivalent of all commodities produced in the market or the universal equivalent.

Materialists acknowledge the influence of the objective reality on their actions. They do not see thoughts as being the basis for their action but rather how they respond to the demands of an external objective reality. Materialists can be prone to very selfish behavior because their refutation of idealism can preclude a sense of general unity particularly as everything is relative. The materialists therefore cannot prescribe a general set of principles that will preserve the integrity of a particular system because everything is constantly moving and changing. Empires rise and fall. This approach can make them appear to be negative and their approach can also seem to be demeaning because they are motivated by naked self interest and the betterment of self. They are also more likely to believe in heaven or hell on earth because they acknowledge the drive to accumulate wealth which can determine who falls into a particular class. The haves and the have nots.

They are very empirical in how they structure their research. They do not make any claims unless they have the evidence.  They are very weak when it comes to providing a theoretical justification for their research and they act more like data collectors. This makes them incapable of influencing general trends in society because they are incapable of mobilizing groups under a general heading. This is ever more pertinent because they subscribe to a  more relative conception of the world. An ever changing world. Nothing set in stone. They are more willing to adapt to change than the idealists and are more tolerant as a result of their position. 

The Idealist vs. the Materialist

How do these two groups of individuals interact in the social sphere? It makes for some interesting drama and a comedy of errors.  This is because the distinction between the two can get blurred no matter how distinct their approaches might seem. Which one came first, the chicken or the egg?  The history of the world has shown that the great organizers of states/nations, various organizations, groups or associations have very idealistic qualities. In order to do this they made an impact in the social sphere by some material means. This means that the objective reality influenced them in a certain way in order for them to bring about their ideal. You cannot be distinct if you don’t measure yourself against what is already there or you would not have much diversity. The material form of conquest has been used by most idealistic groups to improve their position. Where would the glory of Rome be without its military conquests? How would colonization take place if there was not land to be claimed for the glory of the European countries? Even the likes of Jesus, Buddha and Mahatma Ghandi had to reject the material world in order to live like holy figures.  In order to have an ideal an external object must be present in order to influence your thoughts on a particular issue. You cannot have thoughts in a vacuum.

The idealists like to look at their ideals as eternal and this position is always challenged by the materialists who like to demonstrate the reality of a situation. In order for a grand ideal to be achieved then there had to be trial and error. This is a historical fact. No matter the state, organization or group most of these entities are there by trial and error. What they stood for has always been subject to change. History teaches us this with the many tales of unification. For most entities there was a process of unification that required some form of violence, struggle or antagonism in order to unite the individuals under a particular umbrella. The main way to convince people to follow you is by making them believe that by following you they will reap some reward either on earth or in heaven.  Unification does not come ready made. Someone has to be convinced by some means be it violent or more peaceful logical argumentation.  This antagonism is reflective of a materialist process whereby everything is relative. America today is not the same America before the passage of the Civil rights law or before the civil war. Jamaica is not the same as the one before independence from colonial rule.  The idealists, however, will have none of it and this is why a lot of them fall in the conservative ranks. They always try to go back to the fundamentals of a particular entity as justification for their actions. They are normally resistant to change and it can make them look ridiculous, backward or out of touch with the movements taking place in the objective reality that is external to them.  Although in society they are mocked for their ironic embrace of modernity. They don’t like to throw away the junk VCR but will buy the latest DVD or Blu Ray player. They embrace diversity only if they will not be affected by it. This means that they withdraw from the world to live in fantasies of a time long dead. They are more likely to embrace the classics yet frown on the present material as inadequate. Nothing can measure up to the great past works which represent a particular ideal because of how influential they are. The fundamentals still apply and in some cases they are right because particular elements may become diverse over time but the core principles remain the same. A standard procedure is still adhered to although the form may change or become diverse.  At the end of the day all the diverse elements are just a branch of the same tree but there is only one tree rooted in the ground. If you cut off all the branches and leave the root then it’s possible that the tree can grow again.

The idealists are not always conservative because they embrace creative impetus. Even if we are influenced by the objective reality, according to the materialists, a significant thought process must occur in order to create a particular object. In this sense the creative impetus shapes our reality because things have to be created in order to function. The original qualitative element required a significant thought process. This is why idealists will embrace material progress on the basis of human ingenuity and, for the more religious, is done for the glory of god or some sort of ideal. For instance made in Jamaica, made in America, made in China enhances the glory of a particular state.

In a lot of cases the materialists also become idealists because by challenging the basis for idealism they do so with another idea about how the world should work or how it is.  A lot of progress in humanity is due to the clash of ideas. Ideas that were established years ago still have an enormous influence on the present generation and how they think. The idea about white supremacy, for instance, is still effective as evidenced by the deranged white man that killed 9 black people in a Charleston church or the numerous fatal killings of young black males. The idea of white supremacy has been so effective that white people are still given the edge when it comes to certain areas. The other racial groups, particularly blacks, are still labeled as inferior in certain circles because of the history of denigration that took place as a result of the dominant ideology related to white supremacy. This denigration took the material form of enslavement or physical brutalization and colonialism. Even the Haitian Revolution was seen as a challenge to the ideology of white supremacy. The ideas of white supremacy have been challenged in various societies but it is ironic that the poor countries that have a lot of ideas about challenging this ideology still run to the nations of predominantly white people for material assistance. They can challenge the idea with another idea but not from a strictly materialist basis. A lot of the leaders of the poor world with populations that are largely made up of non-white racial groups have also adopted the culture of the white nations in terms of their approach to economic development. The only difference is that a black man or an Indian is in power. The racial groups in Asia have been the most successful at challenging the concept of white supremacy from a strictly materialist basis, particularly Japan, China, South Korea and Singapore.   The majority of countries with mostly black populations remain in a state of gross poverty. In academia certain people from these countries did assume the materialist approach by opening up the field and exposing the arguments related to white supremacy but it still only remained another idea particularly as the leaders adopted white culture while relegating their own indigenous culture to stage show entertainment or the tourism product in order to attract money from the investors and spenders primarily from the white nations. Hmmm. These ideas, however, were very important in motivating people to think about the issues and perhaps make a change by promoting their culture. In a lot of cases the culture is seen as exotic or part of a tourism product but not the dominant cultural position in the world because the countries or groups that promote them are materially poor.  In America and other countries blacks have found ways to disprove white supremacy from a strictly materialist point of view. We see that with the great sport and entertainment personalities that have had a considerable influence in their respective fields. Still need more black billionaires like the man from Nigeria.  As Oprah found out in Switzerland, however, it is still a difficult thing to dislodge white supremacy from a strictly materialist basis if they don’t know who you are.  The election of  the first black president of the United States is ironic considering his white heritage. Makes you wonder sometimes.

 That was just an example of how the  significant influence of white supremacy as an ideology has permeated several societies and is still difficult to dislodge. The same could be said of capitalism but I won’t be going down that road.

The idealists are very effective in terms of developing principles that can unify people in a particular sphere whereas the materialists look very ineffective.  The materialists come across as very disinterested, ineffective and aloof and their only purpose, at times, seem to be the act of criticism. The idealists seem more willing to engage materially with the world in order to put forth their ideas  about something while the materialist  ironically casts judgment by saying things like ‘if you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all’ or ‘don’t buy into the propaganda’.  Some materialists cannot seem to engage effectively in the creative sphere because the evidence is not available or they risk becoming idealists themselves.  Some are very good at criticizing the ideas of others but are unwilling or unable to put forward their own without sounding fantastic or pedantic.   If they do put forward their own it’s based on a refutation of some deluded idealist. But this is done by putting forward another relative idea. On the flip side even in creative endeavours the materialists are seen as not being very creative and only seeking to attract money. They produce things distinctly for the demands of the market. A lot of the criticism aimed at some films are that they are derivative cash cows. They make a lot of money but do not seem to have much originality in terms of creativity. Just spin offs looking to milk the cow of the original. The spin off and sequel element is strictly a materialist position although some efforts are very creative and are a success both critically and at the box office The Dark Knight, Star Wars Episode 4 etc. In the creative sphere the materialist approach can be very effective and this is seen in the approach taken by Marvel comics. In the end however the blockbuster era is here to stay and the more dramatic works recede in the background in terms of box office numbers although they still dominate in the awards season. In terms of strictly materialist goals for making money a majority of films will be released that are very successful in terms of money but not so in terms of creativity. This is because they are extremely targeted but not so concerned with the abstract idealism with its grand message or very dramatic performances.

The idealists have been very effective at branding some materialists as cowards and criminals. The cowards are those unwilling to come forward in the public sphere and challenge the idealists because they won’t have much supporters. The idealists are good at galvanizing support around an idea through their organizing principles even if they don’t correspond to reality. You can’t become a politician without some idealist position because you won’t be alone in your endeavour. You will need support because we’re social beings. Humans are motivated a lot about ideas of themselves and the world around them.  The materialists cannot win much support unless they use their thoughts to influence social perception about a particular issue. Some people can only relate to what you’re saying unless it’s ideated. They won’t be able to relate to the objective reality unless it can be shown to them in some ideated form.   This goes against the materialist position that is based on empiricism. A lot of materialists seem to defeat themselves by becoming idealists. The materialists that are branded as criminals are portrayed as individuals that do not want to unite around the unifying banner and so they bypass all that it stands for by creating mayhem from a material point of view. It’s ironic that crime is seen as a social disease when in some instances it only reflects a group of people that do not subscribe to the idealistic principles of a nation such as the respect for private property. If they don’t subscribe to such organizing principles, are they to be considered a social disease? What if they have their own way of doing things that corresponds to a particular objective reality? Who is right, the ganja farmers or the state police that confiscate their produce?  It depends because one can see the effectiveness of having a organizing principle or a idea of how things should operate because it does lead to a more orderly  way of doing things. If the materialists have their way it can be seen as chaotic because they don’t abide by ideals laid down by the organizers and are motivated strictly by naked self- interest ‘To hell with you’.  In some cases they don’t seem to have control of what they’re doing because they have no ideal that can check them. They just go with the flow and who are you to judge because it’s their life. This can only be prevented and enforced through rules or laws or just outright conquest.  Check the recent global economic recession and the aftermath.

‘Isn’t it ironic’ that the rules that protect the sanctity of private property try to control the drive of others to accumulate at all costs especially at the expense of others? Isn’t it ironic that the drive to attain an ideal can be considered chaotic because one has to engage materially with the world? In the case of profit one has to go all out by using the material means and the idealistic principles at your disposal in order to attain it. If you don’t have the money then you can’t invest but if you don’t have a set of principles to guide you you won’t know where to put it.  There is a certain established method to gain profit. When this becomes established it is referred to as idealistic, because it influences how people operate, but it is still an ongoing materialistic process. The ideal feeds the material drive and the material drive feeds the ideal. In the end you’re just ‘running on empty’. In order to attain knowledge you have to clash with a lot of people who have opposing views, different ideas. You have to engage in the sphere of profanity.

Once crucial element in all this is competition and crisis and this gives the materialists the edge. There are always several competing interests. In the sphere of competition everyone has their own way of doing things and this leads to conflict. Competition is a materialistic element because it reflects the diversity in a particular sphere or whole. This diversity means that there is no real absolute or monopoly, only winners and losers particularly as each entity has its own idea of how something should be produced or how something operate. Each entity, therefore, has its own ideas about a particular thing. In some cases monopoly is entertained and the monopoly exerts considerable influence on how the people in the society operate. Crisis is another element that gives the materialists the edge. In terms of crisis there is a major disruption of a particular system. This system normally operated in a particular way but its principles ignored the happenings in the objective reality and then that ideal is shattered. Capitalists tend to overproduce because the market is unable to absorb all the goods for sale. This leads to some form of destruction of what a particular company stood for originally especially if there emerges from the crisis new ways to do things. After a major crisis most people have to alter how they do things because a crisis leads to destruction in some form. They cannot take the same approach as they did before the crisis. With a crisis people tend to come to terms with the objective reality and how it shaped their response to a particular issue. In some cases they did not acknowledge the reality and the crisis forced them to come to terms with it even if they lived in a great fantasy about how they thought the world should operate. If there was no such thing as crisis or competition then the idealists would be right to believe that their ideals are eternal. The crisis lets them realize that they can be absolute up until a certain point.

Idealists tend to predominate in very poor countries and those countries that embrace the materialist ways tend to be the rich ones. The rich nations understand how to get the most out of their objective reality and this is why conquest or investment in profitable areas reaps rewards in a lot of cases. In order to be rich materially you have to know how to engage with the external elements. One cannot simply just imagine or think that this is how it should be. One must be able to engage with the objective world in order to see what it can do for you materially. The idealists in the poor countries do a lot of thinking and discussion about the world but do not necessarily have the means to engage with the material world. So a lot of policy formulating takes place, a lot of discussions on the verandah or in parliament etc but little in terms of action or engagement with the material world.

Idealists can normally be caricatured as crazy individuals that are out of touch. Insane people represent idealism gone wild.

In the end the materialists and the idealists are both sides of the same coin. They do have somewhat distinct approaches but there is a coming together. Your thoughts can shape the world you live in but that can only be done by coming to terms with the material world. Similarly for the materialists they have to understand that for the world to be understood it has to be transformed into an idea or theory that explains the world as opposed to mere data collection. One must have an idea that connects all the dots. At their most extremes however these types are normally considered very different but they do reside in the same sphere.

  Just a general discussion. welcome any feedback

Countdown to Star Wars Episode VII

(image courtesy of thebrickfan.com)

The countdown to Star Wars Episode VII:  The Force Awakens, which will be released December 18, 2015, has officially begun on this page. I will be discussing, briefly, over a period of time,  the various elements related to the Star Wars saga that begun in 1977, when Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope premiered, and how influential it has been for the birth of the blockbuster era. I never grew up in the Star Wars era. I heard about it while growing up and only when I seriously begun doing research about movies did I  truly discover it. Now I realize fully the impact the saga had on popular culture and how its influence is all pervasive. I grew up in a time when Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace (1999) was treated like the 2^nd coming. I didn’t like that film and it further distanced me from the series until I later watched Episode IV: A New Hope. Watching A New Hope really set me straight and it is now one of my favorite films. I will discuss this later. Only to say that I  am fully on board. Obviously I grew up in the age of The Lord of the Rings, The Dark Knight Trilogy  Harry Potter and the host of Marvel films divided into 3 phases. These films utilized the blockbuster formula, developed by Star Wars in 1977, effectively and are still very popular and have generated several spin offs because they have strong mythologies or histories  and include a diverse list of characters.

Well if one bears in mind the enormous influence of the Star Wars saga and the amount of money the upcoming Episode VII is expected to make just on the strength of the it's legacy, then it does merit a lot of discussion.  It won’t be a very structured discussion just random bits that will place some things into perspective, particularly from my perspective, about the saga.

Pt 1 Darth Vader and Bane

(image courtesy of hypable.com)

Darth Vader is one of the great all time villains and Bane is his progeny. Darth Vader is so great that his story pervaded the two Star Wars trilogies. The first trilogy (Episodes IV-VI) demonstrates how Vader is the principal enforcer  for the Empire and the second (I-III) shows how integral Anakin Skywalker (who eventually became Vader) was in the formation of the Empire.  Bane was a very effective villain in The Dark Knight Rises (2012) but Christopher Nolan, the director, clearly stated that his portrayal was influenced to some extent  by Vader. Well we didn’t need Nolan to tell us that.  From the way he breathes and talks through his mask and the extent of injuries that shaped how he is portrayed, Bane is clearly Vader’s progeny.  

Physically Bane is clearly modeled off Vader but what about his approach as a villain. Bane is closer to Vader in The Empire Strikes Back because of how he treats his subordinates. In The Empire Strikes Back  Vader does not hesitate to kill his subordinates  because of their incompetence. Bane has a similar approach when he kills two henchmen who brought the battered Commissioner, James Gordon, to the hide out of the League of Shadows in the sewers of Gotham City right below Wayne tower.  It is clear that both Vader and Bane do not tolerate incompetence and this reflects the confidence they have in carrying out their respective missions.  Bane and Vader are both enforcers and not leaders. Bane carries out the plans of his leader Talia, leader of the league of shadows, and Vader carries out the plans of the Emperor.  Both are second in command but they have a dominant presence.  This goes to show that every leader needs an enforcer. The enforcer is the man of action that will ensure that a particular plan is implemented. The  vision or plan of the leader would not be possible without the enforcer(s). This is very important as Bane is responsible for taking out Batman and taking charge of the city. Talia could not do that as effectively as  the physically imposing and dominant  figure of Bane although she is still the mastermind. Similarly the emperor that Vader serves is not physically imposing. He is a man in physical decline although he does  have considerable power. The Emperor is clearly the mastermind and has considerable influence over Vader. Talia also has considerable influence over Bane because of his love for her.  Both are grateful for the benevolence shown to them by their leaders.

Both Bane and Vader are very confident in their abilities. They have a habit of talking down to their opponent during a fight.  Bane did this in his first fight with the Batman and Vader did it on several occasions when he fought Obi Wan and Luke.

Both Bane and Vader are eventually  treated with some sympathy and understanding. Instead of seeing Bane as just a physically imposing figure and dominant personality we get to understand the circumstance that shaped him  such as his life in the pit where he suffered horrific injuries in order to secure Talia’s freedom. We eventually get to understand how Vader was turned by giving in to the dark side of the force and how he again changed towards the end in The Return of the Jedi to save Luke.  Saving Luke was an act of love which was quite uncharacteristic of how Vader  normally carried himself.

There are some differences however. Bane sticks to his belief system. He is much more rigid in his opposition to Batman whereas Vader does come to his senses when he demonstrates his love for Luke and goes back to the side of the Jedi. Vader does have some internal struggle whereas Bane is presented  strictly as a villain. Bane is physically imposing and does not rely on gadgets like light sabers or the force.  Bane also likes to engage himself in battle alongside his subordinates. Vader was more likely to let the subordinates do the work while he oversees events or comes after all the damage is done to make an assessment of the situation. In Episode IV Vader does lead a group of air fighters against the rebel air force that sought to exploit the weakness in the Death Star ship. However, only in one on one battle does Vader truly demonstrate his abilities.  He is more likely to rely on his subordinates than Bane and this coincides with the kind of position held by Vader in the large Empire when compared with the admirals and generals below him.  Vader is more like a Prime Minister than a general or admiral, especially in The Empire Strikes Back whereas Bane acts more like a general.  

Their cause is  different. Bane along with Talia are trying to reassert the authority of the League of Shadows against batman and so carry out the plan of the deceased Ras Al Ghul  to destroy Gotham city.  This is why Bane acts more like a revolutionary until one becomes aware of the plan to destroy Gotham. Vader on the other hand is responsible for maintaining order in a vast Empire that is long established. He has to deal primarily with the rebel force that seeks to topple the Empire. Initially Bane gives the impression to the citizens of Gotham that he is leading some sort of revolution.  

I just presented some similarities and differences. I welcome feedback on this topic but there is enough material to suggest that Bane is clearly influenced by Vader in terms of his physical make up and in his approach as a villain. This also speaks to the greatness of the Star wars saga that produced such an effective villain in the form of Vader. It will be interesting to see how the next trilogy of Star Wars films get by without his presence.

The Jamaican Cinematic Experience: My Experience with the now defunct Odeon Cineplex in Mandeville or how did that movie reel end up at the back of a bus?

(image courtesy of panoramio.com)

The Odeon Cineplex in Mandeville, Manchester, once owned and managed by the Palace amusement Co., is defunct having closed  September 2,  2014. I had several experiences with that now defunct establishment because I travel to Manchester quite often.  In Manchester the cool town of Mandeville is the most prominent. It has a university in the form of NCU (Northern Caribbean University), a strong real estate sector as it is a destination where many people (local and foreign) choose to settle,  a vibrant commercial and retail sector  and the town once benefitted significantly from the operations of the bauxite companies such as Windalco,  Alpart and Jamalco. Bauxite operations in Manchester are now closed for the time being since 2009 following the global economic recession in 2008. There has been news that  Alpart is slowly resuming operations as there was a reported shipment of  bauxite ore in September 2015 from Port Kaiser in the parish of St. Elizabeth. The end of operations by the bauxite companies significantly affected the earning capacity of many individuals in the town of Mandeville that depended on the investment made by these companies in the exploring, mining and processing of bauxite and alumina ore. The establishment of the Odeon Cinema in Mandeville from the 1950s also coincided with the increased bauxite production in Manchester that began during the same period. The Odeon cinema closed in 1998 and was reopened in 2003 with the name Odeon Cineplex under the management of the Palace Amusement Co. which was responsible for subsidizing its operations. (Info on Odeon  courtesy of reports in The Jamaica Observer August 31 &22, 2014 and June 14, 2012).

Well after 11 years of operations the Odeon Cineplex is now defunct.  There are several reasons as to why this is. From 2012 the management of Odeon Cineplex, according to  a report in The Jamaica Observer, were bemoaning that the increase in DVD piracy was beginning to significantly affect its operations. I already discussed illegal DVDs in my previous post when it comes to the Jamaican cinematic experience and it is clear that this could not be the only reason. The Odeon Cineplex had 2 movie screens  each capable of  seating up to 400 people. They assumed that with the rise of DVD sales they were no longer  able to fill the seats but what about the other side of the coin.  Movie prices in Jamaica have increased particularly as a lot of films are in 3D and you don’t really have a choice because of the limited capacity of the cinema houses. The increase in movie prices means that a lot of average citizens started to settle for the 2 for 1 special (I discussed this earlier). The other nights would be attractive only if a massive blockbuster film was being screened. The increase in movie prices coupled with the closure of bauxite operations did more to affect Odeon Cineplex than DVD piracy although it’s not clear from the report in The Jamaica Observer how they measured the increase in ILLEGAL DVD SALES apart from some prosecutions. The managing director of Palace Amusement Co. , Douglas Graham, acknowledged the effects of the closure of the bauxite industry alongside DVD piracy but did not mention the steady increase in movie prices that made a lot of people incapable or uncomfortable spending that kind of money to watch a movie. As Palace Amusement Co. releases films mostly in 3D the cost for an adult is now JM$ 1350.    With a seating capacity of 400 seats for each movie screen the Odeon Cineplex could not compete with illegal DVD sales and a parish reeling from the effects of the global economic recession.  It is also very clear that the movies they offered at one time were quite limited or 2 at a time. With DVD piracy Palace Amusement was competing with films that were never even released in Jamaica. Graham said that it was  ‘something of a mystery’ why Odeon could not attract enough people as it was located in the supposed centre of the town  on Caledonia road. It was a mystery although he previously stated that it was due to the effects of the closure of the bauxite industry and the increase in DVD piracy. Strange much.

The reality is that the increase in DVD piracy is a reflection of the state of the Jamaican economy which has a low per capita income. Graham was bemoaning the decline in the midst of a general downturn in the economy. The economy was not growing and with the closure of the bauxite industries one could not expect Mandeville to cope as well. People love to go to the movies regardless of DVD piracy but they have to feel that it’s worth the cost.  Most people would prefer to watch it on the big screen than on the roadside or in their living rooms unless they have a major private entertainment centre. It makes you wonder how Palace Amusement will compete once more films are released through Netflix before they go to DVD. Netflix has already started and one expects that more films will be released through it in the coming years. It’s good business for film studios. Regardless of private entertainment issues the Palace Amusement Co. just could not compete with the downturn in the Jamaican economy. It missed the boat in terms of improving its product offerings in order to attract people especially the young. The closure of Odeon Cineplex was hardly talked about in the streets only the activity when they were pulling the place apart. No one in Mandeville misses it at the moment. It did not establish itself as a force to attract people from all around.  Instead of bemoaning increased DVD piracy they could have done more  to fill the 400 seat capacity for both movie screens. As I mentioned before they have some rigid ideals when it comes to pricing. They are not very flexible apart from the 2 for 1 special which, in my opinion, should be available at least 4 times a week.  Palace Amusement Co. is a retail company for an industrial product in a  poor agrarian economy. You have to be really up there with your marketing.

The main issue is how to convince the populace that watching movies with you are better than the  cheaper alternative.  They should have gone all out to promote their product. They probably should have made 3D a special screening event instead of the basis for increasing revenue. Just saying that apart from the 2 for 1 there are other things they could have done to attract people. Palace amusement Co. does not even have a televised advertisement on local television. They don’t even have posters throughout the towns in which they operate. They just assume that by setting up a movie house then people will come in droves. This is not the 20^th century.  Instead, in regard to Odeon, they bemoaned the increase in DVD piracy and wondered at the mystery of their inability to attract despite placing themselves in the supposed centre of town. Most people that come from the surrounding rural communities to Mandeville do not shop in that area on Caledonia road. They go to the public hospital instead.  The upper and higher income groups do a lot of spending in that area not the lower income groups. So how big a statement was Odeon making when it placed itself in what was considered a central location in the town. Did they want to attract the well to do and not the people with lower incomes? For a lot of people in the rural districts of Manchester Mandeville is 30-40 minutes away. Can you say taxi fare$ which also increased over the same period when Graham was bemoaning the effects of DVD piracy.  The lower income groups rely more on DVD piracy than the well to do. Another main issue is that instead of jumbling everyone into a perfect whole the management of  Palace Amusement Co.  should have acknowledged the class distinctions. What was the management of Odeon doing to attract the lower income groups that became more reliant on DVD piracy? Doesn’t seem like they were doing much.  And why weren’t the upper and middle income groups supporting the product with such enthusiasm since  Odeon was located in the supposed centre of Mandeville? I am sure they could afford to support it. Just saying that it’s ‘something of a mystery’.

Well my experience with Odeon is quite limited. The first film I watched there was Batman Begins (2005) and the last film I watched at Odeon was Man of Steel (2013). In terms of the interior design it was not very good when compared with other cinemas in Kingston which are also under the management of Palace Amusement Co. It had a very dry look,  bright lights (100 watt bulbs) highlighting  the walls painted gray. It looked like a rudimentary set up. ‘Just watch the movie on the big screen and go home,’ they seemed to be saying with that look. Oh the burden of private enterprise.   The last time I went there the equipment kept malfunctioning causing several delays while watching the film. They also took forever to start. Much worse in that regard when compared with those in Kingston. It seemed like they were waiting for more people to arrive so they wouldn’t miss the start of the movie. I had to go and ask why it was taking so long to start and I consider myself to be fairly patient. Their response was the typical Jamaican ‘Soon come’.  It means that not much was happening for them at the time.

One thing that does standout in my experience was the moment I saw a movie reel  in a metallic case at the back of a country bus I was travelling in that was going to Mandeville. I don’t remember the title but it was an animated film.  I overheard the driver saying that he was delivering  it to Mandeville.  I know nothing of the arrangement and to this day it remains ‘something of a mystery’. It makes you wonder if this was a regular practice for transferring movie reels from Kingston to Mandeville. Was Odeon really that underfunded that they hired bus drivers to transport movie reels? Was it a hint of corruption? How did Palace Amusement Co. account for this movie reel in the back of country bus? I found it amazing and amusing and it fit well with the destitute look of Odeon. ‘Just watch the movie on the big screen and go home.'

Straight Outta Compton ****/5: A pretty good film but i had issues with some of the glaring biases in the film.

(photo courtesy of forbes.com)

Well I finally watched Straight Outta Compton and it was a pretty good film. I already knew the story and so I was not in a rush to watch the fictional or more dramatic version. The fictional or dramatic versions of real live events are always exaggerated and biased and dilute the reality of the original situation. This is why it’s good to have many films on the same subject in some cases. The exaggeration and biases in Straight Outta Compton are very evident in the film.  There are still some very strong  moments in this film that capture the reality of life in the streets and emphasize the power of having street knowledge. 

This film is about the rise and fall of the pioneering hip hop group N.W. A (Niggers with Attitude). The members of the group were the late Eazy E, Ice Cube, Dr. Dre, MC Ren and DJ Yella. Their album ‘Straight Outta Compton’ put gangsta rap on map in a big way with such controversial hits as ‘Fuck tha Police’. It also reflected the harsh reality of street life and shows how unprepared some people in the mainstream media were for this kind of music.

Positives

The primary positive in this film was the first half when the group is formed in the harsh streets of Compton and South Central , Los Angeles. There is a very realistic edge in these early moments that showed to some extent how street life formed the basis for the birth of gangsta rap music as we know it and how it was geared for mass consumption as opposed to just remaining in the underground.  This allowed it to reach a mass audience in the United States and highlighted the violent activities of street life experienced by  a lot of members in the impoverished black communities throughout the United States. I listened to the album and it was a fairly good listen.  I also read some of the reviews by the critics at the time and one made an important point when he said that the album might celebrate the violence and bravado required for survival in the streets but there is little room for introspection.  That is pretty accurate for as gangsta rap matured more introspective songs were made about how black people in the communities were impacted by the violence of street life. NWA pioneered gangsta rap as a club banging experience. This allowed it to reach a mass audience and once the dollars started rolling in, as a result of increased record sales, who can really complain. If people in the market are buying then N.W.A’s  music must have had some social relevance because it affected or reflected the perception of some people, especially black people.   Classic albums like The Chronic, Doggystyle and All Eyez on Me, also benefitted from the inroads made by the album Straight Outta Compton.  I just mentioned those albums and I’m sure that other albums were influenced by the N.W.A album.  So how the album came together was very interesting especially the hit song ‘Fuck tha Police’ which was the most controversial one on the record.  One could understand, based on the group’s early experiences, how their harsh experience with police officers gave birth to the song.

The intensity of the first half of the film made the birth of gangsta rap as an art form very believable but there are still some significant biases.

There is also some relevant historical material in this film although it’s a bit choppy in the 2^nd half. Some of this material included the reasons for the breakup of the group starting with Ice Cube’s departure as he was rightly frustrated with manager Jerry Heller and Eazy E. Ice Cubes departure led to a musical confrontation between himself and his former group members still in the N.W.A. The famous track ‘No Vaseline’ was Cube’s response to N.W.A’s diss track ‘100 miles and running’.   The film also shows the role played by Suge Knight in getting Dre off his contract with Eazy E’s Ruthless records and how the partnership between Suge and Dre  led to the formation of Deathrow records. Dre then leaves Deathrow to form the company Aftermath. We also see Eazy E’s tragic  battle with Aids, ‘but I aint no faggot.’

The acting in this film is pretty good and the direction by F. Gary Gray is assured for the most part especially for the first half of the film when the group had all 5 members.

Negatives

The film is clearly biased in many regards especially when one considers the portrayal of Eazy E, Dre and Ice Cube. At times I thought the film dragged because it tried to spend time on the careers of Dre and Cube after they split from N.W.A and the thin material did not justify so much time being spent. Did the film really have to get into the Deathrow  saga just so  Dre could man up and say  he is leaving to form Aftermath? What did that have to do with the impact of the record Straight Outta Compton? By the 2^nd half of the film these personalities are treated as holy figures that are always in the right. In order to make Eazy E’s death more palatable a lot of false reconciliations are made. For instance I find it hard to believe that Eazy E was planning a major comeback for N.W.A by reuniting with Cube and Dre even though his last record, released after his death, had a lot of disses  aimed at Dre. I am not saying it is false  that Eazy E was planning to reunite N.W.A without Jerry Heller;  I am just saying I find it hard to believe. I find it hard to believe because he was portrayed in such a special light towards the end. It just felt that a lot of realistic elements were missing. I never knew Eazy fell out with Jerry towards the end but would that necessarily lead to the group being reunited. Something is missing here.  Dre is portrayed as a saint as well despite his history of domestic abuse. We see Suge Knight portrayed as the devil but I find it hard to believe that Dre was so blind to what Suge was capable of. After all he was a security guard trained in enforcement. After Ice Cube’s diss track there is nothing of note in regards to the group. If they were not prepared to delve into the other album’s released by N.W. A why just Straight Outta Compton since they focus on the careers of Dre and Cube after they left the group.  The film would have been stronger if it just focused on N.W. A and how the group fell apart or just focus on the impact of the album itself.  It did not have to go into so much detail about Cube and Dre’s careers after they left. It could have been mentioned but not emphasized so much. After awhile the film was not about the N.W.A but about ruthless records. The emphasis on the impact that the album had is lost by the 2^nd half. The 2^nd half makes for good dramam because of Eazy E’s death although he was no saint also.  The movie was stretched thin towards the end even with the portrayal of Eazy E’s final days.  By then the writers were trying to make too many U turns and corrections.  Just by focusing on the impact of the album and its immediate aftermath then the film would have been stronger in my opinion.

It also makes you wonder about the reality of the situation because although a man like Suge seems reprehensible today brute force was clearly a tactic that was required in the early days of gangsta rap because it was a struggle for power.  Dre sided with Suge for a reason and so trying to highlight that Suge pistol whipped someone for parking in his customary space doesn’t really say much apart from painting Suge in a negative light. Yes what he did on that occasion was reprehensible but what does it say about how close gangsta rap was to the streets of Compton and South central Los Angeles. It wasn’t really just the personalities involved. So Dre excused himself although the foundation for his success was due to his connections with the streets. Others didn’t excuse themselves as they progressed but that does not mean that brute force wasn’t required in the early days. Suge just embodied that aspect of it. It seems reprehensible because rap is now a more mature art form.  Now you can rap without trying to gain street credibility. You can do collaborations with Justin Bieber , Katy Perry, Taylor Swift etc and not worry about your street or hardcore image. Doing a collaboration with Bieber is a good thing because it will be a hit record and the dollars will start pouring in. One can now rely on rapping solely as an art form without having to gain street credibility. You can rap about the birds and the trees once it can make money. Gangsta rap is just one aspect of rapping nowadays whereas before, as a result of N.W.A, Gangsta rap was  the dominant force in rap. At the time when gangsta rap was the dominant force money still did not come as easily and the dispute over contracts in the film is a clear indicator of that. You could go broke very easily in those days. Selling millions of records was not a guarantee for monetary success. This is why the fight for control of these resources was  crucial and the film did not emphasize that enough. We see Ice Cube trash the office of a white executive but could he take that chance with a man like Suge Knight without serious repercussions. A man so close to hardcore street life.

Another element of bias was how the album was presented in the film. I expected to hear about how more of the tracks were conceived but emphasis was placed primarily on ‘Fuck that Police’. It excused the filmmakers from showing the other side of gangsta rap that has to do with the glorification of violence or black on black crime. I didn’t see enough instances about black on black violence and why N.W.A decided to promote this lifestyle instead of being more introspective. Could it be that because some members were so close to the streets that they saw the gangsters as powerful figures as they tormented their fellow citizens? Why side with the gangsters and not with the people being killed by the gangsters? When they say it is their reality that is false unless they are gangsters themselves? There are those in the black communities that are not too accepting of gangsters or the gangster lifestyle.  So I would have liked to understand more about why these rappers sided with glamourizing the gangster lifestyle which is a ruthless one and is responsible for a lot of black on black crime. Would the Dre of today rap about killing a nigga because he gave him attitude?  I think not.  So the film did not explore why people, even in the poor  communities, would have a problem with gangsta rap. Why is celebrating black on black crime a good thing? This is why when they portray Dre as being so incensed with the activities of Suge Knight it comes across as false since a lot of the songs that he produced in those days celebrated that kind of behavior. Was the reality eventually too much for Dre to bear? Did it finally dawn on him that black on black violence is not such a good thing after all? So demonizing Suge Knight  achieves nothing especially if gangsta rap is promoting or glorifying violence especially black on black crime. Maybe we should be glad that gangsta rap is not such a dominant force in rap and we can look forward to rappers collaborating with Justin Bieber. It seems that Suge Knight was the scapegoat in the film in order to excuse the writers from addressing the real issues.  Eazy E was prepared to kill Suge Knight and it shows that Suge’s behavior in the film was the norm. Eazy E just had to be the better man. So how close was gangsta rap to street life? The film should have addressed that issue some more apart from the track ‘Fuck tha police’.

It was a tough time and instead of accepting that some of the protagonists embraced  some aspects of the gangsta lifestyle they are portrayed as saints who went straight outta Compton to Riverside. Right Ice Cube.  Let’s just imagine that N.W.A’s album was not a  major  mainstream success and still remained in the underground. How reprehensible would Suge Knight’s behavior seem when everyone would be competing for the music product just like  they compete for drugs. That normally ends in violence.  That’s why Eazy E was prepared to kill Suge Knight. If he did kill Suge Knight who would have missed him? It’s the way of the streets.

Why I have been thinking about Total Recall (1990).

This is one example of the attention to detail in Total Recall. Here we see the two moons of Mars, Phobos and Deimos (Image courtesy of scifi.stackexchange.com)

I have been thinking about Total Recall (1990)-- starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and directed by the great Paul Verhoeven--  a lot recently and its place among the greats of sci-fi. When some critics and regular movie goers mention the great sci-fi films the typical films are mentioned such as Star Wars,  Blade Runner, Alien, Aliens, 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Matrix. After recently watching Total Recall  a couple of times  I now hold the opinion that it should be spoken of when one considers the other great sci-fi films. Technically and philosophically it may not be as profound as Blade Runner or 2001… or as groundbreaking in terms of action like The Matrix but it certainly represents the bridge or the link between the great sci-fi films such as Blade Runner and the more modern ones such as The Matrix. Jonathan Rosenbaum, from the Chicago Reader, rightly states that the film found its own niche in the dystopian concept that was developed for Blade Runner. This made Total Recall less derivative and superficial than the immediate successors to Blade Runner. Just like Blade Runner,  Total Recall was based on a novel by Philip K. Dick. If one were to use the strict criteria for greatness then Total Recall won’t fit the bill for a lot of people but appearances might be deceiving because the film moves forward at a high pace and barely stops for breath. A lot of its unique qualities can be missed and it would be easy for some people to dismiss it and call it just a very good action film. All of its more important contributions to sci-fi, however, are quite clear in the moments when it takes a breather from all the gunfire. As I will briefly highlight there is a reason why this film was an important stepping stone in sci-fi and this is due not just to the special effects and make up but to the thematic elements that had a significant impact on the sci-fi films that succeeded it.

Firstly, Total Recall is great because it makes one of the first serious attempts to question the nature of reality. The scene when the doctor appears at Quaid’s (Arnold) room door at the Hilton hotel in  Mars to try and convince him that he is living out his fantasy strapped to a chair in the company called Recall is very influential. He offers Quaid a red pill to swallow as it is a  symbol of his desire to return to reality. A red pill? What does that remind you of? Of course, that moment in The Matrix when Morpheus gives Neo  a choice between the red pill and the blue pill. If Neo takes the blue pill he stays in the matrix but if he takes the red pill it will make it easier for Morpheus to track him and release his body and mind from the fantasy that is the matrix. If only he took the blue pill. In Total Recall it is a more meaningless gesture or a symbol. It was probably just a pill to put him into a deep sleep in order for the agency to start over with Quaid by having him forget the recent events.

There are also a lot of questions to be asked regarding the role played by Hauser the man who the agency brainwashed into thinking that he was Douglas Quaid. Was it an elaborate ruse? Who is the true individual, Hauser or Quaid? As Kuato said ‘You are what you do.’ When Mars is freed from bondage Quaid has a terrible thought that he is dreaming. Melina sets him straight by saying ‘Kiss me before you wake up.’  Sort of reminds me of the ending for Inception (2010). With all that went on before you do have to wonder if Quaid really was dreaming all along or just acting out his ego trip, strapped to a chair in Recall. This film does find a way to make you question the reality of the situation and that is a major achievement. The scene with Quaid, his fake wife Lori and the doctor in a hotel on Mars is a scene that truly gets you thinking when you watch it for the first time.  In fact it all starts when Quaid decides to go to Recall and experience Mars as a dream and ego trip and becomes the basis for his reality to be questioned. This film really does play with the idea that things are not what they seem. It just  goes to show how effective the villain, Cohagen, was in keeping Quaid in a sort of mental bondage. Quaid’s life was thrown into so much turmoil that when he does get a taste of freedom he has to wonder if he is dreaming or not.  We know Quaid isn’t dreaming because the perspective and motivation of the other characters in the film is quite clear. Quaid couldn’t imagine all of that. The film does make you think just like Blade Runner did when you questioned whether or not Deckard was a replicant. Total Recall goes one step further by making this an explicit element in the film. It’s not as subtle as Blade Runner but more practical as this element drives the story onwards. Probably because it’s not as subtle this film does not appear as profound but its explicit nature does make it profound. ‘Open your mind to me.’

Secondly, the colonization of Mars is another great element in Total Recall. In films like Blade Runner we are made aware of the colonies established by America on other planets but we never actually see how they operate. The replicants that escaped from the planetary colonies to earth paint a tale of massive exploitation and degradation akin to slave labour. Obviously that was not the focus of Blade Runner and it was enough that they mentioned that there were planetary colonies. These planetary colonies were valuable as a result of the wealth of raw materials available for extraction. This is the case when most colonies are formed. They are established as a means to extract whatever resources are available for the benefit of the colonizers. Little attention is paid to developing colonies internally as they only serve a particular purpose that involves raw material extraction. In Total Recall the fundamentals established in Blade Runner also apply but in this case we actually witness how a planetary colony operates. In this case the planet that is colonized is Mars and the raw material that is extracted and forms the basis for rudimentary development of the colony is Turbinium. We know the  extraction of turbinium is important for the Mars colonization project although it’s not clear what  for  exactly. It’s just a fictional element that will make colonization justifiable in the film. The great reactor built by aliens is also made of turbinium. So I am guessing that it’s a very strong metal and probably laid the foundation for the construction of infrastructure on Mars.

The extreme degradation suffered by the working class groups that mine the precious metal is evident when Quaid, Melina and the traitor Benny are trying to escape from Cohagen’s armed forces. While fleeing through the underground caves they stumble upon the graves of the first or early settlers on Mars. These settlers worked themselves to death for peanuts while Cohagen made all the profits on the back of their labour power.  The operational capacity of the Mars colony is structured around the extraction of the Turbinium metal ore.  Domes are established in order to keep out the elements that can cause significant harm to humans. This is made evident in the film when several individuals exposed to the environment experience literal eye popping moments. A lot of activities on the Mars colony take place underground which makes people further removed from the atmosphere.  The atmosphere is red and this provides a significant visual context for the film and affects how we perceive the colony.  We all know Lori hates the dry, ugly planet of Mars.

There is also the  creation of a class of mutants in the Mars colony. The mutants, being a product of the Mars colony, are some of its core settlers and comprise a large portion of the resistance movement that challenges Cohagen’s rule.  The addition of this mutant element is significant and makes the colonization effort seem more believable in the film. These mutants are grotesque for the most part (apart from the 3 breasted woman) and it is made clear that the creation of this class of mutants was as a result of the cheap domes that allowed some of the harmful elements in the atmosphere to filter through. The primary positive that comes with the creation of this mutant class is the group of psychics. The psychics are all mutants including the leader Kuato, ‘open your mind to me’.  Kuato is a very powerful psychic.

The colonization effort on Mars is run by the villainous Cohagen who maintains a tight grip on the operations of the Martian colony especially the flow of turbinium and air. He is challenged by the rebels that are largely made up of mutants and who want to see Mars freed from his tyranny.  Quaid becomes important because he has a secret stored away about the alien reactor found in the pyramid mine. It’s not clear if the pyramid mine is located in the great mountain of Mars, Olympus Mons.  It is clear that as Hauser Quaid was probably sympathetic to the rebel cause  because of his love for Melina, a member of the resistance who is not a mutant (It would have been very interesting and risky but probably more rewarding if Melina was a mutant).  Hauser’s sympathy for the resistance was probably the main reason  why the decision was taken to turn him into Quaid.  This part of the film is not really clear and is a topic for another discussion. While riding on a train on his “first” visit to Mars, however, Quaid speaks to a man who said that he used to work in the pyramid mine before they closed it down. He said they closed it down after they found that ‘alien shit’ inside.  It has now become a rumour but in reality access has been sealed off. The reactor was designed and constructed by aliens to melt the core of Mars which Is made up largely of ice. When this core melts then it will generate the necessary oxygen and other elements that will make it possible for the creation of an atmosphere that would make life hospitable on Mars. An atmosphere just like the one on earth.  With an atmosphere Cohagen would lose control because he can no longer control the flow of air. Air is a precious commodity on Mars; just like turbinium.

This alien reactor adds to the mystery of Mars. Why did they build it? Why didn’t the aliens turn it on? Did they build it just for us? Why did they leave the planet to go elsewhere? It is made clear that the structure is around  a  million years old. So maybe the aliens did use it but the core of ice built up again after they left. This mystery of the aliens is a very influential concept. In Interstellar (2014) some mysterious beings created a wormhole for human space explorers. This wormhole creates  a shortcut through space so that human explorers can  travel to other galaxies. Regular space travel to other galaxies is significantly much slower and somewhat implausible in our present context  when you consider that the closest galaxy is trillions of miles away.  The concept about great beings leaving behind these great structures for the benefit of humans was developed significantly in Total Recall.  Long before films like Interstellar.

When Quaid does turn on the reactor he frees Mars. This is significant when you consider that by freeing Mars the entire structure and mode of operations for Mars will be expanded. The flow of humans to Mars will expand the scope for development and the planet would slowly  lose the label that it is primarily a colony. Colonies thrive, and so eventually lose their tag, once the internal structures are developed along with the local market in order to make it a place of more permanent settlement. It loses the colonial makeup when its resources are utilized fully for its own development and not simply for the benefit of the colonizers that just want to extract raw materials with minimal investment in the local economic base.  The colonial economy is replaced by one where development of the economy is a priority in order to make it a place where people will want to settle on a more permanent basis. When people do decide to permanently settle somewhere then certain material conditions such as infrastructure, economic opportunities etc, have to be met. Colonies normally meet the basic requirements for some form of rudimentary settlement. This rudimentary settlement is geared towards the extraction of the colony’s resources and not its full scale development. Full scale development is normally the priority  in more settled and developed civilizations ‘No one on earth cares about what goes on up here.’ Cohagen never intended to develop Mars beyond the areas that required basic development in order for the turbinium to be extracted. The shackles of the colonial economy are removed  when all areas are developed in order to facilitate the growth of a citizenry or a group of people committed to settling in the area on a more permanent basis. In order for this to be achieved the resources (capital and labour) at the disposal of the colony have to be utilized in order to increase the production and circulation of commodities and to develop the local markets. A developed local market is one where capital investment and per capita incomes are high (people being sufficiently rewarded for the utilization of their labour). In other words a lot of people in the market have money that they are willing to spend on a wide range of products and services. There is also the development of a cultural base that encourages a sense of kinship among the citizenry. In the case of Mars this kinship is created by the cultural exchange between mutants and the human settlers. This encourages cooperation and the creation of a culture unique to Mars. Cohagen clearly does not care much for the plight of the working class groups which includes the mutants. It’s not clear how Mars develops once an atmosphere is created. It would certainly encourage a lot of investment and an increase in the population.

Another  reason why the Mars colony in Total Recall is a significant feature in sci-fi filmdom is that it puts our own solar system at the forefront. Our solar system should be used more as a source of imaginative undertakings for filmmakers. Only Mars and Saturn are really highlighted.  Too often in sci-fi films people travel to other galaxies to get some action or the beings from other galaxies come to us. In 2001… a trip is made to Jupiter and this makes for some interesting discoveries but these discoveries don’t have much to do with what we know about Jupiter. In Total Recall a significant effort is made to pay attention to the details of the planet that was known from the telescopic and satellite images at the time. In the film we see images of the valleys,  the mountains and the moons that actually exist. Obviously some liberty was taken in order to create the structure of the fictional colony. One can actually have a great sci-fi film without traveling to another galaxy. I am sure the alien element in Total Recall was added to keep up with the trend showcasing beings from other galaxies but the good thing is that the aliens are not present. It is up to the human settlers on Mars to make a difference. The principles of freedom vs. tyranny are fought on a more realistic basis regardless of the great alien artifact.

The attention to detail in Total Recall makes it the best sci-fi film about Mars. This film deserves its place among the greats of sci-fi for this reason alone. Other films about Mars that succeeded it like Red Planet and Mission to Mars were duds.  What made Total Recall such a success was that it didn’t approach Mars as this mysterious planet but one that was already colonized. The mysteries are there but with the planet already  colonized it  laid the basis for this colony to be freed from bondage. Not a mystery about a dead planet but how this mystery will benefit those already settled in the area and not a group of explorers that will be stunned by the magnificence of the mysteries at the core of the dead planet. There is a sense of urgency in Total Recall to free Mars from Cohagen’s iron fisted grip in order to repay the settlers that lived, died and fought for a better tomorrow. In the end it is rewarding when the reactor is turned on and an atmosphere is created. While the people benefit from the free air created when the reactor melts the ice at Mar’s core the planet is no longer considered a dead one. This is why Mars as a character is so well developed in this film. Before Quaid turns on the  reactor  the atmosphere of Mars was toxic and weak and the frozen core suggested that it can never be more than just a colony. When the reactor is finally turned on the dead planet is now reborn. No wonder Quaid thinks it’s just like a dream.

Well I will stop here but there might be a part 2 because I have been thinking about why this film is great. So far I have demonstrated that Total Recall is a very influential film that bridged the gap between the existential and meditative films like Blade Runner and 2001… and the more technically advanced ones like The Matrix, Inception, Interstellar etc. It existed primarily in the dystopic tradition developed by  Blade Runner but it created its own niche as a film about a quest for the freedom of a dead, colonized planet. It’s almost like a dream.