A historical movie that portrays members of a religious group
going out and setting up their own country seems rather quite usual. Usually
when you have a film about down trodden people who set up their own country
you'd imagine something that goes on and on about democratic values,liberty and
so on.
When it comes to the celebration of democratic ideas Hollywood [or most movies from most other places for that matter] makes sure the no matter what the scenario- be it ancient Greece, a Irish/ English /Samurai rebellion you see men shouting about freedom. The idea that democracy that is the ultimate goal that can be achieved and it is the cure for all ills is an idea that you see everywhere.
I'm not suggestion democracy isn't a lovely system. What I mean to say is the movies tend to concentrate on the noble virtues and ideals pursued, while giving little to no attention to the less than exciting economic and soci-political issues that often lead to political upheavals.
What the movie does, by following a group of people who believe in the divine rule of monarchs wronged or oppressed by a republic, is bring focus to the hazier, difficult questions about modern democracies and Republics.
How can you bring democracy to a people who want a monarch? How useful are rights to petition to people who don't know how to read or write? How useful and noble are the freedoms and rights promised by a republic when you are expected to pay for it?
It is obvious a monarchy isn't the solution the few barons we see in the movie are still exploitative even though they have lost the war to the republic. What is obvious but never stated is how the supporters of the republic in the movie include the well educated urban populace. The republic doesn't seem all the loved by the common folk and does not do much to change that. The failure of the republic to serve the rural folk is what leads to the insurrection in the first place.
The ruthlessness that the general and army men regularly display in the name of the republic does nothing to help their cause.
The arguments the peasants put forth regarding their right to their property and way of life are very hard to argue with. In fact they seem more in tune with democratic ideas than the republics actions. Antonio Conselherios' speech about how the democratic ideal with everyone working for the betterment of the state can bind one in the same way slavery can, was very interesting. One could find fault with the argument, but the sentiment it represents is not something you see portrayed. The solace most movies like to find in casting the supporters of authoritarian as evil and one sided is almost impossible to find.
The journalists’ sentiments about the war being a crime are hard to argue with, the general himself seems quite unable to find a non-battle related response.
Despite the fact the movie was centered on a battle and one family's drama, the overall context about a group of people trying to fight for their religious and political values is the main attraction, one which remains true to its purpose throughout the movie.
When it comes to the celebration of democratic ideas Hollywood [or most movies from most other places for that matter] makes sure the no matter what the scenario- be it ancient Greece, a Irish/ English /Samurai rebellion you see men shouting about freedom. The idea that democracy that is the ultimate goal that can be achieved and it is the cure for all ills is an idea that you see everywhere.
I'm not suggestion democracy isn't a lovely system. What I mean to say is the movies tend to concentrate on the noble virtues and ideals pursued, while giving little to no attention to the less than exciting economic and soci-political issues that often lead to political upheavals.
What the movie does, by following a group of people who believe in the divine rule of monarchs wronged or oppressed by a republic, is bring focus to the hazier, difficult questions about modern democracies and Republics.
How can you bring democracy to a people who want a monarch? How useful are rights to petition to people who don't know how to read or write? How useful and noble are the freedoms and rights promised by a republic when you are expected to pay for it?
It is obvious a monarchy isn't the solution the few barons we see in the movie are still exploitative even though they have lost the war to the republic. What is obvious but never stated is how the supporters of the republic in the movie include the well educated urban populace. The republic doesn't seem all the loved by the common folk and does not do much to change that. The failure of the republic to serve the rural folk is what leads to the insurrection in the first place.
The ruthlessness that the general and army men regularly display in the name of the republic does nothing to help their cause.
The arguments the peasants put forth regarding their right to their property and way of life are very hard to argue with. In fact they seem more in tune with democratic ideas than the republics actions. Antonio Conselherios' speech about how the democratic ideal with everyone working for the betterment of the state can bind one in the same way slavery can, was very interesting. One could find fault with the argument, but the sentiment it represents is not something you see portrayed. The solace most movies like to find in casting the supporters of authoritarian as evil and one sided is almost impossible to find.
The journalists’ sentiments about the war being a crime are hard to argue with, the general himself seems quite unable to find a non-battle related response.
Despite the fact the movie was centered on a battle and one family's drama, the overall context about a group of people trying to fight for their religious and political values is the main attraction, one which remains true to its purpose throughout the movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment