Category: Writings

Categories
Short Essays TV and Film Writings

Making The Trench Run

I know that Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star.

No. He didn’t. I know that. He’s a fictional character in a fictional story played by an actor in a film in 1977.

Emotionally, though, I know Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star. I saw him do it. I was there. I felt it. In some ways, I blew it up myself.  

I know this as certain as my memories of the day I met my wife and when I was married and when our sons were born and when I earned my Ph.D. and every other major and minor life event. It is right up there, as it is the closest thing to straight-up myth that has ever come out of American storytelling.

Nobody thinks the events of The Godfather or Casablanca or Citizen Kane happened. Those are works of art and are clearly not real. Ditto Huck Finn and Grapes of Wrath and Beloved. They are all the tiniest of shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave compared to what, say, Disney’s Frozen has accomplished in terms of making images and sounds on film becomes something realer than real.

But today’s kids will never think the events of Frozen happened on an emotional level. Star Wars is the rare entry to a mythical category that even if you take all the works of narrative in human existence, only a few have reached. The Odyssey. The Bible. All five seasons of The Wire. Ok, maybe not the Bible. 

I remember asking an old Arizona roommate watching our college basketball team play on TV why he kept referring to the team as if he was playing. “We” scored two points, “we” needed to play better defense, when “his” ass was clearly sitting on “our” couch drinking beer. His instant answer impressed me: “Well, I’d be playing with them right now if I could!”

He wanted to be there. And in a way, he was there, even though he wasn’t, and couldn’t play basketball worth a flip. Likewise, if Luke hadn’t pulled the trigger on the Death Star, I was ready to hop into an X-wing and do it myself, and I know millions felt the same way.

Star Wars offers a world where friends are always lifelong and brave and true, and evil is both dastardly and easy to identify. Our world is monstrous, uncaring, and gray. Star Wars is only a gray universe in the sense that no one seems to wash their spaceships regularly save the Empire, which marks them as completely evil and makes Finn’s janitorial background in Awakens apropos.

Heroic journeys in such a universe have a narrow set of reasonable plots. You can take away the hero’s strength and have them prove themselves without it. You can make them doubt themselves so they can regain faith and resume their quest. You can threaten the people they love so they can save them. Or, in the least interesting variant, you can give them a worthy opponent to defeat. Or you do all of these at once, which Star Wars does.

Good myths allow straightforward and uncomplicated tests of virtue. We like to identify ourselves with a cocky kid from a farm who would climb into a spaceship we’ve never flown before and fly a suicide mission to save people we’ve never met and do it with one second left with our first shot only with the help of true friendship. The Russians never built a Death Star, but the most pacifistic American would have blown it and its tens of thousands of employees to smithereens in the 80s had an X-wing been available.

It was never a tough call. It still isn’t. And it’s all very silly.

Emotionally, though, it’s quite real. And it’s not silly. Not at all. Not because there are no Death Stars or X-wings, but because in the real world, Death Stars and X-wings are far harder to identify. They can take almost any form, and most disturbingly, the people sitting in the Death Stars think they’d make that trench run, too, not thinking about how they are far closer to a comfortable bureaucrat like Moff Tarkin than any honest rebel scum.

As for the ones sitting in the cockpit of an X-wing, they usually don’t have Red Squadron backing them up, and so they never get the nerve to make that trench run when it comes time. There are moisture farms to maintain, droid-free bars to tend, profitable mining operations to supervise and deals to make with the Empire. You know how it is. You can’t change the world, right?

Subtracting these two catatonic groups leaves only the shady criminal underworld that seems to be 90% of the Star Wars galaxy population. That’s probably why Jabba the Hutt passes for the leader of the free world these days. And of course, he thinks he’s Luke Skywalker.

But he’s not. Luke Skywalker is the guy who blew up the Death Star. Or, rather, he was the guy who realized he could blow up the Death Star and did, with a little help from his friends. Self-actualization is part of everyone’s dream.

Sure, call it space opera, puerile escapism, a childish thing that should be put away, the new ones not up to snuff with the old, even, if you’re feeling purist. But most narrative can’t touch a sliver of what that film did and still does.

Akira Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress is often cited as a precursor to Star Wars from a stylistic sense, but the one that I think of more is Ikiru, which, if you accept my analogy, is about a broken man who thinks he has toiled inside a Death Star for years and then suddenly realizes he’s in an X-wing and there’s a trench in front of him – and then he makes the trench run.

But Kurosawa doesn’t end the film there. The last third of Ikiru is the man’s funeral, attended by his depressed coworkers, who eventually depart without any confidence they will be able to duplicate his feat in their terminally bureaucratic mindsets. His brief glimpse of the ultimate is thus passing, brief, and lost, save to the viewer, perhaps.

That is cinema. Star Wars is not cinema, not by Scorsese’s standards, certainly. There is no hard look at the inevitable nature of death and the corrupt duality of man; Skywalker is not FMJ’s Joker. But his moment of surrender to the Force that allows the trench run repeats endlessly in an eternal present that is only dated a long, long time ago. He will always be right there, ready to make the trench run again,  forever in my streaming queue.

I watch the first film when it has been too long since I felt the quiet rush that comes with doing something unquestionably good. Empire is better, a classic, surely, far more artfully written and presented. And Return juggles its end-of-the-trilogy job as well as it possibly could have. But they don’t have the moral clarity and epistemic power of a classic myth. The Death Star was destroyed, yes, but it will also be destroyed tomorrow and the day after that, as much as Luke fired the causal torpedo and will do so again.

The story will be retold as it was told before.

I am in the middle of reading The Hobbit to my five-year-old son. We get through a few pages a night.

He does not understand much of it yet, but he does understand there is a journey, and there are heroes and those that help them, and there are bad guys, and there is suspense and danger and more than a little humor. He is often worried about the progress of Bilbo and the dwarves, and why Gandalf is so cantankerous and unreliable.

I reassure him even as Mirkwood closes in, though. I know how the story ends, I tell him. I’ve read it before. It was the same last time, as it will be once more. Bilbo did get to the Lonely Mountain and back again. I’m as certain of that as I know that Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star. The narrative is fiction, but the emotional truth is not.

Humans respond to a call to the good in different ways – indifference, cynicism, opportunism, name your sin. The best reaction that we can build and encourage is a default urge to help despite danger. My son’s admiration for firefighters – it was not long ago he watched some fight a fire a street over from ours – suggests he is on a certain path where he will have some resistance to the default quiet ambivalence I’ve noted in most, where the world is what it is, and he holds no responsibility to improve anything but his own lot.

Perhaps I have overstated my case, though. Perhaps he will grow up and dutifully fire the giant laser that destroys Alderaan. I doubt this, however. He does not respond well to orders. I can’t even reliably get him to go to bed on time, and his sneaky methods of candy acquisition suggest I am raising a Han rather than a Luke.

But his sense of right and wrong is developing on schedule, in fits and starts, much like mine continues to develop. Anything that can keep us going in the right direction helps – even a fictional past.

So I will read to him as Bilbo nears the Lonely Mountain, and we will watch Luke take out the Death Star again and again. The impossible will always be there when we need it to remind ourselves of what is possible.

Categories
Writings

A Benefit On the Other Side

Amy Barrett remains in the midst of her confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court. We all know the outcome of those hearings in advance. The questioning from the senators is only a curious sideshow of political posturing. Not that it would be anything else at any other time, of course.

The most interesting part of this process for me as a rhetorician is not McConnell’s hypocrisy, or Trump’s blustering, or concern over Roe, or even the election. What I’m curious about, rather, is why Barrett accepted the nomination. She addresses this obliquely at the beginning of the hearing to Graham:

Senator, I think I should say why I’m sitting in this seat in response to that question, too, and why I’ve agreed to be here. I don’t think it’s any secret to any of you or the American people that this is a really difficult, some might say excruciating process. Jesse and I had a very brief amount of time to make a decision with momentous consequences for our family. We knew that our lives would be combed over for any negative detail. We knew that our faith would be caricatured. We knew that our family would be attacked. We had to decide whether those difficulties would be worth it, because what sane person would go through that if there wasn’t a benefit on the other side?

The benefit, I think, is that I’m committed to the rule of law and the role of the Supreme Court and dispensing equal justice for all. I’m not the only person who could do this job, but I was asked, and it would be difficult for anyone. Why should I say someone else should do the difficulty? If the difficulty is the only reason to say no, I should serve my country. My family is all in on that because they share my belief in the rule of law.

I would not be a U.S. Senator in this life or any other, but if I were there, hopelessly compromised by the ugly process of quasi-democratic election, I’d hope I’d have the mind left to ask a question of Judge Barrett along the following lines:

“Given the President of the United States has demonstrated little respect or adherence to the rule of law in the last four years, why did you choose to sully your reputation as a impartial judge by accepting his nomination to the Supreme Court?”

I’m sure a lawyer could do a better job of wording the actual query behind my crude phrasing. But my purpose would not be to trap her. I’m interested in hearing her reasoning, if she has one beyond the above quote.

I should explain further.

My interest in why someone would accept a nomination stems from watching Kavanaugh’s sordid drama of a hearing, where I watched a grown man throw a staged temper tantrum about how he was a victim of a liberal conspiracy to smear him and that he had done everything right to get a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. That he deserved it. He also used his daughter as a rhetorical prop, but that’s another essay.

I don’t see that kind of obvious arrogance in Barrett. But I do see an obvious dodging of a larger issue, something bigger than originalist ideas or court-packing or religious bias or any specific case. It’s her tacit acceptance of the nomination process as in truth a political process by insisting over and over that she is not political.

This is not a new rhetorical strategy for SCOTUS nominees. They have all been squirming since Bork, and even more since Thomas. RBG played the same game in her hearing, even when her confirmation was not in the slightest doubt.

But let me be frank. The only job of a judge on the Supreme Court is to make political decisions. It is not possible, or even preferable, for a judge to make the objective value judgments that would preclude this observation.

American judges at all levels may cloak themselves in neutrality, but there is a good reason we elect them. They are not umpires as Roberts has infamously claimed. Their decisions, unlike balls and strikes and outs, change the course of millions of lives, and such decisions are always going to be arbitrarily made in some sense, no matter how artfully written and carefully reasoned the opinion. Rather, what makes a “good” justice is not any specific political stance, but a rabid commitment to fair play, to the rules, to the dignity of the slow processes of representative government.

I can understand why the framers gave the SCOTUS judges lifetime appointments – to provide stability, preventing a wayward Congress or President from realigning the country too quickly. However, Kavanaugh’s rant and the disturbing success of his casting away any shred of judicial dignity made me wonder whether that balancing idea still has the same merit that it did in the 18th century. The pandemic and Trump’s presidency have developed that worry further.

Let’s say Judge Barrett manages to fend off my first question, probably by slightly restating the block quote I provided earlier. My second question would be this:

“What would it take for you to refuse to accept a nomination to the Supreme Court?”

In other words, what are your ethical limits in terms of constitutional processes? She says she is an originalist, but nothing in the Constitution or the history of the Senate condones what the Senate and the President is attempting with her nomination. That would seem to call into question the stringency and supposed objectivity of her philosophy of law.

Perhaps a third question might bring this point home.

“Hypothetically speaking, if the Senate had refused to hold hearings on a previous nominee for the Supreme Court, would you consider not accepting a nomination yourself until that earlier nominee received a Senate vote?”

You know, given there is no other historical precedent in the Senate for refusing to vote on a presidential SCOTUS nominee, there’s probably a weird legal case to be made that Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 is still on the table, even after the seat was filled.

But this question is not a legal Hail Mary. It’s a moral question. Would you recuse yourself from the opportunity of a lifetime on a matter of principle, even if it placed your political allegiances at a temporary disadvantage?

There’s an ethics question I sometimes pose to people when I am feeling quixotic. I ask them if they would rather do the right thing, or be seen as doing the right thing. One or the other. Not both. Virtue or the appearance of virtue.

Naturally, everyone picks the first. It’s hard to choose the other option, frankly. But not always, but occasionally, a few weeks, months, even years later, I notice the same people choose the other option. When it comes time to make the trench run on the Death Star, they bow out, or when someone needs help with their own trench run, they’re elsewhere paying off Jabba the Hutt.

It strikes me that Barrett’s acceptance of Trump’s nomination is an example of this duality. She has sold her candidacy as a commitment to the rule of law in a constitutional republic, but she was nominated by a quixotic demagogue under questionable Constitutional circumstances. Her justification, couched as a concern for the inevitable dragging through the mud that all nominees now enjoy, is that there will be a ‘benefit on the other side.’

I wonder what that benefit will be and who will receive it.

I know she’s getting a lifetime job out of it. What will we get, though, I wonder? She says she believes in the rule of the law. But her acceptance of the nomination suggests otherwise.

Categories
Writings

Reboot

I’m back.

My previous blog, which had a 16-year run, is now wiped clean. I will sift through its remains as I have time and perhaps repost or polish a few ideas, but I’d rather just start over, frankly.

Namely, I’m interested in writing something closer to a column than a blog. Longer pieces rather than shorter ones. Detailed ideas over quick and easy ones. Let’s see where that takes me.