A Serious Man

Today I wanted to post my take on a film I saw recently; the Cohen brother’s film A Serious Man. Like any good movie, and most Cohen brother’s movies, this one leaves you with a bit of an empty feeling inside when you leave the theatre, requiring you to reflect on the film afterward in order to fill the void. Warning to anyone who hasn’t seen the movie, DON’T READ ANY FURTHER, since my review will spoil it for you.

A SERIOUS MAN

In A Serious Man, the Cohen brother’s take us on a seemingly insipid journey into the world of Judaism, where suffering and sacrifice take center stage. The film’s title of A Serious Man could just as easily be read as A Good Man, as it seems the morality and reverence depicted in the movie as serious are synonymous with the morally good, and the depiction of earthly existence equally prosaic among both.

Thus we are thrust into the monotonous life of main character Larry Gopnik, played by Michael Stuhlburg. On onset Larry seems to live a rather normal, rural, middle class American life, where mowing the lawn, feeding the kids, and paying the bills dominate the daily tedium. It is just when life seems to be settling down for the middle aged Gopnik and his life work is about to come to fruition, gaining tenure at the local high school he teaches at, that things suddenly take a unexpected turn for the worse when his wife meekly explains to him that she wants a divorce so that she can marry another man. To make matters worse, Larry’s wife’s illicit lover, Sy Ableman, not only expects Larry to condone the love affair but also seems to want to become friends with Larry. Of course Larry’s wife and Sy also believe that it would be in the best interest of Larry if he moved out of his house while the divorce was being finalized.

Larry seems to be the only one able to recognize the absurd nature of the demands being placed on him, but being A Serious Man, Larry takes it all in stride and takes up residence at the local Jolly Roger Hotel, along with his burdensome-pariah-genius of a brother Arnold, who spends his days drawing a map of the known universe and draining a schist on his back. In addition to his deteriorating home life, Larry’s chances of gaining tenure are put in jeopardy by an anonymous writer who is denigrating Larry’s character in letters to the school board, while another student is simultaneously trying to bribe Larry for a passing grade while threatening to sue him for defamation.

Larry miraculously maintains a level head through all of this; that is until Sy Ableman is killed in a car accident that occurs at the exact same moment Larry gets in an unrelated car accident of his own. Of course the burden of paying for Sy’s funeral falls on Larry, who disbelievingly, almost habitually obliges. With debt mounting, a home life in shambles, and no one apparently caring for his personal satisfaction at all, Larry turns to his only outlet, his rabbis.

These rabbis prove to be just as impotent and self-centered as the rest of Larry’s acquaintances. The first rabbi is a junior rabbi who lacks the life experience to identify with Larry’s problems and is more interested in gazing pensively out the window at the parking lot. The second rabbi is more jocular, finding joy in telling parables without moral significance. The third rabbi, the most senior and respected of all the rabbis, says he is too busy "thinking" to take time to help Larry. Thus even the men of G-d, who claim to be the most serious men of all, are to wrapped up in their own personal musings and desires to help out one of their suffering parishioners.

For an hour and a half we are forced to watch the feckless Larry be kicked around and walked all over by almost every person he knows. Nothing and no one brings him comfort and no one seems to care. Certainly there must be some pay off for Larry after all this suffering; after all if anyone should be rewarded by G-d’s mercy it should be this Serious Man. Perhaps at this point in the movie we are expected to think that the Cohen’s are setting us up to see what it means to be truly pious, but knowing the Cohen’s this seems unlikely.

With Larry’s woes added to by gambling debt incurred by his brother, Larry hits bottom. With nowhere to turn and no hope in sight, Larry engages in his first immoral, unserious act of the movie when he accepts his student’s monetary bribe for a passing grade. Not a moment after this moral transgression Larry’s doctor calls, ominously requesting that Larry stop by his office to receive some news that can only be given in person. In the very next scene the school is evacuated due to a tornado warning. Outside the school Larry’s son tries to pay a bully for weed he bought off him, but before the compensation is completed Larry’s son notices a menacing, low swirling cloud forming across the road. Like a scene pulled out of the old testament, or Twister, the sky grows dark, the winds begin to howl, and it seems as if G-d will have his atonement when; cut to black, role credits.

Just like that the movie ends, and it looks as if the Cohen’s have sucker punched us with an abrupt, unsatisfying ending once again. But on second glance it is in fact the ending that gives the movie any significance at all. For after sitting through two hours of Larry’s bleak and depressing life, which really never builds or alleviates, we are left with no reconciliation, no reward, no payoff; and it is at that moment we realize what the Cohen’s are trying to do.

The Cohen’s showed us the plight of the Serious Man: a life full of pain, suffering and indignation from those less serious and more concerned with pursuing worldly desires. But this is the vary nature of reverence, both in Judaism and Christianity, that states that to be truly pious one must at all time stay faithful to the law even when this brings much discomfort, for the payoff does not come until the afterlife.

As we watch this movie, however, we are left to wonder if this is all our life on earth really amounts to, if we can really condemn Larry for his one menial moral transgression that only resulted from a lack of apathy from everyone else who indulges in moral transgressions? Of course if there is a payoff in the afterlife then Larry is well founded in his seriousness, but the Cohen’s don’t show us that payoff on screen, they cut to black, forcing you to make that decision for yourself, by either taking the leap of faith or refuting it.

If the Cohen’s resolved Larry’s issue, if they assured you that everything works out eventually, then this would not require faith, it would simply be fact, and fact and faith cannot coincide. The very definition of faith requires suspicion, since if I know God exists as fact then I require no faith to believe in him, just as I need no faith to believe that my computer is white, or 2 + 2 = 4.

Thus the onus is on you to decide whether to take the leap of faith or not, for it really is a leap that can never be affirmed by facts, and if it could it would not be faith. Was Larry’s misfortune after he commits his sin an act of retribution by God? Or is the concept of loading oneself up with burden and spending a life suffering to achieve a reward in another life that may or may not exist, while others pursue pleasure in this life, fallacious? This is the conflict involved with religion, this is the leap of faith: denying yourself the pleasures of a life you know you have for a afterlife, but find very little evidence for on earth. Depending on your point of view, the Cohen’s Serious Man may seem like a Good Man to some, or a Foolish Man to others. Which is correct? The Cohen’s won’t help you decide, they cut to black.

"Oh My God He's Back Again"

So after a long respite I am finally back writing on my blog. It’s been a little while but I am happy to say that laziness is only partly to blame for my leave of absence. Over the last few months I have been working on applying to M.A. of philosophy programs and am finally about ready to send out the applications. My top two schools are Tuft’s and Brandeis in Boston, both with well-regarded terminal masters programs. My third choice is University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, also has a well-regarded program but not so ideal geographically. It is my hope to gain acceptance into one of these programs and then apply to Ph.D. programs after.

Normally it wouldn’t take someone so long to pull an application together but being that philosophy programs require a writing sample, and being that I studied political science and econ, I had none. Plus I’m not very proud of anything I ever wrote in college anyway. So I’ve been spending a significant amount of time researching and writing an essay strictly with the purpose of submitting it as my writing sample. I chose Kant as my topic, where I attempt to establish empirical merit to his moral law through an analysis of a paradox posed in his Idea for a Universal History with Cosmopolitan Intent. It took some effort but I finally feel I have this essay ready to go and feel semi-confident about sending it in.

As most of you probably noticed I have gone back to Blogger for my blog rather than the old format. I find Blogger to be simpler and more casual, allowing me to just post my daily musings rather than drawn out arguments like I did before, although I may still development drawn out arguments from time to time. Hopefully I will post much more regularly now on a variety of topics. Tomorrow I will post a movie review/philosophical analysis of the Cohen’s brother movie of A Serious Man, which is very philosophical in nature itself.

The Chain that Binds

The sole responsibility of a political leader is to act in the best interest of the country in which they represent. All personal interests, vendettas and ambitions must be relinquished in order to ensure that all actions seek the amelioration of the society in which they rule.

Initially this would seem an easy charge; listen to your constituents and act accordingly. Of course this assumes that your constituents know what is best for them. While all will think they know, in reality, it is difficult for the average citizen to aggregate all information available to determine what is best for them. For instance, employees of a specific industry will demand protection from foreign competition, often in the form of tariffs. The result of restricting free trade frequently will restrain an economy as a whole, but protect said group of workers. An elected official beholden to this electorate will often push for legislation to protect this domestic industry, all the while knowing the harm it may cause to the economy on a larger scale.

Assuming that the public is often incapable of understanding every political issue, or understanding how a certain political action may affect the country as a whole, it can be surmised that the constituent’s vote is primarily based on emotion. It then becomes perfectly rational for a voter to choose a candidate whose moral character aligns more closely with their own, even though their policies may not lead to the best overall outcome for the voter or the country.

What we are left with is a complex system of judging our elected officials–a system that often places moral standards above political standards–or even confuses the two with one another. When acting in good moral faith comes into direct conflict with acting in the best interest of the country, a leader can become compromised. In many circumstances, the people will demand a course of action the leader knows to be detrimental to their society, however, failure to respond in accordance with societal mores and expectations may cause the politician to fall out of graces with the public.

Hence the current predicament President Obama finds himself in regarding the protests in Iran. President Obama won the presidency on a campaign based on change and the power of the people to enact that change. Almost overnight a wave of political resurgence swept across the nation, wiping out the apathy that had existed for years. Voters felt rejuvenated, re-energized and invigorated by this man who shouted from his podium, “Yes We Can!” A man who himself broke through the race barrier by proclaiming that belief in oneself and in the people was enough to overcome any injustice.

Surely then this man, this defender of freedom, would throw his undivided support behind any group of repressed individuals who seek justice, anywhere in the world. No doubt the courage of the people in the streets of Tehran would send a jolt of satisfaction through his body; no doubt the passion of the protestors must bring a tear to his eye. Their resolve must be a testament to all he stands for; after all it is their will that he summoned during his election. Every idealist, every romantic, every advocate of freedom listened with anticipation to see how this revered leader would respond; and his answer echoed with disappointing silence.

No support, no words of praise or encouragement, no apothegm of hope: nothing. Obama toed the line as much as possible, saying that the U.S. wished to stay out of the conflict and respect the sovereignty of Iran. He later stated that he was troubled by the violence that may be occurring and government attempts to silence the voice of opposition; barely a slap on the wrist to Iran’s leaders.

Is Obama’s response a sign of weakness like some Republicans claims? Surely the last administration would have “gone with their gut” and jumped at the chance to overthrow a leader in the “Axis of Evil”. And how could the great defender of freedom not realize that the events in Iran are exactly what he had preached to the American public during his campaign? Would Jesus, after rising from the dead and revealing himself as the Messiah, fail to support those who converted to Christianity? Would he suddenly say, “that was fun for awhile, but now I think I might try Buddhism?”

Now clearly Obama is not divine, nor should he be held to God like standards, that was not my point. But inspiration comes in many forms and, just as Christ inspires his believers, Obama has inspired millions throughout the world. Inspiration is inspiration, no matter what form it takes.

The reality of the situation is that Obama, in weighing all sides of the situation, and acting in the best interest of his country and the Iranians, had no rational choice but to act as he did. The U.S. and Iran have a long, turbulent history. It was, after all, the U.S. that helped to overthrow the Iranian government in 1953 and consolidated the power of the shah who would rule repressively for 26 years. This led to the revolution of 1979, a backlash against the pro-west monarchy and the establishment of a new theocracy.

The 1979 revolution was largely seen as an anti-west revolt and an attempt to establish an Islamic Republic free of western influence. The leaders of Iran, especially Ayatollah Khamenei, have been critical of the west and often accused them of meddling in internal affairs with anti-Islamic intent. Any statement in direct support of the Moussavi followers would appear as an American endorsement for Moussavi over Ahmadinejad and anti-Islamic. This would serve only to validate claims by Khamenei of the western world’s plan to destroy Islam.

If Khamenei were able to tie the U.S. and Iranian protesters together, then he could easily build a case among Islamic fundamentalists for the use of extreme violence against their own people. Further government crackdowns at rallies and violence in the streets would occur. Terrorism would ramp up against Iranian civilians as well as against the U.S. Thus for the U.S. to come out and openly support the overthrow of the Iranian government would be disastrous for the protestors in Iran and only lead to intensified acts of violence against them.

Knowing this, Obama really is handcuffed in how he can handle the Iranian situation. While as an individual who is not beholden to his people, Obama no doubt supports the protesters and is pleased by such a pro-freedom movement. As an elected leader with a responsibility for the well being of an entire country, and a desire to keep violence at a minimum in Iran, he has little choice in the matter. Obama the man has come into direct conflict with Obama the leader.

This is the dilemma of all rational leaders; the conflict between ones moral conviction and political obligation. Yesterday Obama became harsher in his criticism of Iran by condemning the increased violence against Moussavi supporters. The question is how far can the Iranian government push the boundary until some sort of foreign intervention is warranted? For real revolution to occur, it must come from within. Foreign intervention only serves to delegitimize the people revolting in the first place.

It must be tough for President Obama to go to bed every night knowing that he can’t openly support a movement he must feel so proud to be witnessing. It must be hard to know that with a simple command he could protect the people being beaten and killed for simply exercising their right to free speech. But rest easy Mr. President; you may be doing more than you think. For you created a spirit and energy in this country where people believe in and want change, and it is that sentiment that has led to public support for the people in Iran.

And as for the judging public, those who are quick to call out the President for not doing more to protect the “sea of green”; take a step back and ask yourself what you want out of your leader. Someone who does what is in the best interest of his country and all involved, no matter how difficult it may be personally; or a gut player, who puts emotion and personal values ahead of rationality and facts? If you are struggling for an example of the latter, the last eight years should serve as an adequate reminder.

Twitter, Iran, and Overcoming the All Too Human

Change is happening, society is transforming and evolution is occurring all around us, whether you realize it or not. Sometimes it happens quietly, barely recognizable to those not directly involved, other times it reaches out, grabs hold of you and shakes you until you are forced to take notice. Well I have been shaken, along with much of the world, by the recent protests in Iran against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the disputed election results.

The will of the Iranian people has been truly inspiring and the world is taking notice. Keep in mind I have no ties to Iran, know little of the country’s politics and have seemingly nothing to gain by the outcome of the protests. What is occurring over 7,000 miles away though should be considered nothing less than a political revolution and social evolution. Whenever a group of repressed people stand together to fight for undeniable universal rights, whenever violence is used to repress the voice of a people, whenever society rises up against the tyrant of injustice, everyone, young and old, should take notice, for we have everything to gain and so much to lose.

The political and social unrest seen recently in Iran is hardly a unique or isolated event. So it begs the question, why is Iran so special? Why are people taking notice? This is where the evolution comes in. Technology, even in its most primitive form, has served to bring people together and it is technology that will allow humankind to overcome the All Too Human.

The invention of sharpened tools allowed the earliest societies to form by allowing specialization of labor, i.e. hunters and gatherers. Telephones, automobiles, and airplanes, all served to make the world smaller, allow ideas to flow from place to place freely and quickly. Long has mankind struggled to free itself from the bonds of ignorance; technology has always been its greatest weapon. For the human race to advance, for universal truth to be revealed, ideas must be shared without restriction. This is the principle of enlightenment.

“Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Nothing is required for this enlightenment, however, except freedom; and the freedom in question is the least harmful of all, namely, the freedom to use reason publicly in all matters.”

Whenever a person is denied the right to express his ideas freely and speak of his own will, enlightenment cannot be attained. Throughout history, oppressive individuals have attempted to keep man in the dark by cutting off the alimentary canal of our universal existence, knowledge. A tyrant has many weapons at his disposal: guns, bombs and tanks to name a few; but none as deadly or destructive as their ability to restrict freedom of speech.

Genocide, human rights violations, election fraud, all made possible by the inability of the people to share information. The reason government violence is often successful is the fact that we, the rest of the world, are vaguely aware of its happening. Even if word gets to us of what is happening it still doesn’t seem real, we see no images; we assume it is much ado about nothing.

No longer is this the case though, no longer can the voice of the people be muted, thanks to social networking sites like Twitter, Youtube and Facebook. Silence, the tyrant’s main weapon has been stripped away, and in its place the loud cries for freedom, justice, and “typing” can be heard. Thanks to technology, protestors in Iran have been able to share their videos and stories of oppression, in real time. With a click of my mouse I can access thousands of tweets from Iranians detailing the brutality being inflicted upon them and the resilience of the people. Suddenly I am moved into action, how could this be taking place? How can freedom be denied like this?

The whole world over has read these tweets, seen these videos and been exposed first hand to what it takes to achieve real freedom. And to the world’s benefit, they care. Overwhelming support has “tweeted” in from people in America, Britain, Asia and all over the world. People who have no affiliation with Iran are attending demonstrations in their own country to show their support for brave people in the streets of Tehran. We have been able to see that while two countries may have hostile relations, such as the U.S. and Iran, the people of these countries do not. For in the end people are people, and the culture gap perhaps not as large as we had thought. When we watch videos of violence online we do not see Iranians suffering, we see people suffering, and that cannot be tolerated. The world has seen injustice, stood up and shouted, “Yes, we care!”.

One must think that events like the Holocaust would never had occurred if videos from concentration camps could have been posted on the Internet in real time or if messages of the mass genocide could have been spread around the web. Thanks to technology, the tape of oppression is being ripped from the mouth of justice.

Thus, this social revolution is evidence of the evolution of the human condition and spirit. Ideas are able to flow freely, enlightenment is occurring, and humankind is ascending to the pinnacle of its existence. Thanks to technology and sites like Twitter, we are now able to better combat the spread of ignorance. Universal truths are slowly being revealed, real justice is being spread, and man is overcoming the All Too Human.