Month: April 2022

The Ukrainian war is nearing its two-month anniversary. It is still too early to predict how this will play out. Russia is unlikely to simply throw up its hands, withdraw behind its borders, and say, “Never mind.” On the other hand, the Ukrainians will not go quietly into the night. While there have been negotiations, it is hard to fathom what is being discussed, since Zelenskyy has been clear that he will accept only complete withdrawal, and Putin is unlikely to accede to that embarrassment.  

What we learned to date has been confirmation about the nature of war. This conflict has been a microcosm of the inevitabilities of armed confrontations. As mundane as these lessons seem to be, it is worth going over them again because, as often as they have been confirmed, humans still don’t seem to grasp them.  

There has been a lot of talk recently about whether the Russian forces have committed war crimes in the midst of their invasion, but that focus misses the point. The invasion itself is a crime. When the first boot stepped over the proverbial line, there was a violation of the canons which govern human beings, or, at least, should. I don’t care whether there is a statute that can be identified, or a common law doctrine that can be cited. By undertaking to kill people, and that is what war is, with no overt provocation, the Russians deviated from what is justifiable. No ifs, ands, or buts. 

The Russians will no doubt counter that the invasion was permissible under some version of the preventative war doctrine, so recently espoused by the Bush administration to justify its invasion of Iraq. But reliance on that doctrine and that war is misplaced, because the Iraqi war was a similar crime, even if no one was ever held accountable. There can be no rationalization for initiating a war against a country that has not undertaken specific, substantial acts of violence against the invading country. Being afraid that they might do so is no excuse for murder.  

Once a war starts, atrocities will happen. They will be committed by the aggressors, and they will be committed by the defenders. Atrocities are endemic to war. The stress of the situation, the rhetoric that surrounds war, and the chaos of the battlefield make them inevitable. History gives prominence to the atrocities of the losers, but that doesn’t erase the actions of the victors. Atrocities occur on both sides of a conflict.  

A corollary of the inevitability of atrocities is that non-combatants will get hurt, badly. Today’s military strategists like to boast that precision weapons will allow them to limit civilian casualties. Maybe they’re right, in that they could kill a lot more ordinary people if they targeted them. But it doesn’t mean that civilians won’t be directly, and devastatingly, impacted.   

There is even more of a chance of civilian deaths as plans go awry. Frustration will mount. The military will be subject to increased pressure from the politicians. The only alternative will be to escalate attacks, which means increased disregard for anything but destruction of people and property. The civilian deaths that have occurred, and will continue to occur, are wholly and absolutely predictable.  

This certainty of escalation is especially troubling in the Ukraine. The politician pressuring the military is Putin, who has put his entire legacy on line with this invasion. It is clearly very personal to him. I am sure that he does not see failure as an option. There is no telling what that will prompt him to authorize.  

While atrocities and escalation may be predictable, nothing more about the war will be. The best laid plans might as well be shredded paper thrown to the winds. Tolstoy, in War and Peace, breathtakingly depicts the chaos and confusion that is war. He overtly mocks historians who clean it up afterwards and make it seem as if everything that happened was part of a grand strategy by Generals. What was true in the 19^th Century is true today. 

The events in Ukraine are a striking example of the uncertainty of the course of a war. We can view maps showing the battle lines, and the movement of troops, but they really do not reflect the incredibly fluid situation on the ground, especially as troops move into cities and neighborhoods. The Generals will make their plans, and the soldiers will go where they are told, but what happens from there is anyone’s guess. 

Finally, as uncertain as the outcome and progress of war may be, the ramifications are even harder to predict. We are still living with the aftermath of WWII, which arose from the unintended consequences of WWI. Did anyone discuss the possibility of ISIS in the lead-up to the Iraqi war? Were people attuned to the emergence of the Taliban when Russia invaded Afghanistan, and we decided to arm the Afghan rebels?  

It is impossible to know the long-term effects of the Ukraine war. Even if the war ended today, how would we move forward in a world where the leader of the 3^rd most powerful nation has been branded a war criminal? What are the economic consequences of the on-going disruption to the flow of Russian energy resources to Europe? Is this invasion going to embolden China in its territorial aspirations? What other scenarios exist that we can’t even envisage?  

I wonder whether Putin thought he could control the direction and impact of this war. Could he be that blind to the lessons that history has taught again and again? Apparently so. I guess that the final confirmation of the nature of war is that many will die due to his blindness. Vlad the Impaler indeed.

One of the few fun things to emerge out of the pandemic has been a virtual film discussion series sponsored by my local non-profit movie theater. Each month a new movie is chosen, and a discussion led by Hannah Jack, who writes those pithy movie introductions for the Turner Classic Movie hosts. The movies have been an array of Hollywood fare, with everything from westerns, to dramas to screwball comedies.   

A recurring theme has emerged within these discussions. Not surprisingly, many of the old Hollywood films are misogynistic and/or racist by today’s standards. These movies arguably reflect the prevailing attitudes at the time they were made, but would not pass muster in today’s cultural climate. The question becomes how do you approach those concerns in viewing these movies today. 

Often the discussion will split between those that express their discomfort with the tropes they are seeing, impacting their enjoyment of the film. Others argue that you have to view the movie through the lens of the era in which it was made, and not be concerned with how the attitudes expressed look today. They purport to possess the ability to transport themselves back in time, and seem not to understand why others cannot do the same.      

This all came to a head with, believe it or not, Pillow Talk, starring Doris Day (who does nothing for me) and Rock Hudson (a pretty face, if ever there was one). This is a typical 1950’s Hollywood rom-com, with Rock adopting a persona so that he can lure an unsuspecting Doris into his bed. Of course, it all blows up in his face, and he realizes that he is helplessly smitten by Doris’ charms. Along the way there is an attempted date rape, a planned weekend abduction and other assorted chicanery. 

In the ensuing discussion, a number of people said that they were turned off by the unabashedly misogynistic nature of the film (including me). Some, who consider Pillow Talk one of their favorites (heaven knows why), were seemingly morally offended by those comments. They saw the misogyny as all in good fun, and seemed to consider those turned off by the nature of the antics portrayed hopeless prudes.   

This debate is nothing new. The question of how we view historical figures, especially American historical figures, comes up all the time. However, unless your goal is to enshrine those figures, you can note their strengths and accomplishments, while at the same time condemning their troublesome blind spots. To use just one example, you can laud Jefferson for his contributions to the rhetoric of liberty, while at the same time castigating his hypocrisy, which saw that rhetoric as applying to white males only.   

Entertainment, or art, is something different. A film, a book, or a sculpture, stands on its own, outside of its maker. We absorb what it has to say within the confines of its presentation. We can talk about the artist separately, but it is the piece itself that we are reacting to.  

That reaction is governed by who we are at that moment. Our beliefs, our values and our tastes. It is impossible, at least for me, to shut those values off, and try to absorb whatever I am viewing as if they do not exist. Not only can’t I do that, I do not want to.  

Much of the reluctance to apply personal standards of taste comes from our disdain for critics. A critic is rarely appreciated. Someone has gone to a lot of trouble to create something, and here comes someone else intent on doing nothing but ripping it down. Plus, critics have an annoying tendency to disparage in such harsh, condescending terms that the criticism often seems designed more show of the critic’s wit than it does to assess the piece being deprecated. 

Social media has further deflated our respect for critical judgement. Appraisers on social media seem to care less about justifying their opinion, instead trying to be as nasty they can be. Any attempt to question the morality of a film or show is just going to get you a knee-jerk accusation of political correctness, and a ton of abuse.    

And yet, it is a dangerous thing to shut down one’s values in assessing art, or entertainment. A critical eye is essential to appreciating and understanding what is being presented. It also enhances the experience. We are not just taking something in at a surface level, but truly engaging with it. If we aren’t doing that, we are wasting our time.  

The only way to engage with something is to use what we have. We are not engaging if we try and approach it with eyes that are not our own. We cannot place ourselves in another’s shoes, or truly assess their intent. In trying to do so we are simply ceding betraying everything we are. We all need to be critics.  

That doesn’t mean that we should not try and understand the motivation behind a creation. In fact, that’s part of the critical process. But understanding it, and accepting it as legitimate, are two different things. We can understand that a filmmaker in 1958 might find that it acceptable to use a full, frontal, sexual assault for comic relief, but that doesn’t mean that we have to accept it, and just laugh along. 

Critical judgement is the essence of appreciation. Burying that judgment, or trying to put it aside, is just a means of vegetation. And that judgment must include an assessment of the attitudes being expressed. That’s true whether what your viewing is 2, 10 or 50 years old. So, commence the commentary!!