Month: October 2023

The other night as part of my Criterion Challenge (another post for another time) I watched the 1931 movie “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”. As I said in my Letterbox review, even though some of the acting and direction was dated, it was a very effective adaptation of this well-known story. The Hyde character was truly repulsive. You could relate to the fear he engendered in everyone he encountered.

What made the movie especially interesting was that as vile as Hyde was, he was clearly a part of Jekyll, whose name for some reason was pronounced “Gee-kill”. He reflected and exaggerated Jekyll’s arrogance. He was Jekyll’s barely contained lust come to life. This was not a brainless monster, or some general creep. This was a side of Jekyll himself unleashed.

The sophistication of this story led me to consider the incredible array of excellent horror films that came out in the early 1930’s. Even film buffs don’t watch a lot of films from the era. Talking pictures were new. While there are notable exceptions, most of the films from 1930 through 1933 are stilted, unimaginative and forgotten. Then there are the horror films, which created images and icons that continue to radiate through popular culture today. These films are still shown in theaters and on TV to appreciative audiences.

The best known of these early talking films are Frankenstein (1931), Dracula (1931), The Mummy (1932), The Invisible Man (1932) and King Kong (1933). Each of these films has been remade again and again, but it is the original conception of the titular characters that stick with us. (I know, I know. Frankenstein was the Doctor and not the monster, but does anyone think of it that way?). No matter the quality of the remake, or the superior effects employed, we cling to those original depictions.

Most of these films come from well-known source materials. Shelley’s Frankenstein, Stoker’s Dracula and Well’s Invisible Man are still great reads. Yet, it is impossible to do so without conjuring up the images from the films as you do so. As Count Dracula greets Renfield in his Transylvanian castle you hear the sonorous voice of Bela Lugosi, whether you want to or not. When the scientist Griffin checks into the inn at Sussex, the mind’s eye calls up Claude Raines wrapped in bandages hiding his face behind a floppy hat and sunglasses.

 Frankenstein is the ultimate example of this phenomenon. According to IMDB, there have been over 30 Frankenstein movies made since the 1931 version. And yet, when my elementary school son wanted to be the monster for Halloween, we got him a mask that was modeled on that original monster. When Gene Wilder and Mel Brooks set out to make “Young Frankenstein” 40 years after the original, they could feel comfortable that their audience would know the source of the satire.

These films not only presented characters that became iconic, but they are also smart and often thoughtful. They came out before imposition of the Hays Code in 1934, and so the filmmakers had a bit more latitude than films that followed, and they took advantage. I doubt if the naked lust of the 1931 Dr. Jekyll would have made it through code standards. While the 1941 remake starring Spencer Tracey wisely retained many of the elements of the 1931 version, Hyde was not as clearly driven by Jekyll’s sexual needs.

All of this still begs the question as to why there should have been this outpouring of such films at that time. Some of it can be attributed to Carl Laemmle, Jr., son of the founder of Universal Pictures, who produced many of these masterpieces. Laemmle used his position as the boss’s son to overcome skeptics who saw such movies as second-rate filler. He hired creative people to helm the projects and provided ample funding to help them bring their visions to life. The result was massive hits that made Universal synonymous with horror.

Still, that does not explain why these films resonated as they did, and do, with the public. Did these monsters and mad scientists somehow reflect the general unease as the effects of the Great Depression continued to spread? Were they a reflection of the anger and frustration with the lords of industry who claimed the power through the stock market to create an everlasting trough of wealth?

Or maybe it was more basic. We like to be scared, and the filmmakers of the early 30’s found that the addition of sound allowed them to enhance the atmospherics that help create an aura of dread. In doing so, they defined the genre. It’s not as if silent films were devoid of horror, but they lacked that final ingredient to truly generate sweaty palms and the pounding of the heart.

I tend towards this last explanation. I cannot imagine Frankenstein without the gathering storm and buzz of the Doctor’s equipment. What would Dracula be without the beating of bat wings? There is nothing to match the demonic cackling of the Invisible Man or the ominous sound of the Mummy’s shuffling gait or the mighty roar of Kong.

I know that this does not explain why the images from these films became so iconic. That may have to be laid at the feet of the filmmakers themselves who did not see their creations as throw away fodder for the masses. They were able to imbue what could have been stock monsters with personality, depth, and heart. At times, you even found yourself rooting for them to prevail.

Whatever the reason, I relish the chance to see these films again this time of year. Sometimes I even get the chance to view them on the big screen, and that only enhances the fun. So, my advice is to pop some popcorn, turn down the lights and put on one of these classics. No matter how many times you’ve seen them before, it is time well spent.    

If you have not seen the recent movie “Golda”, starring Helen Mirren, now would be a good time to do so. If you have, you must be suffering from a bit of déjà vu as you contemplate the October 7 Hamas incursion into Israel. While history does not repeat itself, sometimes it sends forth echoes of the past that are hard to ignore.

“Golda” centered on the Yom Kippur war between Israel, Egypt and Syria. On October 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria launched an invasion of Israel, catching the Israeli intelligence services and military by surprise. The Israelis initially were thrown into disarray, but quickly recovered and turned the war into a triumph that led eventually to the Israel/Egypt peace accords of 1978 and 1979.

I doubt if things will go that smoothly this time around. It is going to be much more difficult to defeat an amorphous movement like Hamas than it was to counter nation states like Syria and Egypt. Despite the early success of the Arab armies in 1973, they presented a definable foe that could be outmaneuvered and overpowered. Plus, when the war turned in its favor, Israel had a counterpart in Anwar Sadat who it could negotiate with to end hostilities.

Hamas, on the other hand, has a more diffused leadership that presents no clear focus for negotiation. Plus, it does not have a conventional army that can be destroyed. Its fighters will disperse back into the general population of the Gaza Strip ready to take up arms when it is again deemed advantageous. In doing so they hold the civilian population of the Strip as a human shield decrying Israeli atrocities when Israel bombs the cities where the fighters reside, hoping to win international sympathy and support.

Plus, there are pertinent questions about the Israeli leadership. Despite the formation of a unity government, it is hard to envision Benjamin Netanyahu putting aside the reforms of the Israeli judiciary and the aggressive expanse into the West Bank that divide the Israeli people. He seems much too focused on his own political fortunes to be the type of leader that can rally the entire nation.

That being said, anyone who has paid any attention to Israel over its 75-year history is unlikely to bet against them. Israel has been confronted with existential threats since the day that it declared itself a nation. Each of those threats was countered with determination and resiliency.

Israeli response to attack has rarely been pretty. Israel has been prepared to employ seemingly ruthless methods to secure its future. While the Israeli government certainly cares what the international community thinks of its tactics, it is not going to hold back just because it may face criticism. It will do what it feels necessary and let the chips fall where they may. As much as we may think that Israel depends on outside support, especially from the United States, they are clearly willing to stand alone if need be.

There is a reason for this. Israel is in a no-win situation. Criticism of an Israeli response to Hamas started before they even had a chance to take in and evaluate the incursion. Even worse, there are voices that blame Israel for the actions of Hamas, as if Hamas would be a nice, quiet set of quiescent frat boys if Israel would just stop provoking them. This is, of course, nonsense, but it doesn’t stop this distorted narrative from being loudly promulgated.

Hamas has counted on this. They expect to be able to don the mantle of the victim despite their killing and kidnapping of Israeli citizens. They know that prominent people will support them regardless of what they do, as much from a hatred of Israel than from any love of Hamas. It is a cold, calculating, cynical strategy, and Israel recognizes it as such. They are unlikely to be swayed by those voices calling for restraint.

The sad truth is that the willingness of Hamas to sacrifice its own people may let them achieve its goals no matter what Israel does. Hamas knows that it cannot destroy Israel. However, they can increase Israeli isolation in the Middle East. Many people believe that the timing of Hamas’s actions is tied to the Abraham Accords, and a seeming stabilization of the relationship between Israel and certain Arab states, including Saudi Arabia. The inevitable Israeli response to Hamas will make it extremely difficult for these nations to maintain ties to Israel, and that is exactly what Hamas wants.

The reverberations for Israeli politics could also be significant, though how that plays out is far from certain. Netanyahu and his right-wing allies will no doubt be blamed for the failure of the intelligence community to anticipate the Hamas incursion. They will be accused, and maybe rightly so, of ignoring the threat of Hamas in their quest to populate the West Bank with as many settlements as possible.

On the other hand, there may be increased support for a more hardline approach to the Palestinian population. That is the typical reaction to attack, especially when the attack targets civilians the way this one did. Once the dust settles Netanyahu may not be in a position to demand a harsher policy in relation to Palestinians wherever they live – the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, southern Lebanon – but someone will do so, and they may well meet a receptive audience.

The future of Hamas is also very much up in the air. Israel knows who the Hamas leaders are, and they will pursue them doggedly. They will seek to break the back of Hamas and leave them rudderless so that there is no possibility of another similar attack. And, as noted above, Israel is willing to go to any extent necessary to achieve that goal.   

I still firmly believe that violence breeds violence and that once that violence is unleashed it is hard to control. Just look at the war in Ukraine. The difficulty here is that chaos is exactly what Hamas wants. It might get that, but there is a very good chance that it is more chaos than it can handle.

United States President after United States President has sought peace in the Middle East. While some progress has been made in normalizing relations between Israel and certain states, that goal is no closer today than it was in 1973. There are just too many factions in that part of the world for whom peace is unthinkable, and too many others that are willing to arm them to the teeth so they can pursue their bloody agenda. We don’t know where this latest chapter in this horrific saga will lead, but we can safely guess that it won’t be the last chapter to be written.    

As I retire from the Board of The Joshua Project (JP4Men.org), a non-profit dedicated to providing meaningful rites-of-passage experiences for young men moving into the meaning of mature masculinity, I feel a need to shine a light. Tom has mentioned in earlier posts that we appear to be lacking any societal rituals or norms that help boys develop in a healthy way. Tom’s post discussed young men and their lack of ..  uh .. ‘college completion’?  He ruminated on this as resulting from a gap in our societal focus. He is correct. I just did not feel his conclusion went deep enough.

From everything I have seen, we, as a society, are unable to find space to allow men, and more specifically young men, to explore their archetypical balance. These boys need to discover who they are, how they should act, and what their future holds. They need to find their place as adults in our communities. You know, they need to become mature men.

In calling for a focus on the maturation of young men I am not looking to diminish the justly deserved push towards gender equality, or the expanding role of women in our society. As a father of two successful young women, I have seen the societal pressures on young women and applaud our efforts to make sure that every girl can develop into the strong, mature woman she wants to be. Nor am I talking about what the internet, magazines or media think either one of our genders ‘ought to be’, or how they should interact.

What I am referring to is the breakdown in our society in the instruction of how boys become men. Boys do not need understanding or pity. They need role models and the tools to become the strong, mature men they want to be. As our society has changed, and our expectations of men has been altered, our failure to provide those tools has the potential to lead to disastrous results.

I suppose the foregoing paragraph can be considered my theory statement. But it leaves a question to be answered. Can I “prove we have this issue”?

As we have shifted our educational focus almost exclusively on preparation for college, we have diminished traditionally male careers. Shop class and vo-tech training appears as an afterthought. Young men who are interested in these pursuits are too often looked down upon as second-class citizens, almost as if we are asking whether a young man can pursue a trade and still be ‘useful to society’. With the push towards college as the ultimate goal for high school students, women have outpaced men in academia, and seem better poised to take advantage of this focus. It feels as if it points to a maturation difference between the sexes. Studies show this is true. (Of Boys to Men)

The seeming frustration among boys with these expectations has shown itself in some troubling statistics, like suicide rates. More young males commit suicide than young females. The reason for this may be complex, but clearly we are failing these young men.

In the book “King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine”, Jungian psychologists Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette argue that males are genetically born with four archetypes.  The King, the Warrior, the Magician, and the Lover. Yes, inherited genetic archetypes. We tend to shy away from such designations because of the propensity of some to bend such concepts into ideologies of domination. However, as Moore and Gillette show, these archetypes transcend time, are intrinsic to all men, and have nothing to do with supremacy nor superiority.

How does a young man be a “King” without knowing what a King truly is? Does he understand that a King is someone who takes control of his PERSONAL realm? Can a young man even control that realm? Even if he can, does he understand how to use that control in a positive way for both himself and those around him?

The other archetypes provide similar opportunities for positive mature growth. The “Magician” promotes the power of knowledge, initiation and transformation. The “Warrior” recognizes a tendency toward aggressive action, but channels that in a positive way to meet goals. The “Lover” revels in our connection to others and the world around us.    

A failure to recognize these archetypes allows their shadow to predominate, and immature males to emerge. The Magician becomes a hoarder of knowledge, doing nothing constructive with it. The Warrior vacillates between misspent aggression and inaction. The Lover becomes self-centered and manipulative.

These shadows of the male archetypes need to be exposed for what they are. Dead ends. But without the tools, knowledge, and technology to be successful how are young men going to properly channel these instincts? Are they going to get that guidance from Movies? Video games? School? Da Boys? Gangs? Jackin’ a car may make a kid appear strong to his buddies, but it does not make a man.

How does a dude learn this stuff? What can we do?

Well, I guess the first step is awareness of the fact that the pendulum has swung away from raising healthy boys to become men in their mature fullness. We have left the boys behind. More men need to step up and get involved.

At the Joshua Project we seek to provide meaningful rites of passage for young men moving into manhood. We look to encourage adult/youth mentoring relationships that can help steer boys to understand the drives within them and properly channel those drives. We use the archetypes as a means of creating compassionate, perceptive, discerning men.    

So, as I step away from my official capacity, I am worried. I wish I could have done more. I am not going to quit helping and being involved, but younger men than I need to step up. We have work to do.

In January of 2005, less than two years after the second gulf war toppled Saddam Hussein, Iraq held a parliamentary election. Approximately 80% of eligible voters participated, putting in power the United Iraqi Alliance, a confederation of mainly Shia political parties. The internet was filled with pictures of proud Iraqis showing off their ink-stained fingers indicating that they had voted.

Shortly after this election, a friend of mine, with whom I had had a series of intense debates about the morality of the Iraqi war, approached me, and crowed “See, everyone wants democracy.” It was a popular argument at the time. Not long before, Francis Fukuyama had written “The End of History and the Last Man”, arguing that with the dissolution of the Soviet Union we had reached, the “end-point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government”.

Eighteen years after the 2005 Iraqi election, and the predictions of democracy’s ascendancy, we can only look back on that misplaced optimism and shake our heads. It now seems that democracy is under attack almost everywhere, including the supposedly democratic (small “d”) bastion of the United States. We have to confront again the question of whether democracy is the best governmental system, and if it is, what that means.

Most of the concerns about democracy in the United States surround a second Trump presidency. Many are worried, and probably rightly so, that if “The Donald” gets the reins of government again, he will do what he can to assure that he is not ousted as he was in 2020. The sense is that most of his followers will gleefully follow wherever he leads, and that the Republican establishment will be drug along behind, whether it likes it or not.

While Trump is definitely the largest existential threat to U.S. democracy, the debate about stopping him leads me to wonder how committed the rest of us are to the democratic principals we seek to uphold. All to often, I hear the equivalent of “Why doesn’t Biden do something?” on a myriad of issues as if we want him to waive a magic wand and impose our favorite policy positions. Or, worse, simply dictate those positions into existence.

Our tendency to want to sidestep democratic principles is understandable, especially when faced with inane hijinks like the near governmental shutdown. Congress seems unable to handle the most basic tasks, putting in jeopardy the well-being of millions. It is so tempting to want someone to take the bull by the horns and stop the insanity.

The idea of the imperial presidency has been around for many years. Sometimes it has been used as a warning against presidential overreach, and sometimes it has been used as an aspiration. The truth of the matter is that the concept has great appeal. We all want to see the person we elect act decisively to implement the policies that we support.

It is natural to look at the President as the sole purveyor of policy, but to blame, or praise, him (or, hopefully, someday soon, her) for all that happens is both naïve and dangerous. We all saw Schoolhouse Rock growing up, and many of us can still sing “I’m Just a Bill”, but in times of frustration we tend to forget its message. The President cannot enact laws, that is the business of Congress.

There is, however, the Executive Order. In the early days of our nation, these were used sparingly. The first President to buck that trend was Theodore Roosevelt, who more than quadrupled the Executive Orders issued by any of his predecessors. The President who made the most use of those orders was another Roosevelt, Franklin.

Many of us were heartened when Biden issued an executive order protecting the right to reproductive health services in response to the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v Wade. On the other hand, we were less than thrilled when Donald Trump issued an Executive Order authorizing the building of a wall on the Mexican border when congress refused his request for such funding. *

Good or bad, an Executive Order only enhances the imperial presidency. They may have a role to play at times of stalemate, but calling for their frequent usage risks a further undermining of democracy. When the President is ours, it seems like the way forward. But I am reminded of those who urged Democrats to abolish the filibuster in 2020 so that they could force through certain legislation, wondering how they could forget that only the year before Republicans were in control.

Near the end of the Roman Republic** Cicero, the leading voice of republican principals, led the Roman Senate to execute, without trial, the leaders of a conspiracy to overthrow the Republic. While that stance was popular at the time, it came back to haunt Cicero as he opposed later efforts to install a more authoritarian regime. After all, if even he was willing to abjure democratic precepts in times of crises (and isn’t it always a time of crises) how could he stand in the way of those wanting to save the Roman nation.

I have no easy answers. I just know that democracy is the best hope we have of making this the country we want it to be. All too often, we will be called on to bite our tongue, shake our heads and press forward as best we can against blind stupidity. There are no shortcuts. Or at least there are no shortcuts that don’t stand of very good chance of ultimately leading to outcomes we would not want to live with.    

*Someday I will write a post on the meeting regarding wall funding between Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, which sticks in my craw to this day. Pelosi and Schumer infuriatingly missed a golden opportunity to confront Trump with the “Art of the Deal”, instead opting for meaningless posturing (but didn’t she look good in those sunglasses).

**I know that it is a bad time to be citing this antidote. I am no doubt opening myself up to the charge of thinking constantly about the Roman Empire. Truth be told, I have recently been listening to a podcast discussing Roman literature and history. That doesn’t make me a bad person, does it?