Monday, August 08, 2005
'reading lolita in tehran' and 'red corner'
I was reading 'reading lolita in tehran' the other day when i came
across a particularly striking passage basically stating that one of
the worst things about the fundamentalist islamic state was that it
forced its citizens to be complicit in its bastardization of life:
women through their acquiescence to the crazy laws and the inhumane
restrictions of freedom, and even men through their enforcement of
these laws... i hadn't thought to understand men as anything more than
the oppressors in such a society, but they really have no other choice
than to be oppressors when such dogma is so woven into the structure
of their society. even the men who accept the dogma... are they doing
it because they truly and faithfully believe in it and its essential
message? or is there some twinge of a need for personal or familial
gain that could come from full alignment with government policy, or,
even worse, could it only be because that is how they were brought up
(propagandized!) to think. how many muslims would concoct the same or
similar set of of laws if they had been raised in a moderate society?
these questions have been mulling around in my head for the past few
days, and i just saw them addressed in a different context on TV
tonight. plot for 'red corner': richard gere is an international
businessman and a financier. while closing a deal in china he spends
a night with a beautiful chinese model. he is awoken the next morning
by chinese military officers yelling at him, accusing him of murder -
the girl is dead. over the course of the rest of the movie we slowly
piece together the facts of the death and a plot for power within a
highly bureaucratic chinese government. of course, the pieces come
together just as the trial reaches a climax and richard gere is saved
by the intelligent, passionate, captivating chinese female lawyer.
they have a special bond, everything works out for the best.
so many of the chinese military and courtroom personnel are portrayed
as corrupt and ill-intented in the movie. thinking about this from
the reading lolita level, though, i see these people as actors within
a corrupt system. 'actors' especially because they do not personally
choose the plot or the structure, they simply play their roles and if
they did not, somebody else would. there is a poignant scene at the
end of the movie where the low-level officer who committed the
physical crime on behalf of his big-shot counterpart confronts him in
the courtroom, telling him not to lie (or he seemed to be saying
something like that). In this scene my opinion of the character
evolved from an initial understanding of him as a violent thug to a
revised understanding of him as one who, though morally indefensible,
is a victim of the structure of this society... just like the iranian
men.
hmmm, still thinking about it. (and i know this isn't necessarily what chinese society is really like.) ¶ 12:13 AM
across a particularly striking passage basically stating that one of
the worst things about the fundamentalist islamic state was that it
forced its citizens to be complicit in its bastardization of life:
women through their acquiescence to the crazy laws and the inhumane
restrictions of freedom, and even men through their enforcement of
these laws... i hadn't thought to understand men as anything more than
the oppressors in such a society, but they really have no other choice
than to be oppressors when such dogma is so woven into the structure
of their society. even the men who accept the dogma... are they doing
it because they truly and faithfully believe in it and its essential
message? or is there some twinge of a need for personal or familial
gain that could come from full alignment with government policy, or,
even worse, could it only be because that is how they were brought up
(propagandized!) to think. how many muslims would concoct the same or
similar set of of laws if they had been raised in a moderate society?
these questions have been mulling around in my head for the past few
days, and i just saw them addressed in a different context on TV
tonight. plot for 'red corner': richard gere is an international
businessman and a financier. while closing a deal in china he spends
a night with a beautiful chinese model. he is awoken the next morning
by chinese military officers yelling at him, accusing him of murder -
the girl is dead. over the course of the rest of the movie we slowly
piece together the facts of the death and a plot for power within a
highly bureaucratic chinese government. of course, the pieces come
together just as the trial reaches a climax and richard gere is saved
by the intelligent, passionate, captivating chinese female lawyer.
they have a special bond, everything works out for the best.
so many of the chinese military and courtroom personnel are portrayed
as corrupt and ill-intented in the movie. thinking about this from
the reading lolita level, though, i see these people as actors within
a corrupt system. 'actors' especially because they do not personally
choose the plot or the structure, they simply play their roles and if
they did not, somebody else would. there is a poignant scene at the
end of the movie where the low-level officer who committed the
physical crime on behalf of his big-shot counterpart confronts him in
the courtroom, telling him not to lie (or he seemed to be saying
something like that). In this scene my opinion of the character
evolved from an initial understanding of him as a violent thug to a
revised understanding of him as one who, though morally indefensible,
is a victim of the structure of this society... just like the iranian
men.
hmmm, still thinking about it. (and i know this isn't necessarily what chinese society is really like.) ¶ 12:13 AM