The problem recently with movies is that I can’t ever work out who the villain is in things. The idea of a sympathetic villain has been around since the medieval morality plays like Macbeth and Dr Faustus, but they’ve really come into a life of their own in modern cinema. In the past, we always knew who the villains were in movies whether it be Nazis or something to do with communism. Hell, even fucking super-villains in comic books were colour coordinated being dressed in only secondary colours. It’s as if the fiction has come full circle again from those every-man plays of the dark ages to Injustice: Gods Among Us. Maybe writers on whatever medium are rediscovering that heroes and villains don’t actually exist.
It’s a reinforcement of the whole idea that I keep banging on about – reinforced by my day of binge-watching Netflix – that evil and good is defined in the consequence not the actions themselves. This thought has been evolving in my head and on this blog for a while now and its reflected in the actions of people all around us as well as the ones we see fighting alien armies at the cinema. It’s all about points of view and perspective because strangely even if everyone is telling a person that they are in the wrong based on the consequences of their actions, delusion happens to be a thick defensive line.
So, I was looking through Facebook’s trending section and read about, and the reactions to, Ivanka Trump’s G20 outing. Now what business does the un-elected have to represent the electorate on quite literally the global stage? Some attacked the decision while others defended it with lines literally like ‘Obama did worse’. Personally, I thought it was a dud move and I felt a bit embarrassed for her just looking at the pictures of her awkwardly sat there. It’s similar to the incident with Buzz Aldrin pulling faces at President Trump’s speech about space; some said it showed the ridiculousness of the president’s position while others said that the former astronaut has horrendous facial twitches. Neither can be confirmed and both hinge on the eye of the beholder. While these examples aren’t about the relationship between good and evil but the point of what can be said on a simplistic level as what makes a good decision or a bad one.
It’s like The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish by Alexander Pushkin, recently made popular again thanks to its morals in a recent episode of Doctor Who. To summarise, the fisherman wishes a number of things from a magic fish who is bargaining for its life. The fish misunderstands the fisherman because it doesn’t perceive things the way that he does and brings ruin on the fisherman in the name of doing good. By the end, the fisherman asks for things to be returned to how they were before wishing never to have met the creature. On one note you can see it as ‘be careful what you wish for’ kind-of story but I see it as a story about perspective and that everyone who takes action on anything believes what they are doing is in the right, despite it being inherently wrong based on the evident conclusion.
Admittedly that was really convoluted and mostly mental masturbation but there’s a point in there somewhere. I doubt people who fight for IS do it thinking that they’re scum for doing what they do likewise to serial killers who often belief themselves on a righteous quest like a twisted fucking Zelda level. Convictions, whatever they are drive us and sometimes the outcome is good and others it’s just shit. There comes a point where I don’t feel sorry at all for those deluded idiots and I just get so incredibly bored. Like I said to a friend just the other day, when the reality of the consequences finally hit home, it’ll fuck them harder than Ron Jeremy.
Maybe that’s why. People are so scared of just waking up from a dreamland made of conviction. It’s time to scrap all the slogans like ‘strong and stable’, ‘make America great again’ and god-damn ‘eat fresh’. We all just need to stick to the one: wake up and smell the fucking coffee.