An imagined conversation in which the importance of Darwin's insight is put forward.
Darwin advocate: Darwin is important. His theories allow an understanding of human nature.
Questioner: Darwin's theories have been used to offer an awful view of human nature.
DA: These are distortions. Nazi eugenics (saying that Darwin's ideas of natural selection applied to racial groups too, which could be said to be better or worse than each other) depend on nonsense and need to be confronted and challenged. In any case, the danger of such theories seems remote now. I admit this last point may not necessarily be the case.
Q: But Darwin offers an often bleak view of people. Idealists will find it uncomfortable.
DA: At the very least, idealists ought to recognise Darwinian insights. From this starting point, they can perhaps look at how best to optimise human behaviour. Without understanding Darwin's insights, they are likely to do more harm than good in their moral prescriptions.
Q: This seems a little abstract. What are these insights?
DA: Darwin argues that human behaviour is determined by the need to reproduce and the need to survive. One might argue that this second is merely a part of the first, so reproduction is the key. From this insight, evolutionary theorists are, for example, investigating interesting avenues, such as the prevalence of crime among young, poor men. Given that it is most difficult for people in this category to reproduce as they are at the bottom of the competitive heap, research into this area might lead to some useful insights in tackling crime.
Q: If that is the case, then why is this such an ignored perspective on public policy.
DA: I would argue that it is mainly due to the influence of sociology and anthropology, which are in turn reactions to the eugenics of the Nazis.
Q: How so?
DA: Sociology and anthropology have moved away from descriptions of human nature and sought to categorise humans as discrete communities, describing them minutely and specifically. It seems to me that this perspective, which is not without its uses, has come to dominate academic thinking. This is because Western intellectuals, fearful of the perversion of Darwin's theory of human nature by the Nazis in particular, sought to turn the debate away from human nature in general and towards a discussion of different cultures.
Q: I'm not sure why this matters. Isn't it worth understanding cultural difference?
DA: Yes, it certainly is. But what is lacking is a balanced discussion that accounts for human similarities as well as differences. Our intellectual climate at the moment prizes diversity almost entirely, to the exclusion of the ties that bind.
Q: In practice, what are the effects of this imbalance?
DA: One important area of difficulty is the vexed problem of poor governance in developing countries. Corrupt, autocratic regimes such as those of Zimbabwe and North Korea are able to exploit the intellectual climate of difference by saying that outsiders who criticise their regimes are showing intolerance to a different culture and are cultural imperialists. The beneficiaries of this current arrangement are the corrupt and brutal dictators who exploit the intellectual climate, not the people who suffer under their rule.
Q: How would more attention to evolutionary theory improve this situation?
DA: Evolutionary theory is an attempt to define human nature in general. If this were the basis of our discussion rather than discrete cultures, it would be easier to evaluate which sorts of political arrangements best allowed humans to flourish. This would remove the intellectual veneer that in part sustains corrupt authoritarian regimes.
Q: If Darwinism provided an intellectual veneer, as you put it, for the Nazis, then why would we replace the current veneer with one that proved so effective for other dictators?
DA: The problem was that in the first half of the nineteenth century, racist theories of human nature were still accepted. Genetic research in particular has shown how insignificant a feature race is in human nature. A white man has more in common genetically with a black man than with a white woman, for instance. Also, evolutionary theory has explained why racism happens and thus shows us how it is irrational in our present state. Racism happens because humans have evolved to detect minute differences in appearance and voice as a means of determining fellow tribespeople and rival tribes. This was important in a world in which human tribes competed for scarce resources, but hardly makes sense in a world of mass-produced food and global trade. Much of evolutionary theory works in that way, showing how aspects of human nature have evolved and allowing us to consider whether these are vestigial elements of the species that are redundant or still serve some purpose. We badly need to return to investigating human nature, as it is only by understanding humans fundamentally that we will be able to improve humanity's lot across the globe.
Sunday, 26 July 2009
Monday, 14 May 2007
Film review: 28 Weeks Later
28 Days Later was an outstanding example of the zombie genre, which, along with the clever spoof Shaun of the Dead, meant that of late Britannia has ruled the zombie waves. 28 Days Later was raw, original, chilling, with characters that you cared about and a twist that blurred the lines between the zombies and the humans in a disturbing way.
28 Weeks Later retains a lot of the first film's techniques. The shots of an empty London are still there. What is it that makes these shots so captivating? Perhaps it's the creepy attractiveness of a city without people, which is an uncomfortable but fascinating thought. It suggests that zombies are really just a horrible representation of humans as we really are. 28 Days Later was good at digging up these feelings, especially at the end when the army soldiers show that they are even worse than the zombies.
However, the way these deserted city images are used in 28 Weeks Later demonstrates the major difference between these films. Whereas the original encouraged troubling thought, the sequel just seems to say 'Cool, check out empty London'. It is pretty cool, but the film does it too much.
28 Weeks Later tries to have some intellectual content. The premise of the film is that the virus has wiped out the British population and the zombies have now starved to death. The US Army enters the de-populated country and some obvious comment on the Iraq war is made. The American army's complacency costs them and the virus resurfaces. There is reference to 'friendly fire' in the film, but that is about as far as the political nod goes.
Really, 28 Weeks Later is an action flick. It's about a group of humans trying to escape the zombies and the US Army intent on wiping everything out as part of its 'Code Red' better-safe-than-sorry policy. There's a lot of big explosions and action sets, including an excellent helicopter scene. The main characters are two children who had been on holiday when the virus broke out and return once the country is prematurely deemed safe. They find their father alive but not their mother. The father, played by Robert Carlyle, had abandoned his wife to the zombies in order to save himself.
This family dynamic structures the film. It isn't very well handled, with the potential for an interesting study of Carlyle's guilt foregone as the film becomes a simple chase.
Two American Army officers, a female medic and a male sniper, become the principal defenders of the children, who may hold the key to conquering the virus. However, none of these characters is sufficiently fleshed out to make the audience care much about them. The action is fast-paced; and the climactic episode is atmospheric, but the twist is quite predictable.
A final disappointment comes in an ending that blatantly sets up a sequel rather than concluding the film. On the whole, the film lacks the tension of the original mainly because the audience doesn't warm to the characters. This is a reasonable 'chase' film, with some good action set pieces and plenty of gore. However, if you're looking for the subtlety and surprising warmth amid tragedy of the first film, look elsewhere.
28 Weeks Later retains a lot of the first film's techniques. The shots of an empty London are still there. What is it that makes these shots so captivating? Perhaps it's the creepy attractiveness of a city without people, which is an uncomfortable but fascinating thought. It suggests that zombies are really just a horrible representation of humans as we really are. 28 Days Later was good at digging up these feelings, especially at the end when the army soldiers show that they are even worse than the zombies.
However, the way these deserted city images are used in 28 Weeks Later demonstrates the major difference between these films. Whereas the original encouraged troubling thought, the sequel just seems to say 'Cool, check out empty London'. It is pretty cool, but the film does it too much.
28 Weeks Later tries to have some intellectual content. The premise of the film is that the virus has wiped out the British population and the zombies have now starved to death. The US Army enters the de-populated country and some obvious comment on the Iraq war is made. The American army's complacency costs them and the virus resurfaces. There is reference to 'friendly fire' in the film, but that is about as far as the political nod goes.
Really, 28 Weeks Later is an action flick. It's about a group of humans trying to escape the zombies and the US Army intent on wiping everything out as part of its 'Code Red' better-safe-than-sorry policy. There's a lot of big explosions and action sets, including an excellent helicopter scene. The main characters are two children who had been on holiday when the virus broke out and return once the country is prematurely deemed safe. They find their father alive but not their mother. The father, played by Robert Carlyle, had abandoned his wife to the zombies in order to save himself.
This family dynamic structures the film. It isn't very well handled, with the potential for an interesting study of Carlyle's guilt foregone as the film becomes a simple chase.
Two American Army officers, a female medic and a male sniper, become the principal defenders of the children, who may hold the key to conquering the virus. However, none of these characters is sufficiently fleshed out to make the audience care much about them. The action is fast-paced; and the climactic episode is atmospheric, but the twist is quite predictable.
A final disappointment comes in an ending that blatantly sets up a sequel rather than concluding the film. On the whole, the film lacks the tension of the original mainly because the audience doesn't warm to the characters. This is a reasonable 'chase' film, with some good action set pieces and plenty of gore. However, if you're looking for the subtlety and surprising warmth amid tragedy of the first film, look elsewhere.
Film review: Spider-Man 3
I thought I'd try my hand at writing a film review. I certainly watch plenty of them, so here are my thoughts on the film I watched last weekend: Spider-Man 3.I will begin by saying that I am a big fan of the first two films, especially the second. Simple stories; snappy action; an appealing central couple of Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker and Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane; memorable and slightly tragic villains; and a believably awkward and ordinary hero all made the Spider-man franchise a success.Let's take those elements in turn. The story in Spider-man 3 is too complicated for its own good. One storyline sees Peter Parker's relationship with Mary Jane deteriorating, as Peter's growing ego and Mary Jane's Broadway flop put a strain on things. Another strand has Peter Parker develop a rivalry with a new photographer, Eddie Brock. An alien creature that attaches itself to those with negative energy becomes involved here too, with the emergence of a new villain, Venom. A third storyline involves another new villain called the Sandman, who is an escaped convict trying to gather the money to cure his daughter's disease by robbing banks and the like. A fourth storyline follows the friendship/rivalry of Peter Parker and Harry Osborn, son of Willem Defoe's villain from the first film. All these storylines compete with each other rather than blend into the overall plot. It's a familiar problem: in trying to do so much, the film ends up doing little of anything. It also swells the length of the film to an over-long 2 and a half hours.The action in this film is similarly uninspiring. An opening chase sequence at night is so frantic and poorly lit that it's tough to make out what's happening; and the climactic battle lacks momentum, mainly because it just feels like the customary battle stuck on at the end, rather than a natural conclusion to the film's tale.One aspect of the film that works quite well is the central relationship, in which Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst do some good work. Maguire is amusing and plausible as the geeky Parker whose head is a little swollen at the public adulation, meaning he isn't paying attention to Mary Jane's unhappy situation. Dunst does a good job of conveying the frustrations of a Mary Jane whose career ambitions come undone and who feels neglected by her boyfriend. The relationship receives a couple of big jolts along the way, with James Franco's Harry Osborn excellent as the third member of an emerging love triangle. He exhibits the greatest emotional range, with great affection, dark humour, determination and savagery in equal measure.
Unfortunately, the villains, who take up a lot of the screen time, are exceedingly weak in this film. The Sandman character is not at all engaging and is very uncharismatically played by Thomas Haden Church. The revelation of how he gained his superpowers is so bad that they ought not to have bothered. The Eddie Brock/alien creature storyline, though, is possibly the worst-handled aspect of the film. The Venom villain emerges late, and his motives are poorly explained.Peter Parker himself goes through a change, discovering his dark side through the alien creature, which amplifies his vengeful feelings about Uncle Ben's murder. Sadly, though, the dark side isn't very dark and so not really worth doing. If you want to see what happens in the Peter Parker-Mary Jane relationship, this film may, just about, be worth watching. However, the resolution will leave you feeling cheated. If you enjoyed the pace and lightness of the first two films, don't go to see this ponderous and clumsy effort.
Unfortunately, the villains, who take up a lot of the screen time, are exceedingly weak in this film. The Sandman character is not at all engaging and is very uncharismatically played by Thomas Haden Church. The revelation of how he gained his superpowers is so bad that they ought not to have bothered. The Eddie Brock/alien creature storyline, though, is possibly the worst-handled aspect of the film. The Venom villain emerges late, and his motives are poorly explained.Peter Parker himself goes through a change, discovering his dark side through the alien creature, which amplifies his vengeful feelings about Uncle Ben's murder. Sadly, though, the dark side isn't very dark and so not really worth doing. If you want to see what happens in the Peter Parker-Mary Jane relationship, this film may, just about, be worth watching. However, the resolution will leave you feeling cheated. If you enjoyed the pace and lightness of the first two films, don't go to see this ponderous and clumsy effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
