Elusive Trope's picture

    Serenity Someday...Maybe

    https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRe4TRKlZHcllXlXP2AsMKkIEQDXSFg5rK1fHoTMHZp3xYZNr7_dA

    Frank Costanza: Serenity now! Serenity now!

    George Costanza: What is that?

    Frank: The doctor gave me a relaxation cassette. When my blood pressure gets too high, the man on the tape tells me to say 'serenity now!'

    George: Are you supposed to yell it?

    Frank: The man on the tape wasn't specific.

    The "Serenity Now!" episode remains one of my all time favorite Seinfeld episodes. When I was fiddling with my previous blog, I had at one moment tried to expand my thoughts on the joy and happiness using Frank's approach to achieve peace of mind.  But in reading the wikipedia entry on the episode,  I discovered another thread in the episode was inspired by the same David Mamet play with which I was also trying to assimilate into the previous blog: Glengarry Glen Ross.

    Frank Costanza: Starting tonight we're having a little sales contest. The loser gets fired. The winner gets a Water Pik.

    Frank has started a sales contest between George and Lloyd Braun, George long-time arch rival, in order to improve sales of the computers he is selling from his garage.  This is similar to the sales contest instituted by the unseen real estate company owners Mitch and Murray, which will mean that the loser will lose his job (and his manhood), while the winner wins a nice prize (along with keeping his job).

    While Death of a Salesman exposed the aftermath of such a system on the psyche, esteem and identity of someone caught in this system by no real fault of their own, Glengarry Glen Ross exposed the actual gears and pulleys of that system.  Moreso, Mamet was able to highlight this system as it pertains specifically to the (American) male of the species.  The “Serenity Now!” episode did what good comedy does: it merely destroyed the pathos of a Glengarry Glen Ross so we could laugh at the very thing crushing our souls.  There is very little difference between George Costanza and George Aaronow, it is just that the former amuses us.

    Neither Glengarry Glen Ross nor the “Serenity Now!” episode offer anything in the way of a solution to this dilemma.  One can walk away from both feeling that we are hopelessly stuck in a debilitating patriarchal and capitalistic system.  I would like to believe it is not hopeless, but at times it is hard to imagine some system that is more nurturing and sustainable replacing our current one.  We are stuck with the infamous unleveled playing field: the winners keep winning, the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer and the losers, well...they keep losing.  And we all pay the price.
     

    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTqP0__EfsLvRNXL_q6wxS7zk3CDaT45ylB2ZfE6rJvkEOrsGaY6g

    Lloyd Braun: Serenity now, insanity later.

    Comments

    Serenity later - 26th century edition

    Zoom out 

     

    The scene is from a movie made to wind up the short-lived tv series Firefly. Would not be surprised if you haven't seen either. It is not the sort of film and tv you usually reference.  But they have a very definite political and socioeconomic theme. The bad guys are the Alliance, basically what Joss Whedon envisions Chimerica might become.

    The Alliance is a fictional corporate super-government ..., a powerful authoritarian government and law-enforcement organization that controls the majority of territory within the known universe.

    They terra form planets and dope the air and water with mood-altering chemicals to assure docile and compliant populations.

     


    Science fiction for me is like live improv - 9 out of 10 times it is mildly entertaining at best, and when it's bad it is excruciatingly bad.  1 out of 10 times, however, someone is able to take the genre and make something with depth, using the not really real world (universe) to reflect back some truths about life back in the real world.

    I have never seen the tv show, but came across the movie in a DVD sale rack.  Having read about the cult following the show had generated, I decided to give the movie a chance.  I would put it into the 1 out of 10 times category.  It wasn't perfect, but I thought it dealt well with the balancing act dilemma between the individual and the common good.

    At times Serenity deals with this dilemma in the standard individual rogue good (in spite of the bad ruffian exterior) authoritarian government-corporation bad framework.  But the movie is able at the same time to explore a similar dynamic between the individual and the smaller but just as significant (if it not more significant) community of family-friends.  There isn't a simple good guy-bad guy duality when it comes between following the impulses of the individual versus the demands of the community of friends and family.

    The films treatment of this dynamic gives it a humane touch missing in those 9 out of 10.  I use humane in the way Peter Rainer used  it to describe Alexander Payne's film Sideways, which I had discussed in a recent blog:

    Sideways is the sweetest, funniest, most humane movie I’ve seen all year. I emphasize its humanity because most of what passes for comedy these days, whether it be low-concept or smarty-pants, is little more than gagfests peopled by joke-bots. In the movies and on television, it’s become hip to make comedies about nothing, à la Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm, or, in the case of I Love Huckabees, everything—which might as well be nothing. Frosty facetiousness is the signature style of the new “intellectual” American jape, and until now, I would have lumped Alexander Payne...into [that] mix....But somewhere between his last film and his new one, Payne traded in his sarcasm for a soul. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Sideways is set in the golden pastoral haze of California’s Central Coast wine country. Or maybe it was just all that wine.

    [I had to use the quote because in part it mentions Seinfeld]

    Moreover, Serenity adds to the individual-community dilemma with the question as to how do we really know we are doing the right thing, that we are truly on the side of the good.

    The assassin for the Alliance is a bad guy not because he was inherently evil, having chosen some form of the "dark side." He was a bad guy because, in spite of his desire to do the right thing, he put his faith in the wrong camp.  In this way, we can put him in with Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.  

    But the assassin's personal crisis at the end of the film probably makes him more like George Aaronow, which brings us back to soul of the film.

     


    Glenngary is most probably the scariest movie I ever viewed.

    I probably watched it a total of three times and I don't know if I have the guts to view it again!


    It definitely undermines the hope that springs eternal.

    Glengarry is just savage and what I find most worrisome about it is how many people I know, including sensitive theater people, fixate on its cruelties to the point of admiration.  Most quoted is the sales contest speech (which was written for the movie and is not in the play) which is brilliant, but, you know, you always sense that the person quoting it wants to be the guy that Mitch and Murray sends.  The nonchalant cruelty (and the power to get away with it) is something all of us find oddly appealing. Hence the popularity of the Corleone, Darth Vader and the like.  Come on, who of us hasn't want to Force choke David Brooks?  Or is that just a me thing?


    One hears actors talk about how much more fun or enjoyable it is to play the villain than the goodie. Probably the best current pop example of admiration of Vaderesque personality is the show Dexter. Before that it would be the Sapranos. And let's not forget Braking Bad. The list goes on and on. Personally, rather than having the Force choke, I would like to go all Jet Li on some folks.

    Ric Flair preferred to play heel, too.


    Latest Comments