Patriarchs of the Caribbean
In the song "Everything Zen" by the 90's grunge band Bush, vocalist Gavin Rossdale repeats the line "There's no sex in violence". The entertainment industry, however, seems to disagree.
My wife, unborn child, and i experienced "Pirates of the Caribbean III" this afternoon, and i'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with what's being fed to us as "entertainment"...what's supposed to excite us. much more on this topic later (though soon), but for now here are my bottom 5 worst moments at the theater today:
5. the film opened with a rather dark and grisly scene of row after row of grungy pirates being hanged as a shiny-coated official reads off the list of rights being "temporarily" suspended...rights such as assembly and habeas corpus. while the political parallels to today are poignant (though blunt), this rates as a low moment because the rest of the film is shallow enough to make up for this opening five minutes of depth.
4. the nine pirate lords must meet in a Brethren Court to make a global decision...very patriarchal in name, although there are two women in the group. a woman is "elected" as Pirate KING by a popular vote (she receives two votes: her own and one other, with every other pirate lord voting for him or herself). i suppose this is an attempt at progressive inclusion and could be interpreted as such, but even she continues to use the patriarchal language BRETHREN and KING.
3. the female Pirate KING calls the world's pirates to WAR -- of fucking course. and several overt visual jokes between the competing captains Barbosa and Sparrow about their respective penis sizes.
2. betrayal, revenge, betrayal, lies, revenge, treachery, deception, betrayal, and revenge...justified through brief forays into relief through humor. see? it's FUNNY to fuck your friends!
1. at the climax (in which two ships are spiraling in a giant ocean whirlpool during a maelstrom AS they shoot cannons at one another AS people are having private swordfights on the mast) pirates Will and Elizabeth, who've been betraying each other over and over and negotiating a subtle love triangle, decide DURING A SWORDFIGHT that they must be married at that moment, and ask the ALSO SWORDFIGHTING Captain Barbosa to marry them on the spot. he jumps up onto the top deck and begins a sermon AS HE KILLS PEOPLE, with the couple on the deck below trying to complete their vows and kiss in the midst of dance-like MURDER ROUTINES. finally, in extreme slow motion, they kiss passionately as splinters of wood, bits of rope, whole cannons, and BODIES are exploding and flying through the air all around them. sorry Gavin...it turns out there IS sex in violence, and it's got a very quasi-patriotic musical score.
oh, and i paid thirteen damn dollars for the whole thing.


Comments (17)
I think you found your calling, evan. You should review movies more often!
Comment #1 Posted by: Tyler | June 3, 2007 10:34 PM
Thanks for saving me the trip to go see it. Very nice connection to the Bush lyric.
Comment #2 Posted by: Lisa | June 4, 2007 09:27 AM
Enjoyed your review. Having seen the first two "Pirates" and feeling that we got our entertainment bang-for-the buck, my wife and I saw "Pirates III" this weekend, too. We got exactly what we expected, knowing that there would be tons of cinema violence, knowing that we would be rooting for some of the most despicable miscreants you can imagine, knowing that much of the plot would be riddled with contradictions, knowing that every incredible scene would stretch the limits of "suspended disbelief," a state of mind essential to enjoying such a film. Personally, I only go the movie theater to see a film(we paid $18) when the studio has spent hundreds of millions to spirit me away from the mundane reality of life.
That being said, I agree that it is increasingly hard for parents to know what their young children can tolerate. There are websites and magazines available to help with those decisions. We have a small library of films to show our grandchildren. Let me know when you're ready to borrow some.
Another interesting question is our society's fascination, and love for, "anti-heroes" (bad guys) such as the Sopranos, Scarface, Captain Jack, well, the list could go on and on. When did this trend start? Are the studios just giving people what they want or are they creating the appetite? Is it a sign of the breakdown of order and morality in modern society or some deeper recognition of the dark side in us all? The Greeks had strict rules about what constituted a hero worth grieving over at the end of the tragedy. What's going on with us now?
Comment #3 Posted by: Anonymous | June 4, 2007 12:44 PM
I didn't mean for that to be anonymous.
Comment #4 Posted by: Lanny Kaufer | June 4, 2007 12:45 PM
Anyone remember how shocking Bonnie and Clyde was (or Easy Rider, Taxi Driver, etc.) when they were first released? Now, sadly for our youth today, these "anti-hero" symbols and messages seem to have (in varying degrees) captured the attention of an entire generation and threaten to push out any sense of decency and decorum.
More so than film, I cringe at what young people today are served up via the television. (Bad Girls Club, I Love NY, Big Brother, etc.) These reality shows are teaching our kids that it's cool to be rude, dishonest, selfish, vulgar, and at the same time, in this celebrity-mad era, setting them up for failure by injecting them with a growing sense of entitlement for a materialistic "good life". That, coupled with little or no positive encouragement or role models for a solid moral character, a work ethic, patience, balance, good old fashioned kindness, etc., I absolutely dread to see what kind of adults some of these kids are destined to become.
Evan, if I were you, I'd start building a movie library as Lanny has done and chuck the ole boob tube!!! (My teenage neice and 7-year old nephew are know addicted to my vintage and classic movie collection!!)
Comment #5 Posted by: LTOR | June 4, 2007 01:42 PM
Typos!!! UGH!!
Comment #6 Posted by: LTOR | June 4, 2007 01:50 PM
thanks, all! the contradictions in values just scream, don't they? kill just one person in real life, and you're electrocutable scum...murder SCORES of people in a movie, and you're a hero!!
i used to be very into comic-book super-heroes..i liked their costumes, their ability to navigate our world in ways i could not, their moral dilemmas, their incredible POWER. in recent years, however, i've begun to look at them differently. i began to wonder why we think we need heroes...and i started to see superheroes as "god for geeks". there's always that savior archetype who swoops in to save the day. THEN i started to notice that almost ALL HEROES KILL PEOPLE. in this age when superpowered adventures can come to the big screen in an increasingly realistic way, try to find ONE, just ONE, where the "hero" doesnt kill someone.
you will find just that: ONE. Superman. the first and only true superhero.
(i hardly watch any television, and i love it)
Comment #7 Posted by: evan | June 4, 2007 05:56 PM
Your personal use of vulgar language in your review of the film is just as offensive as the film itself. I cannot take your attempt at socio/political commentary seriously, when you yourself have such poor manners. Clean it up, this is a family site.
Comment #8 Posted by: Jeff | June 4, 2007 09:32 PM
Thanks to Jeff for pointing that out. I was surprised by the language but failed to comment on it in my earlier post. Perhaps, as a high school teacher, I overhear so much profanity that I have become somewhat inured to it, just as our children and our society have grown accustomed to violence. I've learned that children's language inevitably mimicks that of their parents so I try never to use "curse words," having been a parent since a young age (and now a grandparent -- number 8 was born today in Ventura!)
Comment #9 Posted by: Lanny Kaufer | June 4, 2007 10:24 PM
Your welcome Lanny, thank you for your comment, and congratulations!
I really am surprised and disappointed at the way these agressive forms of speech are increasingly present. I find them indicative of the aggressive social programming delivered by mass media. It is a testament to the power of that programing, that even in Mr. Austin's critical "review" of the film, he falls prey to the adoption of the violent speech of the "patriarchy" in his disdain of it. We can and must, educate the younger generations about the socially corrosive effects of poor grammer in public discourse.
Mr Austin, please spare us further exposé's on this topic, we get it.
Comment #10 Posted by: Jeff | June 4, 2007 11:09 PM
As for me, the value of such movies is that they hold a mirror up to huMANity, ala Shakespeare, although s/he balanced that with the beauty and non-violent power of Nature, unlike this movie, although I have not seen it. We would have to go back 6000+ years to escape the brainwashing of patriarchy to the long lost world of womamhood, here on this planet and on other more rarified ones. Sex has been violent ever since men violated womem's (and Nature's) rights and subjugated them. It's still going on and these movies mirror that. Elizabeth I, II and now III are token women who help the moneychangers get "more bang for their buck," through soft and hard porn. $624 million so far tells what this patriarchal culture is all about. We would do well to prepare now for the self-destruction that is coming by building an alternative vision of a culture that honors the values of womem and children; where sex is rooted in love, not violence and money. Thanks for introducing this thought provoking thread. By the way, is this the Jerry Bruckheimer who recently bought a large piece of property here in Ojai? If so, it introduces another interesting local aspect of this story. It's very difficult not to get sucked into the maelstrom (link to movie's maelstrom intended) of the MP's (money and power) but not impossible with the power of womem and children (who enter the real kingdom, if you can believe certain ancient wisdom teachers).
Comment #11 Posted by: Dennis Leary | June 5, 2007 06:50 AM
not by way of defense, but with genuine intrigue:
i count two "swear" words (unless you're also counting "damn"), though it is one of the strongest i know. i currently believe that strong language like that has a place when it is used to convey a particularly strong message. if we look over my posting history i think we will find it highly devoid of such language...this film is so utterly disappointing and predictable that i was moved strongly in my commentary. for example, i think the phrase "of fucking course" carries significantly more disdain than simply saying "of course".
however, i am hearing clearly the personal offense that came from it, and the valid connections to violence and patriarchy (as well as sex) in the language itself. i will bear this in mind as i proceed, although i dont think that the Ojai Post is a "family site" any more than television is a "family box". the channel-changer is in your mouse.
Comment #12 Posted by: evan | June 5, 2007 06:57 AM
**WARNING: EXPLICIT USE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AHEAD**
(Squeeze eyes shut if unable to endure reality)
Let's try not to be afraid of mere words. Also, let's not trot out the "we need to protect the children" line of reasoning. Of it, nothing good has ever come. Besides, this isn't a "family" site. If a ten year old is actually reading this site, good for them!
I do have to complain about Evan's review a little. Complaining or commenting that a movie about pirates is patriarchal is kind of silly. Of fucking course it's patriarchal--it's about fucking pirates for fuck sake. Sorry for the language, but I can assure you that it was neither patriarchal nor violent. Just comedic.
Comment #13 Posted by: spk | June 5, 2007 04:47 PM
good on ya, Sean!
you're abso-expletive-lutely right that it's silly to be surprised or frustrated that a movie about pirates is patriarchal and violent. i got precisely what i paid for, much like Lanny pointed out in the third comment.
i guess the real point is that this continues to pass as entertainment, and we devour it in droves. slowly but surely, i cease to be entertained by this.
and, it clearly is still a topic worth over a dozen comments, which i find valuable. i do continue to be intrigued by the different ways in which we use language. in this video for Green Day's cover of Lennon's "Working Class Hero", which is punctuated by people from Sudan talking about genocide, rape, and murder in Darfur, "they" (presumably either YouTube or Warner Bros Music) have muted out the two times in the song where Lennon used the word FUCK. is this word REALLY more offensive than crimes against humanity? really??
Comment #14 Posted by: evan | June 5, 2007 06:50 PM
All right, mates. I suppose that in the context of discussing a pirate flick, a few expletives might be in order for literary purposes. But let's spend them wisely, like gold pieces of eight, as it were, or they will quickly lose their currency and comedic effect. I give you the case of my darling grandson who had a bad day his first day at kindergarten. When mom arrived at the school's request to pick him up, he was asked in the presence of the principal to say what happened. He replied, "This place is f--king nuts!" Maybe it was. But he didn't get to find out until the next year.
Comment #15 Posted by: Lanny Kaufer | June 5, 2007 09:51 PM
I have to agree on some points. I did find the movie somewhat strung out. I did enjoy parts of it though. And I got a few laughs.
I would not see it again though, at least until the HD-DVD comes out.
Comment #16 Posted by: Troy | June 6, 2007 09:46 PM
Just want to say "bye" before the Patriarchs slip off the front page to Davy Jones locker below the waves. Perhaps evan in his new job will archive them so they can be hauled up now and again without their f---ing tongues disturbing our peace. Mama Neptuna should wash their mouths out with soap. Damn, I did it again; got to learn to keep my mouth shut.
Comment #17 Posted by: Dennis Leary | June 10, 2007 09:59 AM