"All that mankind has done, thought, gained or been: it is lying as in magic preservation in the pages of books."
-Thomas Carlyle

by Paul Lytle

We often hear how art is supposed to reflect the soul of the artist, or if not in exactly that manner, then countless other ways of saying the same thing. A number of examples come immediately to mind. Kurt Vonnegut has written at least three novels that are primarily anti-war. The reason is simple — Vonnegut is not particularly fond of war, to put it mildly. The novels of Fantasy writer Tracy Hickman have a strong sense of faith. Mr. Hickman has that same sense of faith in his own life. Isaac Asimov was fascinated with technology and was concerned about the fear that some people had against robots and machines. Therefore were the robots in his famous series benevolent and helpful. Do not be fooled by the way some of his books have been adapted into film — Asimov was completely pro-robot.

This is not always the case, however. Sometimes a work of art has little bearing on the beliefs of the artist. What strikes me as the best example is Hollywood. This is a group of people renowned for their Liberal views of the world, and yet their films very rarely reflect those views.

For example, it is extremely rare that there will be a film promoting abortion. It is certainly true that most of Hollywood is fervently in favor of legal abortions, but major films do not celebrate abortion much, if at all. Much more often do we see films about true love than about casual sex. In fact, casual sex is largely shown as unfulfilling in movies, and he characters who engage in it are very often "saved" by their "True Love." But then the personal lives of the stars seem more like a cheesy soap opera than a Hollywood film.

Even Shakespeare in Love, which is technically about an adulterous relationship, promotes more traditional goals and values than modern ones. The adultery is a mere footnote in the film, really only present because of the historical facts and not because of the filmmakers' preference. Otherwise, the picture is about love primarily and hierarchy secondly (the whole conflict in the film was that the two main characters come from different social orders, and therefore would their relationship never be accepted).

Though many people in Hollywood in favor of strict gun control, their action films are generally about brave men grabbing guns and saving people. Movies are more interested in strict justice than are the people who make them. In real life, they will protest against the death penalty, but their movies make it seem a "good thing" when the bad guy is killed.

Very seldom are we happy when the main character abandons a good relationship for a career and money. Family is more important in the movies than it is for Hollywood.

This topic was a launching point for me, because I found it such a strange dichotomy that existed for the people making major motion pictures lately, and I felt it a worthwhile topic to explore. After all, even I will admit that modern values often sound better to modern ears. On the surface, it seems a better idea to let people do as they wish, to not believe in right and wrong, and to simply have fun without consequences. Boiled down to sound bites, the old-fashioned lifestyle that we desire sounds dull and hard. It takes effort to discover the rewards of objective truth and true morality. I would argue (another time, for such is not the purpose of this discourse) that they are there, but it takes effort.

Sex is easier than love. Abortion is easier than family. Misused compassion is easier than justice. Flexible personal values are easier than morality.

It should therefore be a surprise that films abandon this low road for the high one. They do not always do it, of course. Religion is still shunned by Hollywood movies. Premarital sex is rampant, even if it is not casual. But the point here is Hollywood embraces one thing, but teaches another.

It could be said that this incongruity is because of the Free Market. The people want to see these types of stories, and therefore Hollywood makes them. I think that this is true, but I am more interested in why people would rather see a film about true love than casual sex.

And the answer, I believe, tells us a great deal about why the modern philosophy of "Whatever makes you happy" should be rejected.

Outside and Looking In

The answer to these questions comes down to a simple matter of pattern. There is a great pattern in life that is often easy to miss while trapped within, but is often recognized over time. A single woman who becomes pregnant will regret, too late, her lifestyle. A man on his deathbed will regret, again too late, that he allowed his career ruin his marriage. There are long strings of cause-and-effect relationships that create this pattern.

The difference in movies is that we see the pattern within two hours, not seventy years. The pregnancy comes scant minutes after the lifestyle. The deathbed comes a half hour after the man abandoned his wife for his job.

When we watch a movie, we are outside, above, looking down on the pattern with all the distractions removed. The core of that pattern is all that remains, and we see it clearly.

In the same way do we sometimes know better than our friends about what is truly good for them. A friend might be lonely, and because of that enter a bad relationship. You, only hearing pieces of the story over the phone, may recognize that it is a bad relationship and advise against it. You are outside, seeing the pattern. You aren't the one lonely. You aren't the one desperate for companionship. That does not make you a weaker judge, but a stronger one, because you are disconnected with the cause of temptation. You are not blinded by the constant distractions.

So why don't we want to see abortions and casual sex in films? Why are the people utterly consumed by work portrayed as villains in these stories? Why is it that we want order and justice?

Because seen within that order, what modern values promise doesn't seem that great.

What the Modern Age Promises

The observation about Hollywood films is an interesting one, but it is merely that. What we can do now is to take that observation and apply it. Namely, can we look down, as though from the outside, at the goals of the modern world and be proud, or disgusted, by them? More simply, if we were on our deathbeds, looking back at ourselves making these decisions, would we be happy of what we had done?

The topic of casual sex has already been brought up, but it should be again. Part of maturity seems to be a rejection of that lifestyle, and often a shame about it. What would we really think about the seventy year old who still bragged about all the girls he had as a young man? More often than not, married couples must avoid conversations about past lovers, lest it put a strain on the relationship. A temporary pleasure becomes a long-term problem in this way. And yet the "sexual revolution" of modern times seeks to teach children at a younger and younger age about such nonsense as safe sex. We are supposed to explore and experiment, when such experiments are bound to hurt us later.

How many women would be proud to have chosen a high-stress career over marriage and family? When men do it, it is equally wrong, but the modern world does not encourage men to forgo children for money like they do to women. Honestly, men accomplished that without the help of "liberation." But is there something lasting in eighty-hour work weeks? I am a hardened Capitalist, but even I must frown on such behavior. Yet this is a major goal of the feminist movement. For what?

Similarly, the modern feminist almost seems to want to be a man in the way she acts (which is ironic, considering how much some of them hate men). They want to be soldiers and high power executives and politicians. As for the first, war is sometimes necessary, but feminists are the only people on earth except for tyrants who seem to look forward to it. Do not misunderstand, being a soldier is a noble profession, but it is not a matter for gender pride. We go to war to protect our people and country, not to prove our own manliness (or womanliness, as the case may be). Now, some may seek to prove their courage in battle, but this is not the primary purpose of war, as it seems to be with the feminist movement.

As for the others, neither executives nor politicians have a terribly good reputation, and while both are covetable, they are only covetable in superficial ways. They are usually only sought for the power and money, and ambition, to me, seems the greatest vice associated with masculinity. I'm not sure why feminist are envious of that aspect of the human male.

Is ambition and violence worth the loss of a culture's femininity? If feminists do not like being women, then that seems a flaw within them, not a flaw in the culture.

The modernist world promises a country without true freedom of speech. It does not believe that words that hurt someone's feelings should be allowed. Now, I do not like hearing a racist speak, but I certainly want him to have right if I want to have the right to speak on limited government. After all, the left will sometimes use that nasty label, wrongly, for me! But when I speak on illegal immigration, I am often called a racist. It does not matter that I encourage legal immigration and would love for as many people to come here as can fit. Simply because I respect the rule of law I am asked to not speak.

My point of view is not welcome with many people. If we criticize welfare, we want to bleed the poor. If we point out the flaws of Social Security, we want to kill old people. When we show that the Constitution actually forbids the federal government from having anything to do with education, we want to starve children. These are actual charges made by the people who claim to champion freedom. Is that something we would be proud of?

Hate crimes actually make it illegal to think certain things. A man can hurt another man and get a certain amount of time in prison, but he will get a heavier sentence if he is thinking a certain thought when he is hurting that man. I am all for tough sentences, but the very basis of freedom is being able to think any fool thing you wish. Without thought, there is no freedom of any sort.

There are countless goals of the modern man we can look at. They wish to allow criminals to go free because of technicalities, sue law-abiding companies for our own stupidity (read: spilling coffee on yourself), eat oat bran three times a day, name hurricanes after black people so that they can feel included in the destruction of lives and property, and propagate racism for political gain by encouraging a group of people to believe that another group is "keeping them down."

These are encouraged by our new sensitive culture. But if a character in a movie was acting on any of these suggestions, the audience would almost always take him for a villain or the young version of a character in a coming-of-age story.

Seen from the outside in, we just don't want it.

Conclusions

What then, would make us proud in our old age? Family, devotion, honesty, morality, and hard work. Certainly all of these would make me feel that I had a full life. Politically, any action I made toward greater freedom and security for future generations would make me happy, I think, in my waning years. Learning, to me, would be one of the most worthwhile things of all, so long as I taught in the next breath. Otherwise, what is the point?

Nothing I have just listed would be high on the list of goals for modern culture. They would scoff at my simple values, yet I am willing to bet that few believers in that culture will be particularly fulfilled when the end comes.

Lastly, there is one other thing that I have never heard any man regret. Faith. Hollywood may not have caught on to this one yet, but I have never met a man who truly wishes he had done something else with the time he spent in prayer. It seems counterintuitive, somehow, that a man of logic and learning would find something worthwhile in the supernatural. But then, we already know that something may seem one way and actually be another. Just a simple phrase like "Whatever makes you happy," which seems perfectly reasonable, has come apart in our hands.