Showing posts with label cynicism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cynicism. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Mad Men and the Power of Sin



Mad Men, Don Draper, Roger Sterling, Joan Holloway, Burt Cooper, Peggy Olson
Beautiful. Cynical.

by Lyndsey Graves 

I was never going to watch Mad Men. I caught about ten minutes of an episode once, channel surfing on vacation with friends, and there was some sort of affair going on and everyone in the TV was clearly terribly unhappy. I didn’t want to host such misery in my own television.

Then I agreed to watch “just the first episode” and of course I was hooked. The first season (that’s all I’ve seen) of Mad Men is beautiful, artistic, witty, and addictively voyeuristic. But the first word I’d use to describe it is cynical. I watch the show out of love for the characters and writing, not because it makes me feel good.

One of the most fascinating and frustrating aspects of the characters’ intertwining storylines is that they are all a little bewildered by their own unhappiness. Behind webs of words and actions, deceit and hidden motives, successes and failures, lie carefully hidden layers of sadness, need, and that distinct feeling of unbelonging – along with a kernel of hope that these unexpressed desires will be fulfilled somehow. For each character this dilemma is unique, but most of their stories also share a sense that they can’t quite do what they want to do – what they know is right. The depth of the show’s cynicism lies in the fact that no one is pretending their lies or affairs or petty behavior are right; it is just how things are.

Depravity in motion
Mad Men strikes quite the contrast to the almost aggressively bright outlook on humanity I’ve encountered from a good many people in churches. The show’s characters are usually sympathetic, but they are not “good people”, and at least some of them know it. This is exactly why we sympathize – because they so evidently struggle against themselves. I think we can fairly label this human tendency toward such selfishness, intentional or not, as “sin”, and the writers are counting on the fact that we can all relate to it for many of the show’s moments of greatest tension and pathos.

Could it be that pop culture is more willing and ready than we think to admit something about human depravity? Just how mad do we think the men involved in this show could be? Or what about Mad Men's cable cousin, Breaking Bad? The entire concept of that show is the slow, steady devolution of a man. Or The Walking Dead, another AMC show, that utilizes the time-honored zombie motif as a way to explore the depravity of humanity. In each case, there seems to be a deep brokenness to the world, to the relationships and the characters inside of it. The world is going crazy and they’re drawn inexorably into it. 

While this deep darkness permeates these shows, the same isn't true in much of pop culture. Instead, there is a constant push to refrain from calling certain destructive habits “sin” and a reaction against value judgments overall. I understand the desire not to condemn, to look for the best in people, to offer hope and affirmation rather than despair and finger-pointing – and yet, at least in the social circles where I currently find myself, the word “sin” is an unfashionable conversation-stopper to a degree that I find dishonest.

Mad Men, Don Draper, Jon Hamm, cigarette, set shot
Good or bad?
It seems frustratingly glib to pretend that there is nothing really wrong with anybody, that the sinful are really just unfortunately misguided or environmentally disadvantaged. At its worst, it feels absurdly privileged (a word I normally don’t like using) to assert that people really aren’t all that bad. I don’t know any victims of generational poverty, of child abuse, of addiction, of gang violence, who would say that.
 
I still bristle whenever I hear the messages of condemnation hurled down by the holier-than-me. I’m certainly not here to say that people are 100% bad, incapable of doing good – or that sin carries no elements of environmental influence or simple misunderstanding. Neither does Mad Men think so. But this world and the people in it are in dire need of redemption at some fundamental level; somewhere far beyond our own attempts to set things right. I think the world Mad Men speaks to – desperate for authenticity, for the truth beyond the layers of advertising we are all wrapped in – won’t reject us for admitting it.

Lyndsey lives and works in Syracuse, NY. She majored in theology at Lee University, which is like eating cake or listening to thunderstorms - too enjoyable to be called work. Also, no one will pay you to do it. You can follow her on Twitter @lyndseygraves and you can find more of her writing at her blog To Be Honest.

Monday, March 18, 2013

On Predicting the Future

Back to the Future 2, Marty McFly, 2015, Doc Brown, Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd
Bad Future Predictors
by Ben Howard 

Contrary to what your semi-annoying friend from high school posted on Facebook, Back to the Future Day has not yet occurred. In Back to the Future 2, Doc and Marty travel to October 21st, 2015, thirty years into their future. 2015. 1985. 1955. This is a time travel movie for the OCD crowd.

A little more than two years removed from that date, I think it’s safe to say that Back to the Future 2, though a fine movie, did a pretty poor job of predicting the future. There are no self-tying shoelaces (not that it kept Nike from gobbling up a patent on the idea), no hover boards, no mini-microwaveable pizzas that come out full-sized, and sadly the Cubs will not win the World Series (I’m pretty certain of this).

Also, there are no flying cars. Nowhere. Yet, there are always flying cars in the future.

When movies or TV shows set their stories in the future they inevitably over-predict the future.  Either the world will be populated by self-tying shoes and flying cars, or else the entire world will fall off the cliff into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Our visions of the future are so extreme, so hyperbolic, because we can’t really stand the idea of the future looking very much like the present.  Or maybe it’s that we are engaging in the equivalent of children telling bedtime stories to one another, telling fantastic tales to entertain, or getting ourselves freaked out about what is almost certainly hiding in our closet. Since we can’t see over the horizon into tomorrow, we must write our stories and write them large. Since we can never live in anything but the present reality, any and all depictions of the future will be emotionally jarring. We will always feel the anxiety of a time-traveler when we tell these kinds of stories.

church building, upside down, hill, future church
Church of the Future?
But that’s an inauthentic way to view the future. It’s not how the future will feel to us when it exists. When the future becomes the present we won’t think of it as “the future” it will just be what exists, now. It won’t necessarily be better or worse, it’ll just be different.

I read a lot of posts on the future of evangelicalism and the future of the church and this tendency to over-predict the future is present in almost every one. Inevitably someone will say that the church is dying, or that evangelicalism is dying, or that we’re on the verge of a new resurgence in the church, or that we’re on the precipice of something new in the Christian world.

However, when you begin to peel back the layers of these predictions, whether they foretell doom and disaster or growth and renewal, they are ultimately not about the future at all. They are about the concerns of the present. Warnings about the death of the church are another way of calling the church to be better; predictions of expansion and renaissance are hopeful projections that the church can keep doing something good, that they can hold it together.

The future will always be a continuation of the present colliding with the unpredictable and the unexpected.  It rarely follows a linear trajectory, and it’s rarely so boring as to be predictable. It’s impossible to live or prepare for a future world that doesn’t exist, and even if it was possible, it wouldn’t be helpful.

We can only live in the present. We can only deal with the issues we have at the moment, not the issues we might have down the line. We’ll inevitably change and adapt. We’ll think differently about some things and some of the obvious truths of the present will become antiquated.

I think we like talking about the future because it lets us put our dreams, and conversely, our nightmares on display. It grants us a way to talk about how we view our day to day existence without having to interact too fully with the present. It allows us to view a world where all the problems we have today are replaced by the solutions of tomorrow. It allows us to experience the rewards at the end of the long struggle known as history without experiencing the pain, trauma, and cynicism along the way.

But that future, the one that solves the problems of the present, will never exist, and that’s okay.

little girl, heart, balloon, hope, there is always hope, concrete
There is always hope...
There will always be injustice, even if we find justice for the oppressed of our time. There will always be war, even if we find peace between today’s warring parties. There will always be pain, even if we tend the wounds and dry the tears of those who hurt right now.

This isn’t cynicism; it’s real life.
 
And when the new struggles come, when the future we’ve always dreamed of comes tantalizingly close, only to be pulled away in an avalanche of the present, the church and the world, both broken as always, will pull themselves up by their non-self-tying boot straps and continue to fight the good fight motivated by something beyond themselves: hope.

Peace,
Ben

You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology.

Contact us at onpoptheology [at] gmail.com.

Monday, February 18, 2013

On Cynicism (Or, Beware The Ides of March)



Keyser Soze returns
“What’s so good about being sad?”
“It’s happy for deep people.”

by Ben Howard

In 2011 a movie came out that you probably didn’t see. It’s kind of strange that you didn’t see this movie because it stars George Clooney and Ryan Gosling, and they don’t typically appear in movies that you probably didn’t see. The movie was called The Ides of March and it was a political drama based off the play Farragut North by Beau Willimon.

It’s an excellent film. It’s also the most cynical movie I’ve ever seen.
 
I mention Willimon’s work on The Ides of March because he is also the creative force behind the new Netflix original series, House of Cards. Well, technically House of Cards is adapted from a British series of the same name from 1990, but from the opening scene to the closing credits it feels a perfect partner for Willimon’s work in The Ides of March.

The new version centers on House Majority Whip and political puppeteer Frank Underwoord (Kevin Spacey). After being passed over for the position of Secretary of State by the newly elected President, Frank embarks on a conspiratorial mission of revenge and devastation. At his side are his cold-hearted wife Claire (Robin Wright) and the fiery young reporter Zoe Barnes (Kate Mara).

Initially, the show, much like The Ides of March, feels like a darker version of The West Wing. It focuses on process and political gamesmanship, but as the series progresses the plot darkens and things turn sideways. The perspective slowly shifts from a world you think might exist in reality to a world you pray does not.

To be completely honest, it’s quite riveting.

Could a man with that awesome beard
be a cynic?
I joke with people sometimes that I’m only able to be optimistic because my true perspective on life is deeply cynical. I’m convinced that most people are messed up, and so whenever something beautiful or good happens it feels almost like a flower pushing its way through concrete. It’s something that should be treasured and never taken for granted.

It makes me feel a sense of optimism to know that, even in this messed up world, people are still trying to be better. Chuck Klosterman says in one of his books that anyone who calls themselves a cynic isn’t really cynical. They already have a predetermined baseline for what a normal view of the world is and theirs is knowingly darker. A real cynic calls himself a pragmatist.

For as much as I enjoyed The Ides of March and for as entertaining as House of Cards is, I can’t bring myself around to the viewpoint that this is reality. I just can’t believe that this is how the world really is. I can’t understand a world where people are that calculating and cruel on purpose; where the pain we inflict on others is a coldly conscious choice, and not the incidental shrapnel of our exploding subconscious fears.

When people are hurt by the church, or by their families, or by their friends, I always wonder how they take those hurtful acts. I think it’s only natural to ascribe intention and motive to acts that cause us pain. It’s only natural to think that people are more methodical and calculating than they really are.

This belief allows us to impose an element of order on the world, and if there’s order then someone is in control. It means that no matter how bad things get, we can vanquish the enemy and everything will be alright.

I think this is why the modern concept of Satan is so attractive. It allows to say, yes, there is evil in the world, but someone is responsible and all we need to do is win in a battle against this entity. We position atonement theory as a means of achieving victory against Satan. Jesus didn’t come to teach us, or lead us, or be human with us, he came to win. It makes things make sense.

I don't think this is what they meant.
But what if that isn’t the way the world works.

What if the world is messier and more chaotic than we would like it to be? What if pain and heartbreak and brokenness are not the result of Satan, or calculated and manipulative evil? What if everyone is trying to do the right thing, but they’re either failing or can’t figure out what the right thing is?

Clearly, I’m in the camp that thinks the world is messier. It can be frustrating sometimes because it means we can’t rationally hate the people who hurt us. We can’t hate them because they’re just as broken as we are, just as confused. But it also allows for a deeper hope. We are no longer placing our hope in a God who will liberate us from the oppressive evil of an outside force, but a God who will redeem us from the evil within us.

A God who will mercifully pardon us from the grief and pain we have caused others, while also healing the wounds which we have received.

Until then, treasure the flowers that make their way through the concrete. And beware The Ides of March.

Peace,
Ben 

You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology.  
Contact us at onpoptheology [at] gmail.com.