Movies
04 Mar 2001, 08:18:43 AM Subject: The Mexican.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Movie out this week:
"The Mexican", starring Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts.
Very entertaining with complex subplots and characters. Also contains much esoteric symbolism and wisdom for those who can see it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris thoughtfully intones:
"Once again, Hollywood has presented us with a female character whose only purpose is to facilitate male/male drama. Her only value in the film is as a hostage; she has no agency of her own. "
From "The Mexican": "He who controls the woman, controls the gun".
From an esoteric understanding of the Tarot: "He who controls the woman (subconsciousness), controls the Red Lion"
Is the "gun" in this movie merely a cheap phallic symbol?
Hardly.
The gun is a weapon, symbolically fulfilling the same function as a sword.
The connection between "sword" and "love" is obviously depicted in Tarot Key 6, The Lovers, which is attributed to the Hebrew latter "Zain" which means "Sword". The symbology of Love-Sword, or Love-Gun is the same. Love is not possible without Discrimination. And the major task in this process of developing discrimination is to free the woman (subconsciousness) from bondage to false suggestions originating a the self-conscious level.
In a key scene in the movie, Julia Roberts emerges from bondage in the trunk of a car, to use the weapon of discrimination to vanquish the villain. The symbolism here is not subtle at all. Here's a few more obvious elements of this key scene:
When Julia fires the Gun, she hits the villain in the throat. This is the area of the Throat chakra, ruled by Venus. She strikes the villain in the Love Center. A ring, which was attached to the muzzle of the gun, flies off when it is fired. Jerry (Brad Pitt) picks up this ring and places it on Samamtha's (Julia Robert's) finger, symbolizing his love and commitment to her. This firing of the gun, broke the curse which legend tells, held a young girl's soul captive. (In the legend, a young girl killed herself with this gun to avoid bondage in marriage to a man she did not love).
There's much more here than meets the eye.
RL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ave Red Lion,
Some comments on your thoughtful post:
>From "The Mexican" >"He who controls the woman, controls the gun".
In my view, I find this problematic, as it still reads woman as a resource to be 'controlled'. The linking with an inanimate object (and one of such violence) is also problematic. I'm not sure my wife, mother, (biological) sisters and sorers (or other men, for that matter) would agree that what makes a man 'a man' (controls the gun/phallus) is the fact that he 'controls 'his' woman.
>The gun is a weapon, symbolically fulfilling the same function as a > >sword...
Yes but the sword is of the element air and discrimination (as you say), not senseless violence, suicide, patriarchal hegemony (sorry) and blood lust--in fact, quite the opposite. I like the metaphor of K11 better and as Case tells us "Equilibrium is the basis of the Great Work", not emphasis on one side of the tree/gender. Notice K11 is the Virgin, or at least somewhat hermaphroditic.
>And the major task in this process of developing discrimination is to free the woman (subconsciousness) from bondage to false suggestions originating a the self-conscious level...
I know what you are saying here, but consider the logical extensions of the statement. Subconsciousness is not in bondage per se, but can be in bondage due to improperly selected data/suggestions from consciousness. Remember that 'consciousness' is a subset of subconsciousness. Remember also all the wonderful powers of subconsciousness--regulation of all the bodily systems, direct communication with the higher spheres (K6 shows consciousness looking to subconsciousness for guidance, who in turns looks to the Guardian Angel), memory and so many others. If I were to apply the gender argument you progress, it would mean that men are a subset of women, which would shed a lot of interesting light on the quest for masculinity, fear of the 'vagina dentata' etc.
In the Psychoanalytic/Jungian model this is classed as the Oedipal complex--fear of reversion to the 'mother' (ie subconsciousness). The male (consciousness) has had millions of years of struggle to differentiate itself from subconsciousness (woman); It's no surprise that so much male-originated literature, film etc. deals (consciously or not) with these profound, long-held and powerful taboos. When it is not dealt with consciously (IMHO, "mexican' falls into this category), it often manifests as fear of the 'other', in this case, woman.
To follow the logic of your quote, women also need to be freed from bondage by men. Do you believe this is true? This is what I meant by 'no agency'--the woman cannot save herself, but must be freed by the man. Again, I understand your point, but we must always be careful with our metaphors and how we use them. Women are always 'read' as passive and males are active. This is not always true and can lead to dangerous conclusions.
>In a key scene in the movie, Julia Roberts emerges from bondage in the >trunk of a car, to use the weapon of discrimination to vanquish the > >villain.
Again, she only has agency through the phallus. Only by participating in the male sphere (adopting a phallus) is she seen to have 'power'.
>Jerry (Brad Pitt) picks up this ring and places it on Samamtha's >(Julia Robert's) finger, symbolizing his love and commitment to her.
Humorous references to 'cock rings' aside, I would read this as Jerry's desire to transform Samantha into a male, thereby resolving the cognitive dissonance (sorry again) he feels (taboo of breaking the homoerotic community bonds for the love of a woman). Or, he cannot fully enter into a relationship with her until he has 'baptized' her into his homoerotic community. I hope you understand the subtle implications of 'homoerotic'--it does not necessarily mean homosexual, but homosocial.
>There's much more here than meets the eye.
I fully agree.
RL, this is really an answer to Hollywood. I think you bring up many valid points. The themes and images and are archetypal so much can be read into it. Hollywood just doesn't always get it quite right. Why not a picture where the woman frees the man? Why not more women directors? How would a woman telling the story change the story? There are many interesting films that are doing things with this. Consider 'Crouching Tiger', where all the women do the fighting and the male is out wanking on some quest that turns out to be a pipe dream; he vacillates, he can't make up his mind (sounds passive to me) and ultimately (through the figure of a woman who brings him his death) has his revelation. Personally, I left the movie feeling completely moved--a true catharsis--something 'Mexican' didn't do for me.
But that's the key word: for *me*. Just one Point in an infinite jeweled web. Thanks for your comments (I hope you have more to say on this subject) and a stimulating conversation.
In L.V.X.
-Chris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris writes,
"In my view, I find this problematic, as it still reads woman as a resource to be 'controlled'. The linking with an inanimate object (and one of such violence) is also problematic. "
Yes, I agree. The problem occurs when metaphor is taken too literally. We confuse vehicle with tenor; the hero with the ideal; the form with its animating essence. A classic example of this is what happened with the Garden of Eden passages from the book of Genesis - people took the symbolism of "man" and "woman" literally. It is an issue of true discrimination - vs. superficial observation and hasty generalization.
My intention with analyzing movies (and other art forms) is to perform alchemical separation, examining the metaphor(s) and separating the vehicle from its tenor, so that we may see both of them (and their functions) clearly. This process of analysis, while destructive to idols, "can" ultimately be redemptive if we follow up with showing how the parts can properly relate to the whole. This process is shown by tarot keys K15-K16-K17-K18-K19
Basically, I'm attempting to take the Devil apart, so that we can put him back together again in proper relationship and harmony with what IS - Beauty.
Here's the process in a nutshell:
Burn the Copper
Turn it White
Turn it again to Redness
Make Visible Coin.
Now, you make some good points concerning the symbolism and how it's being used. The question becomes: "When does an Archetype become a Stereotype?"
Is this classification merely a function of the creator's intention and execution of the work of art, or is this also a function of the level of consciousness of the person who views, listens to, or receives the impact of the work of art?
One way of examining this issue is to look at the audience reaction. What was the effect? (K14-Verification). Critics reviews aside, what is the impact upon the target audience? Does this movie uplift the audience, or does it drag them down? Does it liberate or does it continue to promote prejudice? DOES IT HELP THE WOMAN TAME THE RED LION, OR DOES IT SEDUCE HER INTO RIDING UPON THE WILD LION's BACK? (like in the Crowley Deck's depiction of K8 as "Lust").
We can certainly speak to what a movie or particular piece of art does for US (or which of my Chakras got "lit up" by the experience), but extrapolation to others can be very tricky. We each take what we need from the experience.
Is there an objective standard for art? This is like saying is there an absolute "Good" or "Bad"? (trick question! ) In my opinion, True Discrimination is to be sought in these matters, not Judgment as to a thing's "goodness" or "badness". To me, this means breaking down the art, dismantling it's metaphors, symbolism, plot, character, etc... into it's constituent parts, then separating the vehicle from the tenor, until we arrive at the PRINCIPLES behind it. Once we recognize the principles, then we can do with them and create as we will - in accordance with our desires.
Now, using archetypes, or stock characters, or even stereotypes does provide a useful function to the author or scriptwriter. It gives them a type of shorthand, alleviating the necessity of doing a whole lot of character development on less important characters which would otherwise detract from the story. The problem occurs when (due to laziness, ignorance, innate prejudice, ect.. ) an author or scriptwriter depicts whole classes of people in a derogatory or gratuitous fashion. Thus stereotyping promotes negative or limiting judgments based upon "appearances".
So given the practicalities of audience attention span in a 90-180 minute movie, I really cannot fault the scriptwriters and producers from stereotyping or using stock character archetypes for the less central and supporting characters in a movie so long as it is not gratuitously derogatory. For the main and central characters, however, stereotyping is a problem unless the character is shown breaking out of that stereotype and growing in some way. In other words, the central characters need to show some growth, or else be shown as tragically flawed. Otherwise, you've got a story with nothing more than shallow cardboard cookie cutter characters walking about - boring!
I would submit that in the movie "The Mexican", the three central characters Jerry, Samantha, and Winston (alias Leroy) are complex characters who, while somewhat stereotypically portrayed at the beginning of the movie, undergo transformation and growth. All three characters break out of their initial stereotypes. Of course, one could argue that they also end up in another set of stereotypes, but I am more interested in the principles and the process, not just the "happy" or "tragic" ending of the story.
It is the principles underlying the character's motivations, transformation and growth with I find most interesting.
Now, having seen "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" , I would agree that it is also an excellent movie. And yes, it is an interesting twist that for the three central characters (who are all warriors), we have one man and two women (the reverse polarity from that in The Mexican). But other than that difference, we still have the same 3 way dynamic.
===
The Mexican:
Lovers: Brad Pit (Jerry) & Julia Roberts (Samantha)
Antagonist working for Shadow (Bernie Nayman) Winston (alias Leroy)
===
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon:
Lovers: CHOW YUN FAT (Li Mu Bai) & MICHELLE YEOH (Yu Shu Lien)
Antagonist working for Shadow. CHENG PEI PEI (Jade Fox) ZHANG ZIYl (Jeri
Yu)
===
In The Mexican, the Antagonist (Leroy) realizes (too late) that he's working for the wrong guy, and gives his life. Samantha, who had made this adversary her ally (and become stronger for it), ultimately goes on to defeat the shadow.
In Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, the Antagonist (Jeri) realizes (too late) she's working for the wrong woman (Jade Fox), but is not strong enough to break free. This causes our hero (Li Mu Bai) to give his life to both save her and defeat the shadow. Having made this sacrifice, and awaiting death, Li Mu Bai and Yu Shu Lein profess their love for each other.
In both cases there is a character who goes from stereotypical adversary to undergoing a change of heart. However, because of past actions, there must be a sacrifice associated with defeating the shadow. In The Mexican, Leroy pays the price himself. His sacrifice lending strength to Julia for her to overcome the Shadow and be reunited with her love (K6).
In Crouching Tiger.. Jeri indirectly brings about the death of the Hero, thus preventing his marriage with his lover. . Jeri is free from bondage (the emotional domination of Jade Fox), but too late (for Li Mu Bai) overcomes ego and learns inter-connectedness to others. For learning this lesson too late, she must postpone her own romantic love interests and wander until she finds TRUTH. We are left with the open-ended ending of Jeri flying off into the mist; symbolic of going out into the wilderness to be alone (K9).
RL