The Lone Ranger Rides Again … Almost!

I haven’t seen The Lone Ranger and I’m not going to see it any time soon. Word around the campfire is it sucks. So rather than waste my time — and pay Disney and Cineplex for the privilege — I’ll wait and let Movie Central do it to me for free. At the end of the day, I’m not curious enough to rush into two hours of Johnny Depp with a dead bird on his head. But I digress — and I haven’t even started yet.

Disney thought they had a guaranteed homerun with Lone when Bruckheimer, Verbinski and Depp (late of Pirates of the Caribbean) stepped up to the plate. They even packed the movie with promises of a sequel (read “franchise.”) Unfortunately, the dynamic trio hit into a disastrous double play. (I’m assuming Bob Iger is still torturing people in the dungeons of the Magic Kingdom over the John Carter debacle.) So instead of laughing all the way to the bank, Mickey Mouse is busy pointing fingers. (Ironically, he only has three.) However, the problem is not only Bruckheimer, Verbinski and Depp; the problem is the Lone Ranger himself and his buddy Tonto.

The legend of the Lone Ranger is not a story for the 21^st century. There are simply too many nuances for our unsophisticated tastes.

First of all, it’s a morality tale. Lone is the good guy. Those other fellows over there, in the black hats, are the bad guys. They do nasty things (normally motivated by greed.) Lone points himself in their direction and tries to thwart their evil schemes — full stop. He is not an on-the-spot vigilante. He leaves justice to the proper authorities. Contemporary audiences don’t appreciate this subtlety. However, because of it, Lone is not ambivalent about his purpose or his methods. He knows he’s the good guy. He’s not consumed with angst. Our society doesn’t understand this interplay between good and evil. We want our heroes to question it, mainly because we don’t really think it exists.

Secondly, the relationship between the Lone Ranger and Tonto is impossible for contemporary audiences to comprehend. “Sidekick” just doesn’t translate into Oprahspeak. In our relentless adherence to equality, anything less than a bromance between the two men is unacceptable. We refuse to believe that Tonto has any dignity being the lower man on the scrotum pole, even though it’s clear he does. (It’s too complicated to explain, but suffice it to say Tonto can hit the trail any time he wants to, but he doesn’t.) Plus, our simplistic view is amplified by our aversion to actual ethnic diversity in film. Minorities may be everywhere in the movies but, remarkably, for the most part, they dress, walk, look and talk stereotypically like the homogenized white guy standing beside them.

Finally, The Lone Ranger is a western. This isn’t a bad problem until you try and tell the tale to kids. In our world, there isn’t a Hovermom west, east, north or south of the Pecos who’s going to permit that. Agrarian Workers and Native Americans (Cowboys and Indians) are personae non grata in today’s playgrounds. Our children can zap aliens with death rays and mega-fry entire civilizations with video game warheads, but there is no way in hell little Bryce or Morgan will ever be allowed to strap on a toy pistol and go looking for bad guys. It just isn’t done. The demographics of The Lone Ranger’s first week in the theatre bear this out: ticket buyers were overwhelmingly white men over twenty-five. This is not a bad group but clearly not the one Disney was aiming at. Despite the advertising and the action figures, The Lone Ranger is not actually a kid movie — or at least not one parents are going to let their kids go see.

It’s too bad Disney missed the point and The Lone Ranger is a flop. I grew up with Lone and Tonto, and I think, with a little creativity, they could have been retrofit into our brave new world. In fact, their story is good enough that I still believe they should be. After all, despite his being one of the deadliest pistolaros of the Old West-ern, in all the episodes of The Lone Ranger I saw, I don’t remember that he ever actually killed anybody. That alone would be a welcome change from the carnage we see in most action/adventure films these days. Unfortunately, now that Disney has bit the silver bullet, it’s going to be a long time before anyone else will return “to those thrilling days of yesteryear, when from out of the past came [sic] the thundering hoofbeats of the great horse Silver! [and] The Lone Ranger rides again!”

Gay Marriage — and Why Can’t I Own a Canadian?

It’s all very complicated, but, at the far end of the rhetoric, what it boils down to is this: last week the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that California’s — and every other states’ — attempt to ban gay marriage is unconstitutional. For those of you (like me) who can’t keep track of the nuances of American law, SCOTUS didn’t rule that gay marriage is constitutional; it ruled that banning it isn’t. Splitting hairs, I’ll grant you, but that’s what lawyers do. Either way, this week, despite dire warnings, the sun still rose in the east, God’s in his heaven, George Takei hasn’t … well, you get the idea.

Since I’m not particularly gay, the whole on-again/off-again marriage debate leaves me cold. If anything, I think the gay end of the rainbow gets an awful lot of media ink considering they’re one of the minor minorities in our society. Frankly, we have more people with gingivitis. However, on a more personal note, if gay marriage does catch on, I’m totally watching Gay Divorce Court.

Anyway, since the US government has decided to stay the hell of the bedrooms of America, opponents of gay marriage have turned to the church to sanctify their opposition. This is an old ploy which hasn’t held much water since Clarence Darrow beat up William Jennings Bryan in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925.

However, in that vein, a couple of friends of mine sent me this email, which apparently has been kicking around the Internet for a few years now. I haven’t checked it for accuracy and take no responsibility for mistakes. It should be noted that my friends are Catholic and haven’t really cared what the Supreme Court had to say for itself for over thirty years. (BTW, I don’t plan to turn this blog into a repost emporium, but I just couldn’t resist.)

Here’s the email.

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, [she believes] homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a US resident, and posted on the Internet.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination … End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman,

Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,

Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education

University of Virginia

PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian)

I’m Scared of the Mob

One of the problems with observing our modern world is you spend half your life in fear and the other half with no friends. Technically, I suppose, these are actually two problems, but they come from the same place: having an opinion and voicing it outside the comfy confines of your own head. It’s a truism in the 21^st century, that whenever you say anything about anything, you’re going to piss somebody off. Most people get all free speech macho about this, but when push comes to shove, everybody knows that our society is unforgiving when it comes to unguarded opinion. More importantly, when the mob turns against you, we punish it severely. This is why we will never produce a contemporary Mark Twain or Stephen Leacock – the consequences of unedited thoughts, in today’s world, are just too dangerous. Far better to be momentarily safe than monumentally sorry, so people with pens tend to stick to the road most travelled. Unfortunately, that road is crowded with dumb-ass clichés. Future anthropologists who attempt to piece together our social structure from the mountain of evidence we’re going to leave behind will naturally conclude we had an unholy obsession with lawyers, rednecks and upper middle class men. They are the nominated villains for most of our commentators, so the record of our times will read like a bad John Grisham novel. It’s a sorry state, but it beats the hell out of the world according to Suzanne Collins and E. L. James.

There’s no real problem with history recording our time as the shallow end of the intellectual swimming pool. None of us is going to be around to be embarrassed by it anyway. Nor do we have to worry about future chroniclers calling us cultural cowards. They won’t be the slightest bit interested in our existence. After all, you get historical ink from speaking up, not lying down.

The thing that burns my beans is that having set the table for a vigorous and dynamic dialogue, we’re now scared skinny of the food fight it might create. Just look: we have a mostly educated public with the information of the ages at their fingertips (literally.) We’ve cracked opened the old boys club and now have instant access to all manner of ideas from everywhere and everybody. Furthermore, we live in a free society, where (for the most part) the rule of law gives free range to these ideas. Plus our leaders (such as they are) fear public opinion and follow it relentlessly. Life is good, right? Wrong! The first thing we did with this intellectual banquet was set dietary restrictions. Not to beat the metaphor to death, we have populated our world with so many sacred cows that, in the land of intellectual plenty, we’re starving to death.

It used to be that the only thing that governed public discourse was civility. There was decorum in our discussion. For example, we didn’t call each other names – offensive or not. Perhaps certain subjects were handled delicately, but there was never any thought that they should be avoided. In fact, it was a matter of honour to shine light into the darker parts of our society – distasteful or not.

These days, those days are over. We have more social taboos than a tribe of Borneo headhunters. A plethora of subjects in our world are no longer open for discussion. Some of them I can’t even name in these pages without hollering up a verbal lynch mob. In the past few years, this list has expanded exponentially. Soon the only subjects anyone will feel comfortable commenting on will be the Kardashians’ breasts and the zombie apocalypse.

People like me, who know enough history to understand what the mob is capable of, are cowards at heart. It’s one thing to go Vaclav Havel on the powers that be and strike out against censorship and oppression, for history shows us that eventually the pen is mightier than the sword. However, it’s quite another to stand alone in front of a self-righteous mob of your neighbours and colleagues, demanding to be heard while they’re grabbing the torches and pitchforks. In these troubled times, I do not fear the endless apparatus of the omnipotent state. It’s the eagerly offended citizen, who created this mess that scares the crap out of me.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: