On the Rod Blagojevich of movies.

H & I watched "Troll 2" the other night. (We'd heard of it but not rented until receiving some inspiration.) "Troll 2" is not the worst movie I have ever seen. It's not the best bad movie or the most bad-good movie I've ever seen. (One wonders whether all those acolytes have also seen "Final Sacrifice?") But it was good. Enjoyed.

General spoiler alert, as if that really mattered.

The thing is that on a lot of counts it isn't bad at all. It was edited competently and (assuming that the weird decisions about where to put the camera and when to do close-ups were made by the director) filmed well enough, as well. It doesn't feature a terrifyingly perky, ambiguously-gendered corporate shill or a truck painted black, given teeth, and labelled "Megaweapon" [N.B.: Megaweapon is by FAR the best part of that movie] or sex scenes more upsetting than you'll find in Pasolini. It doesn't suddenly switch genres between, say, racing film, teen cool-crowd film, musical, murder mystery, and teen romance or even shift main characters between greedy questing truckers, in-feuding rock-and-rollers, and a boy and his E.T. knock-off. It wasn't ridiculously boring when it attempted to titillate or frighten. It doesn't abuse the authority of science. It has enough classic lines ("you don't piss on hospitality!") and utterly unexplained moments (the boys waking up in bed together shirtless??) to be enjoyable. But really what I liked was its undeniable auteurist provenance.

Let me explain my tastes and standards a little more clearly -- if only by way of further example.

I don't care about the silly goblin costumes. Better that than CGI that doesn't look like it's actually in the same space as the actors, or animation that flirts with the uncanny valley. Old high-tech special effects can be beautiful or poignant even when they look kind of amateur now. Sometimes they're even still extremely effective, or at least cool.

I don't care about the near-uniformly terrible acting. (Exception: the creepy general store owner who tells one of the boys that coffee is the devil's drink is pretty compelling. The actor says in "Best Worst Movie" that he doesn't remember any of the filming because he was in a bad, messed-up, drugged-out place at that point and had just been released from a mental hospital. "I wasn't acting.") Valentino wasn't a brilliant actor, but he lights up the screen; the children in "Good Morning" aren't necessarily even acting, yet they are the center of one of the more emotionally delicate movies I've seen. (Someday I'll do a post on Nicole Holofcener's inheritance from Ozu, maybe.) I'm not a connoisseur of acting anyway.

I do care about tonal issues and weird inconsistencies.

"Troll 2" moralizes to no end and little more purpose. (Cf.) That isn't necessarily a mark of an auteur at work (again cf. "Reefer Madness," which has rather the feel of a bad-movie-by-committee), but it can be. The scary creatures -- by the way, they're referred to throughout as "goblins," not "trolls." In other non sequitur news, "Troll 2" has nothing whatsoever to do with the earlier horror film "Troll" -- hector and lecture the humans constantly. (We'll come back to this.) They present their way of life as superior, and find the humans' behaviors tacky as well as immoral. They even all attend goblin church together every Sunday to nod solemnly at their goblin pastor's lectures.

It also provides just about no explanation of any of the relevant background. I mean, any. (Cf.) How and why did they decide to house-swap with a family in Nilbog (yes, Nilbog)? Why can't the sister's boyfriend ever leave his friends behind for more than one second? Why does the (dead) grandfather know so much about the goblins and why does he materialize just when and where he does? Why do the family want to eat and drink the nauseatingly bright green goblin-food? Why do some people turn immediately into green goop upon eating goblin food and others petrify over the course of days into still-human plants? What on Earth is the connection between the goblins and Stonehenge (!)? And most centrally of all: WHAT KIND OF A VEGETARIAN TURNS HUMAN BEINGS INTO PLANTS SO HE CAN EAT THEM?

In "BWM," the screenwriter tells us that at the time she wrote the film a lot of her friends had become preachy vegetarians, so she decided to write a horror movie in which the bad guys were vegetarians. Hectoring vegetarians, who brag about the "organic additives" in their chlorophyll goop, seduce a teenaged boy with corn on the cob, and can be warded off with a baloney sandwich. She and her husband -- the director -- and the actress who played the mother of the family are all still arguing that "Troll 2" is a good movie. Not bad-good. Normal-good. The screenwriter thinks it's sophisticated satire. The director thinks he captured the live speech of American teenagers masterfully. (This despite the fact that he barely spoke any English at the time -- he and his wife are Italian -- and the actual American teenagers who acted in the film kept begging to be allowed to change the lines.) He's appalled, upon attending latter-day screenings in America, to find that "they laughed at the funny parts. But they also laughed at the parts that were not supposed to be funny." The actress thinks it's a movie with important things to say about relationships and family. She compares it to "the old movies like they don't make anymore, with Katharine Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart." (Because "The African Queen" isn't a boring, six-ways-saccharine film remembered more for the difficult circumstances of its filming than for its merit.)

"Troll 2" really believes in itself, despite all the evidence against it. (Cf., or rather cf..) While you're watching, it puts on a pretty good show. Before you've seen it and afterwards, you have a headache just thinking about whatever convoluted message it's trying to put out. But it is trying, desperately, to put out a message. It thinks of itself as a plucky outsider come to fix the system, to teach us a little something about life, and love, and hope. Maybe it doesn't quote stilted classic poetry (ahem), but "Troll 2" is definitely the Rod Blagojevich of movies.

On self-sufficiency, non-technically and non-ethically.

As I've mentioned, much of my work concerns self-sufficiency. It's a fascinating thread to trace through the history of ancient ethics -- and also ancient theology and metaphysics, in ways that connect back with ethics.

For instance: pre-Socratic philosophical cosmology often begins with inquiry into the basic substances of the universe.* But what Thales (6 century BCE), Anaximenes, &c. &c. mean by substance is really: something that doesn't depend on anything else for its existence. They made self-sufficiency a basic concept of natural philosophy. (The term "natural philosophy," not much in use now, is meant to encompass theoretical and speculative levels of the natural and physical sciences, and also some other philosophy -- as, of course, do the sciences themselves.) When Thales (maybe) argued that water was the most basic component of the universe, he was saying that water was what could exist without anything else -- that it was self-sufficient. He was also adding something not strictly implied by self-sufficiency: that this basic thing is also productive of other things, even of everything else. This will become a theme in the intellectual history of self-sufficiency.

Meanwhile self-sufficiency was developing an explicit association with divinity. After all, what could be a better candidate for independence of external causation than a god? And Zeus, like water, is taken to have some productive or creative powers. Are they in virtue of his self-sufficiency? The power to influence things outside oneself seems to get mixed up with the power to sustain oneself when the self-sustainer we are discussing is taken to be ultimate: the most basic substance or divinity.

It's an interesting issue to raise with regard to any conception of self-sufficiency that we encounter: is it tied up with creative or productive capacities? If so, do they involve creating, producing, or sustaining something outside the self-sufficient self or not? -- It'll be especially interesting for later ethicists, especially those who accept a kind of analogy between virtue and the crafts, and also wonder whether that entails believing that virtue aims at producing something outside itself (like the craft of making musical instruments) or occupies itself only with the craft-activity itself (like the craft of making musical instruments).


* Ignoring the way Aristotle regularizes their terminology by applying his own. "Substance" is his term for something that exists independently. (Actually "substance" -- rather, "substantia" -- is Cicero's [I assume, since he invented about all Latin philosophical terminology] translation of Greek "hupokeimenon." Both mean roughly 'what lies beneath.' I know, it sounds like a horror movie.)

On finishing a paper.

They say that parents report unhappiness at just about every moment during the day, but complete satisfaction and even joy at the end of the day. Writing a paper is just the opposite: no matter how often one is pleased by the expression of a thought or delighted by a turn of phrase, at the end of the day misery and exhaustion.

I have thoughts about the importance of time and of the "shape" or trajectory of experience for thinking about happiness (it comes into the final section of my dissertation, on the self-sufficiency of happiness), but I'll leave them for later.

On what I do.

I thought it might be time for a post that at least alluded to ancient philosophy, so here is a very brief introduction to What I Do, pitched to the intelligent layman with more patience than experience with philosophy.

I am a graduate student in ancient philosophy, writing primarily at the moment about the ethical system of the Hellenistic (3rd-1st centuries BCE) Stoic school. My dissertation considers some aspects of self-sufficiency in the Stoic understanding of happiness.

The Stoics are extremists on many issues, and fond of paradox; they believe that knowledge is sufficient for virtue and that virtue is sufficient for happiness.

I'll have to interrupt here for a terminology note on "sufficiency." Take the conditional "p-->q," which should be read: "if p, then q," where p represents a proposition such as "Lindsay is older than Sam" and q represents a proposition such as "Sam is younger then Lindsay." In this instance, "p-->q" is all right, since it really is true that if Lindsay is older than Sam, then Sam is younger than Lindsay. Anyway, the terms "necessary" and "sufficient" are defined as follows:

If "p-->q," then: p is sufficient for q: that is, p's being the case is sufficient to ensure that q is the case -- not causally, but logically. And q is necessary for p: that is, if p is to be the case, then q must be the case.

So if virtue is sufficient for happiness, that means that where virtue is present, there too must happiness be. But that's crazy, isn't it? -- Can they really mean to say that a virtuous person being tortured on the rack with no obvious way out is happier -- not just better, but happier -- than a wicked person who is healthy, wealthy, comfortable, and content?

They do! This is where self-sufficiency comes in. An orthodox Stoic would tell you that only your mind -- Epictetus emphasizes especially the faculty of decision -- is within your control, and not anything outside of your mind; further, that nothing that isn't within your control can ultimately affect your happiness. So the virtuous person on the rack has the internal resources to remain happy, while the content wicked one lacks them.

If you haven't spent a lot of time with the Stoics, or maybe if you have too, you probably want to get off the boat here. I know I was repulsed when I first read Epictetus, towards the end of my Introduction to Ancient Philosophy class, as a freshman in college. I was fascinated with the Pyrrhonist Skeptics, fired up to defend Epicurean hedonism and atomism, willing to reread Plato over and over again. Aristotle and the Stoics left me cold.

I'm not exactly sure when or why this changed. Probably my enthusiasm for early Plato, whose theses are defended more steadily by the Stoics than by middle-period Plato, had something to do with it. The Apology* changed my life when I first read it, a very long time ago now. Perhaps I'll post about that some time.

Anyway, that's enough for now.



* Apologies for the fussy, stilted, dating-to-Teddy-Roosevelt-times Jowett translation. If you're at all interested, pick up the excellent Hackett Five Dialogues, translated by G.M.A. Grube, which you can find used for under five bucks but shouldn't run you more than fifteen or so even full price. Thank God for Hackett Publishing Company.

On the disappointments of Mansfield Park.

I thought I was reading Persuasion and then it turned out I was reading Sense and Sensibility.