Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Lord of War

I’ve been waiting to write this down for a long time but hadn’t found the chance (or the will). It is about a movie I watched a while ago. A random surfing in IMDB movie board had sparked me some new perspectives that I’d like to share. I believe quite a few people would have heard of this movie. The title is Lord of War. It stars Nicholas Cage as a Ukrainian arms dealer living in New York. With some enterprising talent and a quick wit, he timely caught the opportunity of chaotic post cold war arms market and made wealth. As his weapon enterprise expanded, however, he came face to face with conflicting morality behind his business and a dissembling personal life. After death of his brother, confrontation with his wife and an arm embargo agent, the praised and vilified lord of war let out the dark secret of his trade. The weapon merchant portrayed by Cage is profound yet likeable. Minor roles in this movie are vivid as well. The script is superbly written and executed. I think this is a must-see for all Cage fans or anyone interested in international politics and globalization issues.

The reason why this movie is quite interesting, or one of the reasons, is that it threw spotlight to a quiet truth that was too often drowned in all the noise of global violence yet being an undeniable source for such. We read about wars everyday, but seldom do we stop to ask the question “where did their army get guns from? Who supply them ammos?” As innocent (or not so innocent) citizens we are, we assume governments and dictators alike necessarily have such resources but this movie tells us that’s quite an incorrect assumption. War draws people’s attention because war is always associated with casualty. International trade doesn’t do as well because not so many people believe trade can be dangerous and destructive. But coming away from the movie, one has to ask the question whether weapon’s trade or trade in general, can be blamed for such crimes that had taken of them the benefit.

For any crime to happen, there are three indispensable elements: motivation, means and human action. Motivation is men’s difference in wealth and culture. Lord of War brought its story around with revelation that the means of the most inhuman crimes on earth are being supplied by the great powers of the world. What it didn’t change and could not change, though, is the fact that the man in action, the first person, is the one responsible for the crime and the one who should be harshly judged.

The law of equal risk is a law imposed by nature: the one who endangers others would endanger himself since all being sought to eliminate their own threat. This law has been tested from the dawn of time. Predators lead lives more dangerous than their prey. All weapons by their very nature endanger their owners. Such truth was allegorized by ancient Chinese proverb of one who owns unstoppable spear and impenetrable aegis – you can’ have both at same time. So much as we hate one who sells the gun, too often it is the one who are holding it get punished first by chain of cause and effect. Actually this is one messages posted by movie: never go to war especially with yourself. The movie starts as Nicolas cage stands in a battleground covered by bullet, the movie ends with the same scene. He talks in middle of gun fire without a flinch because instead of guns, he’s holding a suitcase. Likewise, it is he’s “cardinal rule” never to pick up a gun and enjoy as his customer that shielded his way through some of the most ruthless human alive. Wars might be justifiable by human (some of them) but soldiers who take lives would always face the wrath of retribution, divine or otherwise.

Moreover, right and wrong is made by men’s choice of action, not by their given situation. It is as simple as an insane person isn’t responsible for his crime but a sane person is. It’s never morally wrong to be different, or to hate someone who is different. The former is a given truth in our world, the latter a given truth in our nature. Maybe hatred is evil, but if it is, it’s only an evil the kind of volcanoes, hurricane or earth quakes – we have no control over it. What we have control over, however, is what we do about our hatred. So, whenever someone says violence is in our nature, he or she is making an unintentional (I presume) mistake. Violence is only a man’s choice of action. If we were to eliminate all things that could potentially cause violence or be used as weapon, we would all live in cells miles from each other. The only human world that we can live together peacefully is one that we assume control of our own actions and be able to resist temptations to commit crimes (such would never come, arguably).

With Lord of War, although it made a rallying cry to stop export to third world countries the world’s arms, it is clearly seen what are those countries suffering from is their own impurity and foolishness. They shoot armless people for power and rivalry. What only they would do without guns is slaughtering them with daggers and clubs, which is no better form of slaughtering.

Whatever would save those people (I don’t think they are innocent for innocent people do not dwell in guilty societies), it isn’t ideals, such as exhibited by agent Valentine played by Ethan Hawke. He cherishes the dictation of law and merit of saving lives. It is his great irony that ones who make the laws are ones he is after and people who he sought to protect endanger themselves with their own free will. He is admirable law enforcer but he never recognizes the will that runs behind his and others’ society.

The earth is inhabited by much different societies. And each of them had an internal structure that doesn’t conform to external forces. These structures would change and evolve at their own accord quite like humans do. Society cannot be externally designed or installed, certainly we should have learned after all the history.

But quite often, we have men like agent Valentine who like to step out of their own responsibility to burden themselves with the safety of people who do not concern such things. Parents should prohibit their children from dangerous activities for children aren’t able to make judgments and act to their own good. But when men assume such power from other men, they stepped between man and God (oh, it’s a metaphor) and lost their own moral (moral is by choice, not by force)

The same is true concerning economy and welfare. The criticisms that ones who live in suburbia of rich worlds aren’t giving out for Africans in famine is quite silly. Wealth isn’t men’s birth right but have to be earned through trials and labor. Wealth is not part of human and though all men should be equal, their wealth should not. A cargo plane parked at dirt highway of Africa plain is but an abandoned carcass. When the genius that went into building it and operating it had left, its fresh and bone couldn’t hold for much longer. Thus can we imagine if we trade lands between the world’s richest and poorest, our civilization would restore its current form but in a couple centuries’ time.

The fortunate fact is that we can’t decide how others live their lives. We can influence but we can’t decide. When we set out on such goals, our actions would be vile and unjustifiable just as the histories we have on power politics and war sponsoring. They quite often have other errands but the moral one is false. They violate a basic human right, the right to form society of their founders’ vision without interference. Compare to that, big words like freedom is but a minor right for freedom only resides within a society.

Should we watch people getting killed assuming they know what they do and they’re responsible for it? Yes we should, only we wouldn’t. It sounds like I just contradicted myself but hear me out.

In Lord of War, Yuri Orlov’s small brother Vitaly Orlov did what a human instead of an arm’s dealer ought to do and he sacrificed himself. So does Yuri Orlov’s wife Ava Fontaine Orlov. I don’t bring them up to praise them for they really didn’t make any difference for the bloodshed that was happening in Africa. Nor do they have to and that is the point. They did what they did not for ideals or any conviction that they saved lives but for their feeling and nature that belongs to human.

I spend an hour or so writing about responsibility and its limit but there is a realm such term doesn’t apply. Our world in front of our eye is a world of doctors and soldiers, policeman and gangsters all trying to build Tower of Babel. Doctors are not professional savers nor are soldiers professional murderers. They are both just professionals. What makes men and women noble lie in their human traits. Thus the human world is built only by humans, not professionals.

It is very important to separate these two realms: imagination and reality. When one mixes them, he or she’s bound to be deluded by such lines as “our soldiers are there to help them” or “cooperation are contributing to our economy”. Help and contribution are something that human do. Soldiers kill and cooperation make money (for itself), whether they help or contribute is up to the human that resides in these shells.

Obviously, not all of us are very human. As Yuri Orlov chose to be a good arms dealer before a good human being, our current society is filled with more means than ends. However, the effort to elevate this society cannot be resolved in means. It is not a war to be fought, or a tower to be built, or anything professionals could do for us. There are surely ideas, inspirations and motivation that’s intriguing but it is up to the man in action, you, me and everyone decide what kind of society we form. It is often human’s first inclination to oppress what we consider evil such as terrorism, dictatorship even selfishness, but instead of a society of goodness we would only build a society of oppression. These words and their audience wouldn’t save a single life in Africa if they are so inclined to kill themselves. But what all of them comes down to say really is: be aware of what you are and aren’t responsible for. We are not responsible for lives and welfare and civility of others in this world. We are responsible (and willing) to be humans that are compassionate, inquisitive and lovable and we’re charged to build a society in which such traits dwell.

No comments: