Spielberg Politics: Risk Doesn't Sell, But Vision Does

 

 

Taking risks is hard, of course, because fewer and fewer teenagers are getting off that damned couch.

 

 

And without new ideas, where is there to go?

 

 

Cloud Atlas is just a movie - a sprawling, narratively complex film that tries to get us, the potential audience, thinking about the bigger, broader themes that connect us as human beings.  It tries to make us break outside the bonds of our usual perspectives.  That kind of storytelling doesn't come cheap.  Make no mistake - new ideas do cost money, because they break entirely new ground. 

 

 

The Fountain, a film that challenged us to rethink what we prioritize in life and how we view death, tanked.  On the other hand Avatar, which changed the way we view film and immersed us in the breathtakingly complex world of Pandora, wrapped a ground-breaking vision around a familiar story we've seen in everything from Dances With Wolves to The Last Samurai.  In so doing, it struck the right chords of visually new yet narratively familiar; with a solid marketing campaign, these details helped propel James Cameron's alien epic to the position of highest grossing film ever.

 

 

Films don't come cheap and the people who fund them do so with one goal in mind - profit.  So, Avatar gets a sequel.

 

 

In that way, film making is a lot like politics.  Politics is also about coming out on top.  Doing politics is not a cheap affair and in a survival-of-the-fittest game of escalation, the cost just keeps going up.  Advertising, polling, producing materials, holding conventions, recording phone calls, oppositions research and now, finding ways to bring the conversation to the online places where the people congregate costs millions of bucks.  These activities are the political equivalents to putting out trailers, going on the talk shows and putting billboards on street corners.  The end goal in both cases is the same; get the potential end-user off the couch and out to the theatre/polling station.  If all goes well, you can keep mining the well with sequel after sequel.

 

 

Call it the capitalist model of democracy; sellers must tailor products they know consumers will want and then work hard to convince end-users the product isn't a want, it's a need.  Movie marketers will tell us their latest product is "the must-see movie of the year" or "if you see just one movie this year, make it this one;" political operators replicate this leitmotif  by telling us that a vote for the other guys will lead to "a thousand years of darkness" or that only a vote for them is a vote for a secure tomorrow.

 

 

In short - traditional marketing tries to paint a picture of the risk lying in not buying into their product.

 In general, people don't like risk - they like stability.  Even when they stand upon a burning platform, they will wait until the ground gives way beneath them before taking a leap of faith into untested waters.  Unless, that is, someone charismatic enough with a vision that transcends stability and embraces something bolder steps into the light.

Steven Spielberg is one of the most bankable directors in the history of film.  His movies consistently bring us fun stories, likable characters and all the action, scares and humour we could ask for.  As a filmmaker, Spielberg has also made some incredible contributions to the medium of cinema - Jurassic Park broke ground with its use of computer animation.  The film that really kick-started his career, Jaws, became the world's first blockbuster.  Yet, Spielberg almost gave up on Jaws because he felt it was just too big of a risk.  It was his belief not necessarily in himself, but in his vision that kept him going.  Perhaps that anecdote hints at his greatest contribution - a sense of wonder, but also a belief that no matter how bad things seem, there's always a chance they'll turn out better. 

One of the most iconic moments in cinematic history is an image of a boy and an alien riding a bicycle through the sky, silhouetted by the moon.  It's pure magic.  But consider; we're looking at a child, at height, wholly caught in the clutches of an extra-terrestrial force.  In its essence, ET is any parent's nightmare; in the hands of another director, ET could have been a story more akin to Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  Same holds true for Jurassic Park; the novel on which the movie was based is a visceral experience.  James Cameron, that other highly bankable director, has recently discussed how close he came to getting the rights for the book and how his take would have been decidedly darker.

Spielberg himself has discussed what he considers to be his master image; the heavily back-lit door of the mothership in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.  It's a beautifully juxtaposed scene; whereas traditional popcorn fare like Independence Day or Mars Attacks relies on the idea of the unknown (as represented by aliens in big ships) as something dark, sinister and malevolent, Spielberg infuses The Undiscovered Country with light, embedding the unknown with hope.  That's his big trick, the secret ingredient to the Spielberg success.  Spielberg movies unquestionably cost a pretty penny, but they always turn a profit; more than that, they generally inspire us to think that just maybe, tomorrow won't turn out so bad after all.  He is consistently ranked as one of the most successful film makers in the history of movies.

 

 

The Bearded One's next movie is, appropriately enough for the times, a political one - a biopic of the 16th President of the United States.  I don't think it's a coincidence that Spielberg's Lincoln focuses on a man successfully leading his country through constitutional, military and moral crises.  That was a dark time in history, the future of the United States looked pretty grim.  None could have predicted then what America would have become today.  Certainly, there were those who felt being part of a Union presented too much of a threat to their traditional way of life and stood fast against such a risk.

 

 

Lincoln never wavered from his steely determination and steadfast belief in a risky idea - that a strong society must be a just society and that a united whole was more than the sum of its parts.  A polarizing figure in his time (and the first US President to be assassinated), Lincoln is now ranked consistently as one of the best Presidents the United States ever had.  It's hard to imagine what would have become of America if the risk averse had won the day.

 

 

On both sides of the border there are, once again, conversations about Constitutions, the military and what has become of our moral fabric.  Financial times are tight and nobody wants to bet on risky ventures.  In fact, the most common political theme today is that stability can only be maintained if we shut our doors to external risks or by fighting against those who might challenge our status quo.  There are always those willing to die to stop change, for they view change as death itself.  If there is to be a brave new world, it's these folk that will have the hardest time living in it.

 

 

An uncertain future is rapidly drawing nearer; the stability one generation previous took for granted isn't waiting for those teenagers huddled on today's couches, nor for the unborn millions to come.   We have plenty of leaders casting themselves as the least risky guides through the shadows of tomorrow.  Perhaps what we really need is a vision of the future our youth can aspire to be part of.  Whoever can inspire us with their ability to light the way forward might just be the kind of leader we'd be willing to take a risk on. 

 

Provide Alternatives to Crime

“You do have to provide programs to keep kids away from crime,” he said. “There are multiple fronts to take action on.”

Good on Stephen Harper.  Like political minds tend to circle the wagons around issues, but this is a concern that, like mental health, is bigger than partisanship.

There are multiple fronts that need to be pursued.  Identity is one; when you feel accountable to something larger than yourself, you tend to self-regulate a bit more.  Education is another; youth need training that meets their learning styles, but also teaches them to be flexible.  At any rate, it's hard to learn when you're worried about getting shot. 

The other side to keeping kids away from crime, though, isn't just providing alternatives - it's about steering them towards success.  This is within the realm of the possible; you really can teach resiliency and practical social skills like financial literacy, networking, social emotional learning, critical thinking, planning, etc.  Not everyone will be a whiz, but with the right level of exposure and encouragement, everyone can find a niche that works for them while allowing them to be contributing parts of society.

I keep turning back to martial arts training I've received over the years.  Failure wasn't an option because failure meant quitting on the part of the student, the teacher, the family and the community (school).  Falling was inevitable, but as we all know, the reason we fall is to learn how to pick ourselves back up.  The best teachers I have ever had were the ones that were relentless, patient and consistent, making praise something to be earned rather than expected and always pushing me to crystallize my skill a little bit more.  Those lucky of us to have had teachers or mentors like that over the years love them for teaching us that excellence is a pursuit, not a benchmark.

The fundamentals of this style of training can be applied in our schools.  It starts with empowerment, flows through achievement, and keeps on giving with success and resiliency.

It's within the realm of the possible - we just need to commit ourselves fully.

 

Children Always Come First

By February 2012, Syrian forces had killed 500 children, according to Navi Pillay, the UN human rights chief. "They've gone for the children -- for whatever purposes -- in large numbers," Pillay told the UN Human Rights Council, as she appealed once again for the UN Security Council to refer Assad to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

Young children were particularly targeted by the Nazis to be murdered during the Holocaust. They posed a unique threat because if they lived, they would grow up to parent a new generation of Jews. Many children suffocated in the crowded cattle cars on the way to the camps. Those who survived were immediately taken to the gas chambers.

People shouldn't be surprised that children are always first targets.  In a survival-of-the-fittest game, it's never about competing and building strength, it's always about eliminating competition.

This is as true in politics or business hierarchies as it is in natural selection.

People look at the murderers of history and say "animal."  Of course they're animals - all human beings are animals; we're great apes, not much different than chimpanzees.  We're mammals, just as are lions. 

But we're also more than that - we are the most social and the only recognized sentient species on earth.  Every social organization shows us that diversity, specialization, collaboration and mutual support make us stronger.  The whole is more than the sum of our parts, when we're conscious of this.

Which is why progressive societies educate their young, provide healthcare for their young, ensure their children have all the tools they need to succeed as strong, independent individuals in a strong, collaborative social environment. 

If you want to go fast, go alone - see how long you last.

If you want go far - move together.

Have A Little Faith in Education

Two trends emerging in the Ontario zeitgeist:

1)      A realization that inefficiencies (duplication, gaps and overlaps) are costing far more than we can afford

2)      The rising primacy of religion as a central topic of conversation with all that entails; morality, sex education, church vs state, etc.

At first blush, it looks like these two things are at odds with each other.  Differing religions have differing views; both are not infrequently at odds with secular views (Gay/Straight alliances being a great example of this).  There is no way to have one school system that allows for all children to be exposed to the niche lessons of their faith, particularly as it influences various other subject matter (science and evolution being the classic example).

More than that, there are structural issues.  Attempts to synergize transportation between Public and Private boards has often been met with heavy resistance, in many cases because, ironically, the well-organized Catholic Boards lacked faith in their Public partners being able to up their game in terms of logistics.

Regardless of the politics, the facts are pretty clear; schooling is costly, there are less kids being supported by increasingly empty, aging facilities.  In some schools, taxpayer dollars are going to heat dead space, while in other schools, cockroach infestation problems go unchecked.  It’s unsustainable.

Due to an ideological, political divide, we are facing resource duplication, gaps and overlaps that are causing our fiscal woes.

Frank Klees’ suggestion to fund religious schools is not the answer – in fact, such a move not only increases the problems outlined above, it creates less understanding and more cause for suspicion and recrimination between faith groups.  With more school spaces competing for resources, students, duplicating infrastructure and operational costs, this approach would frankly increase the occurrence of duplication, gaps and overlaps we already have.  Beyond this, the religious-community focus of siloed education would isolate kids from each other, creating a social divide in terms of understanding and exposure.  Diversity is a strength, like learning in general - why would we want to take tools away from our kids and leave them ill-prepared to function in a diversified society and economy post-education?

The answer isn’t to completely remove religion from schools, either.  Remember, we want a division between church and state, but we also want our youth to be as knowledgeable, prepared and resilient as possible – all religions have something to offer on this score.

The answer is to reduce the silos of disparate school boards and reduce the inefficiency problem by bringing religion into school more broadly.  Ludicrous, you might say!  It can’t be done! 

Yes it can; here’s how.

1)      Include an overview of religion in the public curriculum

Like it or not, religion has had an integral role in the history of society.  If you look at the archaeological record, there's a strong correlation between the growth of religion and the development of civilization (as evidenced by some exciting work being done in Turkey).  Why not teach this to our youth?  We don't need to provide firm conclusions; just provide them with facts and empower them to put those facts together from their own perspective.  Call it critical thinking.

You wouldn’t need to have dedicated religious classes in the elementary system; just little tidbits here and there to build awareness, same as we do with numeracy, literacy, etc.  Plant the seeds of awareness, give the odd drink of knowledge, let youth grow as they may.  With encouragement and opportunity, they will seek out the influences that help them individually understand themselves and the world in a way that prepares them to be engaged, resilient, collaborative adults (Google: Social Emotional Learning).

A distinction would need to be made between a faith, like Christianity or Islam or Buddhism, and a faith’s institution.  This is not as hard to do as people think; democracy was first introduced in Greece on the back of social slavery; slavery plays as much a role in the history of the US as does ethnic genocide, which Canada has equally been guilty of.  We don’t discard the philosophy of democracy, though – we continually try to embody it more fully.  The history of religion would cover the human need to understand the world through a unifying lens and carry forward the trajectory of religion, who were the people that shaped it in the public discourse for better or for worse, subjectively.  To some degree the history curriculum does this already.

Separate from the history piece would be the social piece – the mechanics of religious philosophy (in basic terms) and the role of religion in society today; advocacy, charity, etc.  Religious leaders of different faiths would be invited to schools as guest lecturers; they could offer seminars on what their faith means to them.  Other guest lecturers can be invited on other topics related to the broader curriculum; politicians, scientists, etc.  Again, this happens already – the trick is to coordinate it more efficiently, as can only be done through collaboration.  Guest-lectured seminars could coincide with a teacher’s prep-time, maximizing efficiency of time.

In high school, there may be religious courses available, based on interest of students.  When I was in high school, I wanted to learn Spanish; I built up a network of support, identified a teacher and pitched the class to the administration.  Because I did my homework and brought partners and a ready-made-plan to the table, I was able to make it happen.  There’s no reason we shouldn’t encourage such active participation in all youth (which is why I advocate youth participation in Parliament in general).  A couple ideas?  The role of the Inquisition in the colonizing of the New World; the role of faith in the Civil Rights movement; the influence of Islamic belief on the development of remarkable art, architecture and algebra in the Muslim/Western world; the commonalities between world religions through symbols like the tree of life. 

When you really dig into it, religion offers an important window into history and offers some really cool concepts of common philosophical bonds that connect us all as human beings.

2)      Expand After-School Programs to include Religion

If the mountain won’t go to Mohammed, Mohammed must go to the mountain. 

There are two factors at play here – one, society keeps people busy; the social pressures parents are subjected to as they try to balance work/life pressures are enormous.  After-school programs can be pretty expensive, hard to reach, but the alternative of kids sitting at home glued to the tube isn’t appealing, either.  A fleshing out of existing after-school programming could turn schools into safe, monitored, multi-faceted after-school activity centres (some schools, particularly in low-income neighbourhoods, are already there).  Two – the busy-ness of society is increasingly taking time away from the things that ground us, including religion.  There is definite value in feeling part of something larger than oneself and finding meaning beyond selfish interest in one’s work (that’s why I got into politics).

Picture a school, once the classes are out, turning daily into a trade fair of ideas; kids can walk around and listen to expert-led discussions about a broad variety of topics, or sign up to participate fully in a seminar, learning more about a subject that engages them.  It would be a perfect, safe and monitored opportunity for youth to begin finding themselves and their interests through exposure to ideas, sport, etc.  These after-school idea fairs would make better, long-term use of school facilities and could be monetized by sponsorship from charity and for-private entities like book sellers or sports associations, as would be the case at any trade-fair.

Religious institutions would be able to represent themselves, just as could any other stakeholder.  A child who has been exposed to a given faith at home, been interested by what they learned in class or who has a friend who practices would have a chance to learn more.  Equally, each youth would have the opportunity to sit in and engage with real pastors/preachers/imams/etc. of multiple faiths, in person, helping them develop informed opinions about religion and their own belief systems moving forward.

This kills several birds with one stone – it takes pressure off parents worried about their kids safety and engagement post-school; it provides inroads for children to pick up new ideas and develop critical thinking and time management skills (no pressure to attend, but if you want to, you have to allocate your time accordingly), gives opportunity for sports, increases opportunity for religion to engage with youth, allows the various presenters an opportunity to network, fostering innovative potentials, etc.  If less people are travelling less distances all at the same time, this could even have a positive impact on gridlock.  Tell me that's not a win.

3)      Unify the Separate and Public School Boards

This is an idea as inevitable as it is controversial.  As a parent, I can understand this clearly; I only want what’s best for my son and am fully aware that there are viewpoints out there that contrast with my own, sometimes radically.  I’m not trying to raise my son to be my clone, though – he’s his own person and his world will be completely different than mine.  I want to expose him to as much as possible; each experience is a teaching lesson that helps me help my son develop into a critical thinker who knows how to work with people in a way that teases the best out of him and his peers.  Parenting isn't about control - it's about empowerment.  So should be education in general (or government, for that matter).

I look at the concerns being raised about Gay/Straight Alliances or sexual education; the fear is that something you don’t agree with could seep into the mix, that your kids might be exposed to something you might not like, something that could be harmful.  Whether it happens in school or out in the real world (or worse, on the Internet), it’s gonna happen anyway – isn’t it better to ensure your kids build up their knowledge, critical thinking/morality and resiliency as early as possible?  I think this is something most parents would agree with, so long as they had comfort that their own perspective was part of the mix – which it would be through a combination of history classes that infuse religion and social science classes that infuse religion, religious seminars as options of after-school programming and, of course, the parents’ own influence.  Besides, who's to say that a network of critical-thinking youth exposed to conflicts of view between church and state/religion and science won't find ways to square the circles more myelinated adults have had such difficulty with? 

To make this idea more palatable, I would suggest this – incorporate the Public System into the Separate System, rather than the reverse that everyone thinks will happen.  I believe that avoids constitutional issues, making it an easier process to pursue.   There would have to be some curriculum tweaks, sacrifices made on both ends, as happens in any relationship (again, good training for the real world), but the fact that Separate Boards already have familiarity with religion in the school would make it easier for them to take the lead.

Fundamentally, nothing would change; kids would be exposed to the same things they are now; there would just be a few additions.  As they got older, they would still have the same opportunities for specialization that they do now; they will just have a greater knowledge base from which to make their choices from.

Logistically, lots would change, all for the better.  Parents would no longer need to pass by the school closest to them (because it’s Public/Private) to get to one in their Board.  The infrastructure/student-to-teacher ratio burden would be eased (saving the Premier from having to backtrack on increasing classroom sizes).  The costs from duplication, gaps and overlaps would significantly decrease, allowing for increased funding to go to programming, infrastructure, technology, etc.  The additional revenue from Knowledge Fair sponsors would offset costs.  Best of all, kids would have increased exposure to knowledge and opportunity, and teachers from all spheres would have more raw material and time to work with.

Is this a bold idea?  Certainly, but it tries to balance the interests of the various parties, including the students.  Are there flaws?  Always are; there are flaws with the system now, which is why new ideas are called for.  Will it be challenging?  Of course it will – and leadership would be tested to find the balance and maintain the objective.  Still, though, I have faith that we can build a more efficient, mutually beneficial and long-term practical system if we work at it together.