The other night I rented and watched a movie that came out in 1964 named The Carpetbaggers. It was based on a Harold Robbins book of the same name, and had an (at the time) all-star cast headed by George Peppard, Carol Baker, Martin Balsam, Lew Ayres, and Martha Hyer, among others. It was one of the “blockbuster” movies of that year. I remember seeing it when it first came out and, being fairly young, not understanding all the nuances. Though tame by today’s standards, at the time it struck me as gloriously trashy.

The central character, Jason Cord, was allegedly loosely based on Howard Hughes. This is also the book and movie that brought us that great character Nevada Smith, secondary in this work, but later turned into a really rip-roaring original Western starring Steve McQueen in the title role.

In that era Robbins’s books were considered a guilty pleasure. He was always controversial; his sex scenes were always bordering on being censorable (yes, believe it or not, censorship did actually exist at one time!); his style was a unique mixture of potboiler and literature; his central characters were colorful and sinful, rich, sometimes debauched, in many cases with undertones of heroism. Stiletto, A Stone for Danny Fisher, The Betsy, 79 Park Avenue, The Adventurers and many others, several of which were also turned into movies.

But here’s the really interesting thing that occurred to me as I thought about all of this: back in those days there was an underlying sense of justice and morality that still pervaded the arts. In The Carpetbaggers Cord is ultimately redeemed by facing his inner torment and by the love of a faithful and loyal “good woman”, his wife Monica. In The Third Man Harry Lime (Orson Welles) is killed in the end, as he (Welles) is also in Touch of Evil. In the Nevada Smith McQueen spinoff, Smith finds redemption through the spiritual ministrations of a priest played by Raf Vallone.

These are classic themes, going back to Shakespeare (Lear, Hamlet, Macbeth) and beyond (Oedipus Rex comes to mind). They appeal to the basic human desire to find a sense of order in a disordered world; the hope that in one way or another good will prevail over evil, or at the least evil will be punished.

But the trend seems to be changing. In The Godfather, Parts 1 and 2 (we’ll omit Part 3 from the discussion, as it wasn’t based on the book at all but was simply an attempt to cash in on a lucrative franchise, and frankly was a lousy movie), based on the Mario Puzo novel of the same name, innocent Michael Corleone (played by Al Pacino) is dragged by circumstance into the family Mafia business, and by the end has been transformed into a despotic monster, guilty of fratricide among many other sins, but rather than having experienced redemptive salvation or suffered punishment, is the ruler of all he surveys. This represents a tidal change in the traditional morality of American cinema. We see the same thing in the series of movies featuring the character of Hannibal Lechter. Mystic River, directed by Clint Eastwood with an all-star cast and based on the novel by Dennis Lehane, is yet another example. Sean Penn’s character, after mistakenly killing the wrong man in revenge for his daughter’s murder, remains unrepentant and unpunished.

There was a time when studios would refuse to make films that ended this way. The studio heads were strong subscribers to traditional morality, and the viewing public voted with their feet. The times, they are a-changing.

This strikes me as a mixed blessing. It certainly makes for more complex and interesting films in many ways. But I can’t help but consider what this also says about our society as a whole. Does cinema reflect the society in which it’s produced? What power does it exert in actually shaping that society? Is it a coincidence that over all, G-rated family fare is still the most profitable genre?

Interesting questions to ponder.

A fellow Townhall blogger, “Doc Steech”, brought to my attention a newspaper column written by yet a another Townhall blogger, “Mike”, who maintains the Townhall blog Deschamps (here), currently the second-most-visited member blog on the site and one in which the author seems to espouse pretty conservative views. However, in the real world Mike is also Michael Powell who writes a column for Pacific Publishing Company, which apparently publishes several community newspapers in the Seattle area. Doc brought to my attention one of Powell’s columns in which he takes a very surprising stand for a professed conservative: “that no one is really responsible enough to own a handgun”. You can read the entire column (here).

If we extend that same rationale to the rest of the Bill of Rights, then neither is anyone responsible enough to have or voice an opinion on issues of national interest, decide their own religion for themselves, determine if they’ve been wronged by government and should seek redress, or anything else. All those aspects of liberty should be dictated, I suppose, by trained professionals. It would also indicate that Powell evidently considers the Founding Fathers misguided in their trust of the People.

Powell also writes: “the Second Amendment was designed for a different time and era in American history.” Well, so was the First Amendment. So, using Powell’s logic, the First Amendment would only protect the Free Press rights of magazines and newspapers, not radio, television, the internet, telephones, or any other post-18^th Century technology.

In talking about the number of guns in private hands in this country, Powell writes: “I do not know how on earth we can decrease that number of weapons, but I do know it is completely necessary and must be attempted”, clearly labeling himself as a gun-banner and enemy of the Second Amendment and by extension the Bill of Rights. Because, you see, the Bill of Rights isn’t a Chinese menu from which you get to pick the ones you like and leave the rest behind; it’s a prix fixee menu, all or none. It was passed as an en bloc amendment to the Constitution, drafted by James Madison.

Of course, we can clearly see Powell’s philosophical underpinnings reflected in this statement: “Out of the entire cadre of Republicans… (running) for president of the United States… Giuliani is the only one who is staunchly for gun control.” Accurate, and reflective of Powell’s status as a neo-conservative in the true sense of the word: one who is only selectively conservative, and generally liberal on social policies. Further, this is a clear example of why the GOP is in so much trouble. The core plank of the Party – support for the Constitution in its original meaning and intent – is in dire jeopardy from those like Powell and Giuliani who would join the Liberals in redefining traditional American values in clear disregard for the intent of the Founders.

Powell, Giuliani and their ilk – the neo-cons, or faux-cons as I call them – are the biggest obstacle the GOP has to overcome if they are ever to regain any meaningful majority political status in this country, because like it or not the GOP’s success is contingent on support from true conservatives; gun owners, religious people, and others who believe the Constitution means just what it says, no more and no less. People unwilling to sell their rights down the river for a vapid promise and a slick campaign, or a hollow election victory by a Party that no longer represents their views. The Silent Majority.

Thanks again to Doc Steech for bringing this to my attention.

UPDATE

Email exchange between Mike and me: