Anti-Intellectualism = Good?

Great Debates
61

Also, I’d slip the Pirates of the Carribean franchise in the “smart guy wins” column.

While the hero and main character technically is Orlando Bloom’s Will Turner, who’s a down-to-earth everyman embodying simple American values (hard work, honesty, pining after girls that are WAY out of one’s league), moviegoers clearly identified Johnny Depp’s Jack as their own popular hero, which is reflected in following movies where he takes up even more screentime.
And the most salient characteristic of CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow is that he’d much rather fast-talk his way around a problem than hack away at it, and he’d rather turn an enemy into an unlikely (and often unwitting) ally than blow him the fuck up. He demonstrably can swordfight and shit, but what’s the point when you can bamboozle your way into having him and them fight each other instead ?

The dichotomy with Bloom’s Will Turner is expressed nowhere better than in their very first encounter : Jack’s escaped from custody, winds up in Will’s sword shop, Will wants to arrest him, they fight. In the end, Will proves the better swordsman and Jack, disarmed and a sword at his throat, pulls out a pistol (Indiana Jones lives !). To which Will indignantly exclaims : “That’s cheating !” while Jack grins like a self-satisfied undead monkey.
In other words, the real world dumb guy’s eternal answer to the smart guy working around their brawn.

All the better when you know that Jack has actually no intention of using that pistol - he religiously keeps his one bullet for someone else for ritual reasons. So not only is Jack outsmarting Will it’s a big ol’ bluff too, doubling down on Will’s defeat.

62

I would say the OP is talking about two different things (and then everyone else started talking about movies).

“intellectualism” as a sort of class-based, insular, elitist social structure is probably a bad thing. This is where you have a segment of society that enjoys extreme wealth and power through their ability to self-select their members from institutions that they have largely created and financed. In many cases, some of these people may be extremely smart. However, because they may have largely lived an existence sheltered away from anyone not like them, they are likely unsympathetic or oblivious to other classes.

“intellectualism” as a pursuit of greater intelligence, education, knowledge and skills is a good thing. Much as Ivory Tower elites can sequester themselves away from the rest of the world, so can the mediocre, ignorant, superstitious and incompetent. Perpetuating their own ignorance and poor decision-making skills.

“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”

― Albert Einstein

63

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter for the purposes of our thread. The point isn’t, “Does Hollywood promulgate anti-intellectualist ideas and are those popular?” The point is, “If we tell people that one day they’ll be the hero of the moment and that society is dependent on them for being the moral moving force, does that help to propel them into self-advancement?”

64

Clarification time - I’m not arguing that those movies are anti-intellectual, nor that blockbuster movies in general are anti-intellectual. I was countering the claim that the average big budget blockbuster has its major conflict(s) resolved by the smartest person in the room. I simply don’t believe that to be the case, and I think I’ve provided enough evidence that the ball is in the court of anyone who believes that claim.

The only movies mentioned that I would consider truly anti-intellectual are possibly Armageddon and Forrest Gump (I’ve only seen bits of Gump). Other than my comments about Independence Day, I’m not trying to criticize the movies. I enjoyed many of them a great deal. I just think that the majority do not fit the archetype described by Justin Bailey.

I think we’re all in agreement that there are a lot of arguable points. Sometimes it’s not clear what the central conflict of a film even is. There are cases like “Empire Strikes Back”, where the biggest conflicts are resolved in another movie. There is often a large degree of ambiguity about who the “smartest” person is.

A few more things:
I don’t think it counts as outsmarting someone or something if all you do is, essentially, outrun it. I don’t think anyone outsmarted any dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park”. Also, the plan to “get to the helicopter so we can escape” isn’t outsmarting anything. It’s just an obviously good idea.

The original claim I was responding to was that the conflict was solved by the smartest person around. Not that the smartest person around came up with an idea that a more prominent character implemented. Gandalf and Elrond can pontificate about throwing the ring into Mt Doom all they want, but that doesn’t solve their problem. Moreover, it wasn’t their idea to have the hobbits carry the ring. Frodo volunteered for that. The council of Elrond is a perfect example of the smartest people around being largely ineffectual until a simple, humble everyman decides to take on the burden of saving the world. In “Empire Strikes Back”, Yoda specifically tells Luke not to go to Bespin, but Luke goes anyway.

Many movies have an intelligent or wise secondary character on the hero’s side. They might give the hero advice, or a gadget or weapon, or come up with an overarching plan for defeating the enemy. But then they step into the background. Does anyone want to seriously claim that it was Lucius Fox who defeated Joker? Did Yoda rescue Han, Chewie, and Leia? (And did he defeat the Emperor?) Did Gandalf and Elrond destroy the ring? The smart person often points out the path the hero should take to solve the problem, but they rarely solve the problem themselves. This is intellectual tokenism. Most movies (and other fiction) aren’t anti-intellectual. But they are rarely pro-intellectual beyond tokenism. This isn’t really a problem (not every movie needs to make a statement about intelligence, knowledge, or wisdom), but I do think it’s generally true. Not to open a can of worms here, but imagine if someone suggested that the average Hollywood blockbuster has a minority save the day. In defense of this claim, they point to a bunch of black sidekicks who help the hero. I don’t think that would support the claim. Similarly, I don’t think it works to point to secondary characters who primarily act in support of the hero.

I think there’s a line of thought that is seductive here. If the good guys decide to do something, then that’s a plan. And if their plan worked, it must have been a good plan. Therefore, they must have outsmarted their foes in some regard. Even if the plan is as simple as, “We’ll kick down the door and shoot them”, if it works, then it was smart to do it. After all, it worked! I think this is wrong for a few reasons. First off, it borders on tautology: If it works, it was smart to do it, and therefore smartness is what works. If we go down that path, there’s really no claim being made at all. Second, it ignores happenstance, luck, and unknowns. A plan might actually be a terrible plan, but it might work anyway because an enemy has a change of heart, or the heroes simply get lucky. And finally, there are films where the bad guy is extremely smart and only loses due to the combined efforts of the heroes. In such cases, the bad guy may be the smartest person around. But they don’t solve their conflict - they lose. For example, Syndrome in “The Incredibles” is definitely the smartest character.

But I’ve definitely talked too much about movies. There are many other forms of fiction. I suspect that novels probably focus more on intelligence and wits saving the day than movies do. Television shows are a mixed bag. Dr. House was (almost) always the smartest guy in the room, and he was (almost) always the one to solve the case. Plenty of detective shows have a clever character solving the crime and outwitting the criminal. Given the wide amount of fiction available in various forms, I think it’s more likely that segments of society experience fiction by pulling their preferred art to them, as opposed to being significantly influenced by art pushing something at them. I’m not saying people are not influenced by fiction - they are. But I think that someone’s personality and character affects their consumption of fiction much more than their consumption of fiction affects their personality and character.

65

Except, Indiana Jones was basically a spectator, how much smarter than everyone else he might have been is prettymuch irrelevant.

Except, the smartest people in the LotR saga were not people (not humans or ordinary mortals) but kind of like über-beings, so the intellectualism issue fails to fit. And really, when you look at Gandalf, he wizipedia in his head, a vast compendium of knowledge and understanding, but he was really not all that wily. Nor, in fact, was Sauron, given that he was caught off-guard by such a simple ploy. If anything, LotR might suggest that being very powerful tends to take the edge off one’s wits.

66

Which is where Jack Sparrow (and to a lesser extent Indiana Jones, who doesn’t really does plans as much as does, period) shines IMO : he starts with a plan. Then something inevitably goes horribly awry with the plan at some point in its execution, and Jack just rolls with it, “morphs” his original plan to integrate the new circumstances into another loop of planning and deception, ad infinitum, until what exactly he’s trying to accomplish right just this minute and who for becomes nigh unintelligible to anybody who’s not him. I.e. “Whose side is Jack on ?” “… at the moment ?”
His plans have lots of moving parts which, in Hollywood land, would more often than not mean they’re really based on ridiculously lucky contrievances and/or omniscience (see: terrorist plots in 24) or just plain ridiculous (Die Hard : “let’s throw off the police response to our crime by masquerading it as another crime which involves a much stronger police response !”) but not in his case. It’s just that he’s very quick on his mental feet. He’s not always one mile ahead of his mental inferiors, having planned every little minute detail three aeons ago (hello Mr Silva of *Skyfall) *- he just knows one thing they don’t at the time or has reached the obvious conclusion to a sequence of events just one tick ahead of them, and adapted in consequence.
And I, for one, think it made for compelling watching, even on an intellectual level, in what was otherwise stated to be just another popcorn flick.

/fapping over last decade’s movies.

I reckon that, to the extent that anti-intellectualism was a Thing in Hollywood, and I’d argue it was back in the 80s and early 90s, it’s no longer the case. We’re in the age of the geek. Even Die fucking *Hard *had to have a snarky hacker tag along with Bruce Willis.

It’s also true of TV, I think : back in the day the buddy cops would smash their car through plate glass and watermelons yelling yeeehaw, catch the Bad Guy and bam, problem solved. Public ? Protected and goddamn served.

Today we have The Wire, where nothing solves anything, not it any way that matters - in fact the whole “kick doors down, beat down the Thug, pile bricks of coke on the table for the photo op, throw the book at the Bad Guy” is de-constructed as being part of the problem. It just doesn’t work that way.
Or we have shows like CSI, *Dexter, House *and the like where, more often than not, the nose-to-the-ground, hard-ass, it’s-just-common-sense investigator is portrayed as a bit of a shortsighted tool in the eyes of the guys with the white gloves who solve the problems.
Admittedly, usually through magic, Instant Science! Just Add [del]Water[/del]Buzzwords but hey. Baby steps :).

Ironically I’d argue that the most anti-intellectual show out there these days is probably The Big Bang Theory, which back when I stopped watching in disgust had pretty much 100% devolved into “hur hur, look at them smart guys, they don’t life very well, they social retards and never girl”. All the while trying to conjure up a veneer of nerd-cred by throwing token “highbrow” jokes and nerd-friendly references around.

67

No mention of Apollo 13? A film where the day is saved by literal rocket scientists? Or Good Will Hunting? A tale about a troubled genius?

“Do you think he plans it all out, or just makes it up as he goes along?”

68

As far as Apollo 13 goes, the problem that was solved by Mission Control wascaused by rocket scientists, more or less. But more importantly, there really was no other way to solve it. We were not in a position to shoot Chuck Norris, Vin Diesel, Jean Claude van Damme and Adam Baldwin into space, all bandoliered-up to defeat the slimy extra-terrestrials who had put the astronauts lives in peril.

From what I recall of Good Will Hunting, it suffered from a similar lack of a brute-force alternative. As did A Beautiful Mind.

Now, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a fascinating look at intellect v. viscera.

69

The thing with Good Will Hunting is it makes the hero a blue collar intellectual - he’s still just a Joe from south Boston knocking back brews with the guys. He’s somewhat troubled, but not nearly the misfit his intellect would make him.

What I love about the first POTC is that Jack’s plan is constantly knocked off course because, since he’s a pirate, no one trusts him to keep his word - the result is everyone else breaks their word and the pirate is the only trustworthy character. :slight_smile:

70

Or is it?

They sort of intentionally make it like Jack is some sort of savant who can intuitively craft these successful harebrained schemes.
It is entirely possible to be a genius without being a social misfit. Plus there are misfits and then there are misfits. Most people worry about “fitting in” or “being cool” at some point in their teens. Very few people are true “misfits” in the sense that have no friends and are true social outcasts. Typically there might be something else going on besides just being smart.
Much anti-intellectualism is born out of the “mad scientist” / “evil genius” trope. The brilliant mastermind in relentless pursuit of his goals without regard for the consequences. People don’t like having to trust some brainiac (who was probably picked on for his intellect) that the master plan, giant robot, computer program or financial instrument they are inventing will actually serve anyone’s interest but the creator’s.

71

It doesn’t really take savanthood, it’s more a fluctuating game of “I know he knows I know, but does he know…”

The algorithm would be something like :

  1. Does X trust me ? If Yes END, if No GOTO 2
  2. Explain why X can trust me. Make shit up as needed. Omit salient details as prudent. Does X trust me now ? If Yes END, if No GOTO 3
  3. X will never trust me and expects me to betray them. They will thus betray me as soon as we achieve the objective. Replan From Start factoring this as new ground fact. END.
  4. Else drink all the rum.

Not exactly Batman-level :). Plus he gets outwitted himself from time to time - he seems to have a hard time predicting what Elizabeth’s going to do in particular.

But not always. See, for example, *WarGames, a if not the *perfect example of 80s anti-intellectualism.

To the extent that there’s a main antagonist in this movie, it’s the supercilious tech guy who supervises WOPR - he’s condescending, he’s arrogant, he’s kind of a dick (then again, wouldn’t you be that if a 15 year old busted into your lab and told you how to do your fucking job ?). We’re quite clearly expected to dislike him.
He’s also got every right to be all that, because the alternative to his proposed solution, humans in the silos, has been demonstrably proven to be a failure in the opening 5 minutes of the movie, while his own solution not only works but is so technologically perfect that it winds up de-constructing nuclear war and avoiding the whole crisis pretty much on its own*.

I’m not arguing McKittrick wasn’t a retard to plug NORAD into the Internet, but that’s neither here nor there :).

So Fat General Guy’s constant belittling and self-satisfied smugging at McKittrick throughout the flick is not warranted at all (besides McKittrick being a dick, but that’s not the primary motivation for Fat General Guy’s behaviour), yet we’re supposed to side with that big fat idiot. He’s a good old boy, he’s sensible, and he’s ultimately proven right not to trust them blinkenlighting devil machines or the eggheads what make 'em.

And on the other side of the fence you’ve got the other inventor of WOPR, you know, the one who left a secret backdoor into a national security project protected by a password a 15 year old could guess and is ultimately responsible for the whole mess. Who first comes off an antagonist/mad scientist when he’s in his fatalistic, “Just fuck it, dudes, let’s just let Armaggeddon take its course and let the bees have their shot” funk (which is of course insane and we’re meant to deem it, and him, insane), then becomes a messianic figure and A Good Character once he 180s and decides to help Matthew Broderick shut down WOPR (by teaching him the futility of its purpose… somehow), i.e. destroy scientific progress.

And that’s the victory cheer : return to status quo ante progress.

I understand where the whole dumb-dumb angle comes from (that is to say, everybody wishing nuke genies had remained firmly corked inside their lamps back then), and Og knows I love the movie to bits… but it’s anti-intellectualist as all getout. Much more so, or at least much more insidiously so than Evil Doctor McNazi and his Hitler Brain in a Jar with a Moon Laser or whatnot.

  • though I suppose one could genuinely concern oneself whether WOPR would have fired back, had the Global Thermonuclear War been real… “You see General, it is a curious game. The only winning move is not to play. Would you fancy a nice game of chess ?” “WE JUST LOST THE WHITE HOUSE, ASSHOLE !” :smiley:
72

What a relief that someone else feels this way about that show. My brother bugged me and bugged me to watch it, I got most of the way through the first season and gave up exactly for this reason. It is about as accurate about their class of main characters as Amos & Andy was about theirs.

Here is a classic anti-intellectual TV plot. This one is from Dennis the Menace, but there are many examples. Teacher calls parents and tells them that Dennis has tested at genius level. Everyone freaks out, treats him like a god, starts buying big books. Teacher calls again and says it was a mistake. Everyone goes, “what a relief! He can be normal again.”
And this was from 1960 or so.