The Absurdity in Lybian Conflict

We are all watching the scene unfold in Libya like we have watched so much political turmoil around the world. The details and the players change but this story is not a new one. Small country leaders are known for their need to "project power" so that their small country does not feel so weak in a big pond. Why do we bother being shocked to find out that a man who has been left as god of a small nation has taken certain liberties? These dictators are not told NO very often so when the subject of "hey should we kill these people that don't like you?" comes up- it's pretty easy for them to justify it to themselves as "doing what must be done to lead their poor little country."

The people tend to accept some of these liberties to some extent- especially if the living conditions haven't recently worsened. The people involved around these leaders, and sometimes the populous as well, have a tendency to forgive their leaders in the hope that it will strengthen their small nation. Violence leading to more violence eventually causes a boil over where the dictator is unwilling to give up power. He see's himself as the leader that has been making sacrifices for the people, and thus the true leader of said nation.

If you step back and look at the situation like this it's quickly apparent that EVERYONE involved wants the best for their small nation. Under equipped civilians are running into an armed military each believing that they are strengthening their world by doing so, when they are choosing the WORST option possible. It's like a distance runner amputating their leg so that they can finish the marathon with no blisters... AND WE FEED INTO IT! We consider these things like they are legitimate solutions because it's what happened LAST time this was on CNN so why would they do it any different THIS time it's on CNN. There is no rational reason to arm the 'freedom fighters.' Giving them guns only signs their death warrant, and it tells the world that we approve the killing that will be carried out in the name of the fallen for generations to come.

While I offer no direct solution (beyond Gaddafi realizing the point I'm trying to make and giving up all nice and quiet like). I will not allow myself to consider solutions that lead to more deaths. I always remember one Gandhi quote that sticks with me- "For this cause I would be willing to die, but there is no cause for which I am willing to kill."

Our own countries history may have been born of blood, but our greatest rebellions have come at the hands of peaceful men. Civil Rights. Women's Rights. Human Rights. We as Americans have created our own version of rebellion, and built peace into our government system- presidents are inevitably fired after eight years, regardless of their performance. No violence, no questioning, no standoff in the desert- they just leave peacefully. I remain happy that I live here.

The Next Generation of Cinema.

It's a statistically charted fact that movies are getting worse. The old studio system is clutching for sure things only to find gems like "Skyline". They can't even get a winner with Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp in "The Tourist." There are many more, and better examples, but why is this happening? Are we witnessing the death of large studio cinema as we know it?

I believe that we need only to look to reality television to see why cinema is beginning to struggle. Audiences are considerably less amused by invented stories than they are watching crab fishers slide around an icy deck for an hour, and it's because those crab fishermen are REAL. Jim Gilmore and Joe Pine detailed this phenomenon in their book "Authenticity." Most people living today have grown up in media soaked environments- Televisions and radios, later computers, and now smart phones... We have become well trained in identifying authenticity and reality over the years. Every day the falseness of our surroundings makes us long even more for "real" things.

Hollywood hasn't changed a damn thing, and that's exactly the problem. The next generation of cinema will not lose the big budget film, but rather grow in a new way. I believe that documentaries will find a more aggressive and active role in filmmaking and in society. Most documentaries tend to take an 'observer' role -fly on the wall style- and tell a story that requires the audiences reaction. However, whistle-blowing an warning aren't enough for audiences... we are smart and we want to see what is being done in response to the threat that a film identifies. We've begun to see ACTIVE roles of the documentary filmmakers in their approach to problems. The Cove is the story of what filmmakers went through to tell you WHY you should care about dolphin slaughter. Super Size Me wasn't just about the fast food industry, director Morgan Spurlock caused health damage to his own body to illustrate his point to his audience. Catfish follows filmmakers discovering who the scary person at the other end of Facebook actually is, and in a very REAL way we get to discover the lonely stranger at the other end of the internet. Born to be Wild doesn't just warn of orphaned animals from poaching, it follows the rehabilitation of the animals and the hardships their caretakers go through.

What all these films share is that they refuse to sit back and show you the problem without DOING something about it. Active documentaries like this will strike a chord with audiences everywhere. Not just warnings, but REAL action with REAL results will strike chords with audiences everywhere. To make easy easier- digital camera equipment these days will allow amazing access to every corner of the world where someone has a story worth telling- as the story happens! As time goes on production quality will grow, and production time will drop. At this point these stories will be from action to the audiences with all the polish of feature films- and maybe, just maybe, the audience will join in.