Many of us (myself included) are drawn to stories of timeless truths - in fact, it is the very basis for entire theories of historical interpretation and educational instructional pedagogy. The problem is, the more we are educated as to how the vast majority of people actually learn, the "classic" interpretation is shown to be critically flawed.
Although Kevin Kline is indeed stellar in this film, and points are scored for the overarching post-9/11 discussion regarding virtue and its tempering of the blind seeking of ambition and power, the beat-me-over-the-head-with-the-symbolism-bat mentality of the movie and the flawed premise of the timeless beauty of a classical approach to instructional pedagogy kills the film (for me) on a critical basis, and becomes nothing more than manipulative dreck disguised as intellectual gold.
Contention One: You don't have to beat me with a bat. I get it. The senator (and then his son) who loves cigars, civil-war era guns, ordering his secretaries around, and generally abusing the power of his high office is bad because his is a naked, unadulterated ambition. He gets what he wants, but at what cost? This is repeated over and over and over again in the film. I get it. Say it once, show me the American flag fluttering at the end, and let's have a discussion about it. Drag it out, show me a disappointed child who has overheard a conversation in the bathroom, and mix in some classical references to the Greeks, Romans, and paths we should walk on, and I'm done with it.
The problem? Well, we simply can't ignore the fact that Julius Caesar (along with many of the other 'greats' mentioned so reverently in the film) acted mainly out of... yep... naked, unadulterated ambition. And people will say "Yes, but what about his great contributions?" Well, many evil, evil people (Hitler, for example) made contributions, too. The inspiration for America's interstate highway system (if you can even consider that a great contribution given the headaches it has caused) was inspired by the ruthless efficiency of Nazi Germany. This is just an example, but history is not so black and white - and even Socrates and Plato didn't have the market cornered on selfless sacrifice.
Contention Two: People don't learn the way Mr. H. teaches. 10% of the people might learn very well through rote memorization and drill-and-test style instructional pedagogy. This is the "classic" way of learning, right? Many of us learned to play this game. Unfortunately, what happens with the other 90% of society who aren't attending St. Benedict's? Part of us is forced to agree with young Mr. Bell when he says: "Who gives a s...?"
As someone who loves and reads about the classics (and reads voraciously on a number of subjects), I will state here and now that only a small fraction of the population can walk the path Mr. H. so steadfastly praises. I can teach about honesty, virtue, and right thinking and living without even touching Socrates, Plato, or the whole of Western Civilization for that matter. Confucius and Lao Tse might want to get in on the discussion, as well. So believe me that while I sympathize with the overarching message, I am horrified by the fact that we are encouraging people to watch this film and say: "Yes, that's how all children should be educated in America, by golly! We have to get back to the basics!"
All of our emerging knowledge of teaching and learning styles and pedagogically-sound instructional practices SCREAMS against the rows of desks, endless rote memorization, quiz- show style assessments, and class rankings that for the vast majority of the population NO LONGER HOLD A USEFUL PURPOSE.
On the surface, this is a calm, beautiful film that should inspire us to go back to the great works and read them. Underneath, however, are critical flaws that doom the enterprise and should make us shiver to the core of our being for being drawn into the charade in the first place.
Although Kevin Kline is indeed stellar in this film, and points are scored for the overarching post-9/11 discussion regarding virtue and its tempering of the blind seeking of ambition and power, the beat-me-over-the-head-with-the-symbolism-bat mentality of the movie and the flawed premise of the timeless beauty of a classical approach to instructional pedagogy kills the film (for me) on a critical basis, and becomes nothing more than manipulative dreck disguised as intellectual gold.
Contention One: You don't have to beat me with a bat. I get it. The senator (and then his son) who loves cigars, civil-war era guns, ordering his secretaries around, and generally abusing the power of his high office is bad because his is a naked, unadulterated ambition. He gets what he wants, but at what cost? This is repeated over and over and over again in the film. I get it. Say it once, show me the American flag fluttering at the end, and let's have a discussion about it. Drag it out, show me a disappointed child who has overheard a conversation in the bathroom, and mix in some classical references to the Greeks, Romans, and paths we should walk on, and I'm done with it.
The problem? Well, we simply can't ignore the fact that Julius Caesar (along with many of the other 'greats' mentioned so reverently in the film) acted mainly out of... yep... naked, unadulterated ambition. And people will say "Yes, but what about his great contributions?" Well, many evil, evil people (Hitler, for example) made contributions, too. The inspiration for America's interstate highway system (if you can even consider that a great contribution given the headaches it has caused) was inspired by the ruthless efficiency of Nazi Germany. This is just an example, but history is not so black and white - and even Socrates and Plato didn't have the market cornered on selfless sacrifice.
Contention Two: People don't learn the way Mr. H. teaches. 10% of the people might learn very well through rote memorization and drill-and-test style instructional pedagogy. This is the "classic" way of learning, right? Many of us learned to play this game. Unfortunately, what happens with the other 90% of society who aren't attending St. Benedict's? Part of us is forced to agree with young Mr. Bell when he says: "Who gives a s...?"
As someone who loves and reads about the classics (and reads voraciously on a number of subjects), I will state here and now that only a small fraction of the population can walk the path Mr. H. so steadfastly praises. I can teach about honesty, virtue, and right thinking and living without even touching Socrates, Plato, or the whole of Western Civilization for that matter. Confucius and Lao Tse might want to get in on the discussion, as well. So believe me that while I sympathize with the overarching message, I am horrified by the fact that we are encouraging people to watch this film and say: "Yes, that's how all children should be educated in America, by golly! We have to get back to the basics!"
All of our emerging knowledge of teaching and learning styles and pedagogically-sound instructional practices SCREAMS against the rows of desks, endless rote memorization, quiz- show style assessments, and class rankings that for the vast majority of the population NO LONGER HOLD A USEFUL PURPOSE.
On the surface, this is a calm, beautiful film that should inspire us to go back to the great works and read them. Underneath, however, are critical flaws that doom the enterprise and should make us shiver to the core of our being for being drawn into the charade in the first place.