The Tattoo was finally back, after being cancelled the last two years due to COVID; we went on Monday night. Here's a few pictures from the excellent production: Tribute for the Queen's Jubilee: Soldier's race: Tribute to the Beatles... the kids choir singing Yellow Submarine was really cute, and the audience participation performance of Hey, Jude was all kinds of fun. The bands massing for the finale:
Comments
Before I get into the Pledge of Allegiance part of the story, I forgot to mention in Part II of this review one more way in which the new authorities seek to undermine families. The teacher- presenting this as a treat, of course- tells the children that they will now be sleeping at the school... won't that be fun. The children are excited, thinking that this is a one time sleepover. Of course, it is no such thing; the children will now be living at the school (made obvious when the teacher says they'll be allowed to stay up late since it's their first day) the better to be indoctrinated with the beliefs of the state, and separated from their families who might instill dangerous ideas such as your family being more important than the government. And this brings us to the Pledge of Allegiance. When the teacher tells the kids that it's time to recite the Pledge, they begin but she immediately interrupts them to ask them if they understand it which, of course, they don't. This is, as mentioned in an earlier post, what inspired James Clavell to write this story. In one way, the teacher is right: the children should understand what they are pledging to. Of course, her aim is not to educate and inform, but to undermine the children's beliefs and limited understanding of the world and replace them with state-approved opinions. This is what is behind her urging the children to deface the flag by cutting it up. Think about how we treat our flags: there are rules for flying them, and folding them. We drape them reverently over the coffins of our war dead. In other words, they exist as something beyond a piece of fabric... they are a symbol, a physical representation their country. So when Teacher suggests to the children that they should cut up the flag so that they can each have a piece of it, she's denigrating its importance as a symbol, reducing it to just a piece of fabric, a cheap souvenir to be casually taken down, divided and handed out. And, as they lose respect for the symbol of their country, so too does their respect for the country itself become diminished. Again, the teacher presents this as a treat, handing the scissors to one little girl and telling her that she can make the first cut because it's her birthday. She then gets all the children involved, who clamour, laughing and excited, to help cut up the flag and then throw the flagpole out the window. The scene is a little mob-like; it's always easier for people to participate in a transgressive act- which they would never do on their own, of their own initiative- as part of a larger group, egged on by an authority figure. Johnny is the only hold out, saying uneasily that he doesn't think it's right to cut up the flag. He has an inkling that there's something wrong about this even if he can't articulate why. It's also obvious that it's uncomfortable for him to alone refuse to participate: he sits alone and isolated at his desk while all of the other students gather around Teacher, laughing and happy. Having made the children question their reliance on their parents and patriotism made a punchline, Teacher moves on to denigrating religious faith. While discussing what they will do while staying at the school overnight, one child asks if they'll be saying their prayers. The teacher says that's a good idea, and maybe they should say one now; she suggests that they pray for candy which of course sounds like a good idea to kids. She leads them in a prayer for candy, then pretends to be surprised when none suddenly appears. She says that maybe they didn't do it right, or maybe they're calling God by the wrong name... she suggests that they try again, this time praying to "Our Leader". She instructs them to keep praying with their eyes closed until she tells them to open them, then quietly pulls candy out of a bag and places it on her desk. The children are amazed that candy has materialized, apparently as a result of their prayer, and Teacher continues to mislead them, saying that "Our Leader" has answered their prayers. It's obvious that she's building up to dismissing God and portraying the leader of the regime as the purveyor of all good things. This is derailed by Johnny, who peeked during the prayer and saw Teacher unpacking the candy. But, of course, caught in a lie, Teacher doesn't apologise and tell the truth: instead, she pivots to a more believable lie. She says that yes, she put the candy there- to show them that prayer does nothing, whether it's to God or to Our Leader. The only way to get something, she says, is to have it given to you by another human being- like her. She knows that the children are credulous and not critical thinkers, so they don't notice the obvious here: she was perfectly fine with them believing that prayer worked, as long as she could hoodwink them into thinking they were praying to Dear Leader. Also, as in the case of the Pledge of Allegiance, she counts on the children not having been educated on their faith; anyone with more than a nodding acquaintance with the Bible would point out that nowhere is it suggested that God is like Santa Claus, handing out treats to good little boys and girls upon request. But Teacher appeals to the children's love of treats and their self-interest, banking on this keeping them from questioning her assertion that God is only real if He does what they want. In addition, she's setting them up to believe that only the State can provide for their needs, telling them they can only get something if it is given to them by someone in authority over them. She doesn't say that they can do some odd jobs or chores, earn some money, and buy themselves some candy- no, it can only be showered on them from above, by their benevolent leaders. She also manages another attack on the family here, telling the children that they can continue to pretend to pray when with their parents, but that they'll know that it is false and this "will be our secret". This of course appeals to the children, who love the idea of having a secret, and flatters their egos as Teacher implies that they are the smart, knowledgeable ones, while their families are ignorant, superstitious rubes. It's also notable that the teacher is canny enough not to punish Johnny for disobeying her and exposing her lie. Instead, she rewards him by praising him for being so observant, gives him some candy, and tells him that she's going to make him class monitor. Before you know it Johnny, who has been the questioning, hostile one, has come around and is guarding against having wrong thoughts: "Not like Dad." There's nothing like flattery, reward, and a bit of power over others to win someone who's wavering over to one's side. Within half an hour, the children have been brought about to question their faith, family, and country, and The Children's Story ends with Teacher ominously- and approvingly- contemplating a world where everyone is taught exactly the same State-regulated things, and dissenters are carted off for "re-education". In my final post on this short story, I'll wrap this up with a discussion of how I think James Clavell's work can be applied to Western society today. Related Posts:"The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts--a child--as a competitor, an intrusion and an inconvenience.. ." -Mother Teresa "Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and caldron bubble." I forget exactly how the topic came up, but I was recently discussing the Weird Sisters (the three witches) in Macbeth with my fourteen year old nephew while in the car... as one does, since homeschoolers start in on Shakespeare a lot earlier than their public school counterparts. His younger brothers, taking their lessons in the same room, have picked up on several key points in the story and, being boys, have of course modified the words for their own amusement. So, as we were speaking of the witches' prophesy, the voice of my eight year old nephew arose from the backseat in sepulchral tones (accompanied by the five year old's snickering): "Bubble, bubble, toilet trouble..." They're probably not the first youngsters to come up with that, but it just goes to show you how little boys think. And, I admit, I laughed. Related Posts:We had a major family party on Sunday afternoon, celebrating Fathers Day, my niece's fourth birthday which was Saturday, and my sister's birthday, which was Sunday as well. I sewed a necktie as a gift for my Dad, using some Maple Leaf tartan I had picked up last week. Just as an FYI, the Maple Leaf tartan is a fairly recent one, designed in 1964 to complement the release of the new Canadian flag- the Maple Leaf. My sister got the fanny pack I had sewed a while ago, and I bought her a copy of one of my favourite stand alone PG Wodehouse novels- A Damsel In Distress. She's also a Wodehouse fan but hasn't read this particular book before, so was excited to get started on it. My niece got the bunny that I'd sewed around Easter, a puzzle, hair bow, and some stickers. She's a fiend for stickers. By request, I had also made a Batman necktie and bowtie for someone; I had never sewed a bowtie before, but it was really easy. I had to watch a YouTube video on how to tie it though, which, as it turned out, wasn't too difficult either. I was less successful in tying the necktie... I first tried a Windsor knot but after failing miserably in several attempts, I switched to a four-in-hand knot. I was more successful with that one, though it was still a little uneven. Oh well, what can I say? I probably would have been a lousy boy scout. On Saturday night, I watched the 1973 movie Paper Moon, which stars father and daughter duo Ryan and Tatum O'Neal. It had been recommended to me as a good Fathers Day film, though I wouldn't call Ryan O'Neal's character- Moses Pray- any kind of an ideal model of fatherhood: he's more of a negative example. The movie is based on the 1971 novel by Joe David Brown Addie Pray, which is the name of Tatum O'Neal's character. Tatum is amazing in the role of Addie despite the fact that she was only nine years old at the time and this was her first acting role. Actually, she ended up winning a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her performance, making her the youngest person- at ten- to win a competitive Academy Award. I'm currently working on a review of the film which will be forthcoming. Related Posts:“How lavishly are the flowers scattered over the face of the earth! One of the most perfect and delightful works of the Creation, there is yet no other form of beauty so very common. Abounding in different climates, upon varying soils -not a few here to cheer the sad, a few there to reward the good but countless in their throngs, infinite in their variety, the gift of measureless beneficence wherever man may live, there grow the flowers.” ― Susan Fenimore Cooper Related Posts: When the new teacher arrives in The Children's Story, the first thing that happens is that their old teacher is relieved of her position and told to report to the new principal. Obviously terrified, she does so and we never see her again. When the children question this, Teacher tells them that their former teacher is old, and now needs to rest. So often oppressive measures are presented by their enforcers as being benevolent and kind, "helping" their reluctant subjects, who are just not enlightened enough to know what's good for them. This goes hand in hand with the song Teacher sings, about the world being united as one. This sounds all warm and fuzzy, until you realise that what they mean is everyone will be united under their rules, and will espouse their values, or else. It's uniformity of thought and action enforced down the barrel of a gun- or threat of job loss and social ruin, as the case may be. The teacher says, "We believe that teachers should be young," so this is how it is, irrespective of what their former teacher- or the students- want. And if the former teacher protested, her "rest" could very well take on a more sinister meaning. Straight out of Bertrand Russell's playbook, the teacher starts to mould the children into thinking collectively: "We believe..." and, when asked who won the war, "You and I and everyone- We all won." Those who don't accept the new order are engaging in "wrong" thoughts... they must be fixed. There's no room for dissent here, either physical or philosophical. We also learn that the children- like the teachers- will all be issued uniforms, underlining the conformity of thought with conformity of dress. Most kids, wanting to fit in with their peers, will be hesitant to speak or act in a way which will make them stand out and appear to be backwards and ignorant. The new teacher employs a method in undermining the children's former teaching which is as old as time itself, used by the serpent in the Garden of Eden- "And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?... Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Teacher doesn't directly attack the children's beliefs or former teachings; rather, she asks sly questions designed to sow seeds of doubt in their minds about these things. When the children marvel at her knowing all their names, she tells them she studied up on all of them: A good teacher should know all of her students' names, shouldn't she? This makes them remember how their old teacher would sometimes get confused and mix up their names... if she was a teacher who truly cared, she wouldn't have forgotten any names, would she? Teacher plants the thought in the kids heads that she cares more about them than their former instructor. Likewise, when Johnny- whose father has been imprisoned by the conquering power- angrily says that his father couldn't have wrong thoughts, the teacher doesn't attack him directly, instead stressing that Johnny's father had "wrong" thoughts, not "bad" ones. Johnny's father isn't evil, she implies, just misguided, with "old fashioned" ideas. Not like the new regime's progressive ones. She then slips in another question carefully designed to denigrate the children's parents by stealth: she asks Johnny if he remembers times when he asked his father something, and was told that he was too busy, or it would have to wait until later: "That's a bad thought, not to give you time when it's important, isn't it?" This question has a twofold purpose: one is to imply that she, their teacher, cares more about them than their parents because she listens to them and doesn't put them off or act like their questions aren't important. It's vital for the State, if it wants to gain control of young minds, to alienate them from their families, make them feel like the government is their true caring and benevolent parent. The second purpose is to redefine the very meaning of words- a "bad thought" is not giving a child the time and attention they want, when they want it. This panders to a child's innate selfishness, as they often view the world as revolving around their concerns, and also implies that they are the victims of bad parenting, encouraging them to feel aggrieved and resentful about being put off. Another question which the teacher asks pertains to the Pledge of Allegiance which, as we know, is what inspired Clavell to write The Children's Story in the first place. As with her other questions, this one is designed to undermine the children's beliefs in some way- in this case, their sense of pride in their country. I'll go into this in Part III of this review. Related Posts:"There is a part of childhood that is childish, and a part that is sacred. Suddenly we are touching the sacred part -- running to the shoreline, feeling the first cold burst of water on our ankles, reaching into the tide to catch at shells before they ebb away from our fingers. We have returned to a world that is capable of glistening, and we are wading deeper within it." -David Levithan
|
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
May 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |