Filed under: Cinema, Entertainment, Environment, Imagination, Life, Movies, Posted by TA | Tags: character, Charles Darwin, Clint Eastwood, David Suzuki, Dirty Harry, Education, enforcement, personality
A few days ago I was zapping channels and managed to find the very first Dirty Harry in its last minutes on AMC. This was the very first one, from distant 1971. D. Harry is still my favourite Clint Eastwood movie and character by far. I’ll go on the reasons why later.
As Harry walked towards the “punk” character, this latter also bearing a gun and using a kid as a human shield and trapped between Harry’s big 357 and a lake, I immediately thought about what would David Suzuki (the Canadian PhD environmentalist) do in a situation like that? Talk the punk over and convince him to hand the kid? Maybe speak up the punk’s rights and try to be diplomatic? For a moment, I thought they were night and day different, but I was wrong.
I admire both characters, Dirty Harry and David Suzuki, but I’ve always been a big Harry fan. It’s not an “apples to apples” comparison, as Harry has only been a movie character, as opposed to a very real human being such as David Suzuki. However, Harry’s personality and particular ways of dealing with things are everything I’ve always wanted to be (with some extreme exceptions). Both roles represent two different and important ways of leading life. Both are packaged differently but completely match in concept in the end.
Harry is a ruthless, straightforward cop that doesn’t hesitate or ponder for a single second. Everything is black or white (hence my matching personality with him), there’s only one way out and in, and he doesn’t overcomplicate or compromise. Behind Harry’s tough psyche though, there’s the truest desire to serve a bigger cause. He doesn’t see any personal gain but to do his job to the script. Suzuki is all about the education, the understanding behind an idea and how sustainable it should be. Turning people into more educated, self-conscious citizens about the environment around them should be the best way to make them embrace the cause. Suzuki couldn’t care less about his own personal interest or even foundation affairs. He realizes there’s a bigger player behind the movement. Similarities don’t stop there. David Suzuki is in his 70s, and so is Dirty Harry. Each has a set of own special convincing weapons, but all are equally hard to say no to once you’ve seen them in action. Their personalities and accomplishments are respected and hated among friends, peers and colleagues around.
Can you imagine if we could unite Dirty Harry and David Suzuki for a good cause at least once in a lifetime? More and more I convince myself human beings must adapt every day. Charles Darwin concluded that more than 150 years ago, but society’s still debating it. One can’t be a Dirty Harry or a David Suzuki all the time. There has to be a balance between power and touch.
Next time I watch Dirty Harry or David Suzuki on TV, there will be no hesitation in saying that both men are alike. For the sake of mankind, we need more Harry’s and Suzuki’s working together to make this world a better place. Suzuki’s already doing his part. I might volunteer to be a real-life Dirty Harry.
Filed under: Fiction, Imagination, Movies, Musings, Posted by TA | Tags: 1940, 1950, A Dangerous Method, anima sana in corpore sano, Berlin, Billy Elliott, Black September, Bridesmaids, Carl Jung, CIA, Clint Eastwood, Daniel Craig, Denmark, Europe, fiction, films, Friends, George Lucas, Germany, Goodbye Lenin, Gran Torino, Israel, James Bond, Japan, Jason Bourne, Jedi, KGB, Leonard Nimoy, Leonidas, life, Master, Matt Damon, Michael Fassbender, Mission Impossible, Movies, Munich, reality, Ross Geller, Saving Private Ryan, Sparta, Spock, Star Trek, Star Wars, Sweden, Switzerland, Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, UK, United Kingdom, What to do in case of fire, Yoda
… who would I be? Where would I live? What would I do? Thinking about a different life is a fun exercise. Instead of looking at movie stars’ personal lives, I’d much rather concentrate my thoughts on the characters they play. Let’s get started. And remember “all characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.”
Personality: This would be a very wild mix between Daniel Craig’s James Bond, Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne, Gerard Butler’s King Leonidas, Leonard Nimoy’s Spock in Star Trek, David Schwimmer’s Ross Geller in Friends (forgive the TV reference here) and Star Wars’ Jedi Master Yoda. How do they connect? Well, I’ve always been fond of characters involved in mystery and internal emotional turmoil. It also would be great if my personality allowed me to talk as little as possible and be a master in everything a human being can possibly do (like the tricks Bourne and Bond operate). But being Bond or Bourne, reporting to other people and receiving orders without questioning are not exactly a picture perfect scenario for me. I’d like to be in a commanding position like the fearless Spartan leader. He was respected, a great decision make who knew exactly what he wanted to die for. And people would follow him. The capacity to lead and be heard is what I like about Yoda. He’s a Master who solves everything with a sentence, usually in reverse order, but he’s also a fighter. Perfect combination of anima sana in corpore sano (or “healthy mind in a healthy body” if you’re not familiar with the expression). He also personifies that wisdom and knowledge come with time and a lot of effort. He didn’t achieve that rank by chance or accident. In fact, George Lucas should go back in time and tell Yoda’s story in a whole new trilogy. Similar to Yoda is Spock. He is the master of wisdom, shaped to be the most knowledgeable being out there. But most of all, what attracts me to Spock is his ability to control feelings and show no expression. He goes way beyond the poker face term. Even better, his entire Vulcan culture is based on science and knowledge, and not passion and emotion. Wouldn’t that be great? From Ross Geller I only wanted his PhD title. From all the traits and tasks above mentioned, that might actually be the easiest one to achieve during my lifetime.
Origins: Personality explained and based on my own self-knowledge journeys, I’m sure I would have been born in Germany or Japan. If I had to tell a story about my origins, this is what it would be: my father was a Swiss university professor (like Michael Fassbender’s Carl Jung in A Dangerous Method) living in Munich at the time of the Black September attack against the Israeli delegation. He’s so disgusted about the act that he decides to “defect” and move to East Berlin, where he meets my mother, an anarchist disguised as a KGB agent operating in the DDR. They meet, nine months later I come to this world only to realize that my father turned to the dark side of the force and got arrested by the CIA. He’s never seen again. My mother decides to cool her jets and change her way of life, but KGB doesn’t accept it, so she runs away to Canada and raise me in Halifax.
Time: If my life was a movie, growing up in the 1940’s or 1950’s would be my ideal scenario.
Place: I would definitely live somewhere in Europe, definitely, but with lots of traveling involved. Anywhere in Germany (Berlin, like the characters from Goodbye, Lenin or What to do in case of Fire), Denmark, Sweden or northern England like Billy Elliott.
Occupation: a spy like Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible, a soldier who dies for his country like Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan, a grumpy veteran like Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino or any other sort of really critical occupation like Meghan in Bridesmaids (she takes care of the nuke codes).
I better get back to reality now…
Angel and Tiggs 