Let's start off some things I've seen in the last couple of days.
We saw Christopher Hitchens speak recently at the 6th and I Synagogue here in DC, and while he's seemed like a pretty unhealthy guy for a while now, he seemed almost incomprehensible (we also had bad seats). It's not very surprising that he was recently diagnosed with cancer of the esophagus - he has long prided himself on living a Bohemian lifestyle, including a lot of sex, drugs, alcohol and tobacco. All of this makes his diagnosis no less devastating. My own father's recent death from cancer gives me a clearer understanding of what what Hitchens describes as the journey from "the country of the well across the stark frontier that marks off the land of malady".
It is a touching interview. Rose obviously has an affection for his subject, and Hitchens loves the chance to pontificate. His apparent modesty shields what must be a massive ego. He prizes the alcohol and cigarette-fueled late-night conversations with his fellow literary friends. It is a bit nostalgic to think of a time when the reduction of inhibition and loosening of tongues brought on by controlled substances was seen as a good thing. The price must be paid for this kind of euphoria.
I disagree with Hitchens' outright dismissal of religion - it is full of lies, but so is literature. His views on war and foreign policy are also a little reductive - the U.S. should take out malevolent dictators whenever possible, and therefore the 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified. This begs the question - what about North Korea, or Iran, or Zimbabwe? What other factors must be in play - our economic interests? Or is our shifting sense of morality paramount?
Hitchens represents a role that is dying, literally and figuratively, in our culture - the public intellectual. One gets the feeling that impassioned conversations about the big questions are not being had as frequently as they were decades ago, and if they are, they rely more on entrenched positions - "I am a liberal and therefore anti-war" - then any understanding of culture history.
Shortbus is a film by David Cameron Mitchell, director of Hedwig and the Angry Inch.
The graphic nature of the sex in this movie is pretty shocking at first, but it's interesting how mundane it becomes by the end. Nevertheless, this movie great example of how the metatext is often much more important than the actual text or subtext. The storylines are banal and not really worth the amount of visual window dressing Mitchell adds to them - do we really care if the sex therapist can finally achieve an orgasm? Or if "The Jamies" can make their relationship work? Not really. But the film is more about how sexuality, while pervasive in our culture, is actually little more than a complication in our lives. We are not meant to care about people's hangups - instead we are meant to see how our focus on our own sexuality really distorts our worldview.
Hitchens says in "Topic of Cancer" that Eros is the first casualty in the fight with Thanatos. When our lives are ending, temporary pleasures like sex fall away - what matters more is watching our children grow up, or seeing villains (Henry Kissinger and Joseph Ratzinger) receive their just desserts. Freud would disagree with all of the above - his idea is that sexuality informs everything from our familial relations to the way society is structured. Even so, the way that we understand this influence is treacherous terrain. When we are aware of our subconscious, it becomes conscious thought. By dredging our sexuality into the light of day, we consciously prioritize it in a way that is unnatural and egotistical. Let it be.
