I had written a Saturday Note for last week–or most of one, about censorship in regards to books and Roald Dahl with his estate’s new editions. But I don’t know if that’s necessary? I’m a bit fuzzy on what’s going on with it, because they announced the old versions will still be printed. I don’t know if that means the censored versions still are too? Also Ian Fleming’s estate ALSO announced censored editions, showing that some people really can’t read a room.
But it seems most audiences viewed this as bad, and I’m not sure if me writing a Note agreeing is really necessary. Really, the only thing I brought to the table was that a surprising number of publications were okay with this, comparing it to Dahl making his own changes to later editions (no that’s not the same thing at all), and Joanne Harris saying, “That’s not censorship, that’s business!” as if declaring that “It’s just capitalism!” really makes it all better.
I also had an idea about a Note talking about AI art and writing, but a lot of that has already been said, too.
So anyway I recently rewatched Black Panther: Wakanda Forever. And I have thoughts and feelings. I’ll try not to do major spoilers in this essay.
Black Panther & Leadership
So I recently rewatched Black Panther: Wakanda Forever. Have I mentioned lately that I really like the ideas that these stories explore? Heck, I have a lot of issues with Civil War but I absolutely love how T’Challa’s storyline goes in that movie. Just… brilliant, okay? There’s a lot said about vengeance, and doing the right thing, and tradition, and breaking free of cycles, UGH IT’S SO GOOD.
As is emphasized in the first film, there is the question about whether a good man can really be a good king, or more vaguely: can a good person be a good and efficient political leader? And the movie seems to suggest that yes, but it requires a lot of work, and perhaps breaking tradition. The traditions of Wakanda aren’t bad, at least not usually, but devotion to them without reason is.
Ultimately, T’Challa is a good leader in Black Panther because he’s not just putting his own people first, but he’s also taken it upon himself to enrich the world. He’s opening up Wakanda by putting up enrichment centers around the world to help build bridges. Wakanda absolutely could wreck the rest of the world, as Killmonger hopes to do, but T’Challa chose a different, more optimistic route.
The sequel also raises the question of what makes a good leader. There’s a scene in which Namor, after explaining his dramatic backstory, says something like, “Broken people make the best leaders,” which is absolutely not the kind of thing you want to hear from the guy sitting next to you. And we see the differences between Wakanda and Talokan–not just that one is AFrican and the other is Mesoamerican, or that their subtitles are different colors (I only noticed this on the rewatch), but their cultures have a completely different approach to international policy. And, duh, I get that’s part of the point but I feel like it feeds into the themes of letting one’s personal feelings getting in the way of governance.
Also Namor sux.
[To be clear, when I say “Namor sux,” I am not saying that he is badly written. I don’t think that at all. I just think he’s a guy who deserves a good smack across the face. The way I feel about him is because I think he’s well-fleshed-out as an antagonistic character.
I also really, really don’t get why there are people who ship Namor and Shuri.]
Namor’s entire schtick is that he wants to go to war with the surface world. As the near-ageless leader of Talokan, he has been working under the assumption that he will go to war with the surface because they’re going to come after their vibranium. And to be fair, the nations of the world do really want that vibranium, but because Namor’s assuming that war is inevitable, he makes some really bone-headed moves. He basically tells Wakanda that either they join him or he’ll destroy them, and then he actually attacks, which strikes me as his Pearl Harbor moment–picking a fight that he is by no means guaranteed to win.
The movie’s a bit more ambivalent about whether Wakanda could win that fight–I am of the impression that they could. In any case, picking on the most technologically advanced nation on Earth is not something you do lightly, but Namor does because he’s not actually a good leader. He can talk about protecting his people all he wants, but ultimately he doesn’t even consider any solution other than violence to get what he wants. And of course that violence begets more violence as he goes around wrecking things and people.
That’s terrible leadership, guys.
It feels a bit like “Peaceful Wakanda versus Warlike Talokan” but again, Wakanda could definitely do a lot of damage if they went all out in war. Talokan and its leader are dedicated almost entirely to war though–out of a desire for isolationism (the kind of thing the first movie explicitly calls out as bad).
Namor and Talokan, to me, represent a magnificent contrast to T’Challa and Wakanda, and their approaches to leading countries. To T’Challa, leading a country is about helping as many people as you can, even if it’s reaching to those outside your borders. For Namor, it’s about putting your people above everyone else–both in priorities and in might. He does care about his people, but not enough to think about any solutions that don’t involve violence–whether now or later.
Compare how happy he is to jump into it, versus how much T’Challa tried to avoid fighting Killmonger when he first showed up in Wakanda.
No comments:
Post a Comment