Megalopolis: Civilization vs Culture
I saw Megalopolis, the new Francis Ford Coppola movie, that he spent a millions of dollars of his own money on, that is being called the worst movie of all time by some critics and moviegoers. Lots of “discourse” around it, and it’s all annoying, of course. Nobody ever likes discourse, but it always keeps happening.
Is Megalopolis “good”? I guess? What does “good” even mean anymore? What was the last “good” movie? I can’t remember. But who cares if a movie is “good”? There have been plenty of “good” movies, that follow certain scripts, and are produced very well—enjoyable Hollywood products. You’re supposed to take a certain mentality into seeing a “movie,” and expect a certain experience in return, so that you are entertained in a certain specific way, that you have grown accustomed to (or have been told to expect in movies anyway).
What matters most about a movie isn’t whether it’s “good” in some way (whatever that means), but whether it has something to say.
Does Megalopolis have something to say? Kind of. But it’s also a lot of just expensive, visual schlock, which I think is fine.
So what did it have to say? One of the main themes is a kind of critique of civilization. A few philosophers get referenced directly in the film, but mostly Ralph Waldo Emerson and Marcus Aurelius.
Emerson critiques civilization along the same lines as Nietzsche1, that culture is ultimately what is most important, not civilization itself. Indeed, civilization and culture often exist at odds with each other—as civilization progresses, culture seems to have a harder time in the world. This is one of the main throughlines of Nietzsche’s thought—his first book, The Birth of Tragedy, was all about this. His later philosophy, in part, worked out the implications of civilization destroying culture, seeing it reaching a breaking point in the late 19th century.2
Civilization vs culture. There are lots of cries for “civilization” today—that we’ve become uncivilized, etc. Megalopolis takes the Emersonian position that civilization often stifles culture—and that culture should give rise to civilization, not the other way around.
Everything about the movie (and its place in the annoying discourse) is that.
Nietzsche’s reaction to a book of Emerson’s essays: “I have never felt so much at home in a book, so much in my own house as — I ought not to praise it; it is too close to me.”
Domenico Losurdo’s book on Nietzsche, which I wrote about extensively, interprets the Birth of Tragedy as being, in part, a commentary on the Franco-Prussian War, which was going on around the time that Nietzsche’s highly anticipated first book, In his book, Nietzsche stresses the great spiritual-cultural conflict between Dionysus and Apollo—with France representing Apollonian, and Germany the Dionysian elements. Nietzsche was always on the side of Dionysus.
I thought this was a review for the film Metropolis (1927), which I've not seen, but the synopsis is intriguing enough for me to want to see it.
A good discussion would be about exactly what culture is and what it is not. For example, Trump has threatened that if he’s not elected, then Americans won’t have a country anymore. Such a statement is the height of arrogance. It appears that he simply conflates country with culture, which Nietzsche strove hard to avoid. Most of Nietzsche’s fiercest criticisms are aimed at the Germans for conflating nationalism with a culture.
But what exactly is a “glorious” culture worthy of the “Superman?” I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm not entirely sure.
Thanks to immigrants, I love America because of its mix of various cultures. Baseball nerds know that Chris Von de Ahe, the owner of the St. Louis Browns at the time, came from German roots and incorporated frankfurters into baseball games, which became our beloved hotdogs.
Jewish people love Chinese food, and this part of Chinese culture assimilated into Jewish lives around the 19th century on New York’s Lower East Side, where Jewish and Chinese neighbourhoods overlapped. The Chinese don't celebrate Christmas unless they're Christians, so it was and still is a convenient way to find a restaurant open on Christmas day.
The list could go on and on for different ethnic groups. And the point is that we’re made so much richer because of the influence of other cultures.
A great culture understands its roots and desires to spread.
Nietzsche’s views on culture are complicated because he is an aristocratic radicalist. Such a vision is very easy to associate with Trump because of Trump’s “aristocratic” attitude towards immigrants. He isn't a real “aristocrat” but a populist posing as one. Having a lot of wealth doesn't make one an aristocrat. Trump’s contempt for people is an attitude Nietzche cultivated and mastered with a literary style far beyond Trump’s kindergarten monosyllabic vocabulary.
If Trump could even begin to critically evaluate his philosophy to the point where people on both sides actually want him to lead and rule, he would be something like a “Superman.”
How can we elevate contempt to an art form? The closest I've seen are the monuments in Moscow from Soviet times. In Soviet times, people of religious conviction were held in contempt, as were capitalists. But look at Russia now: another pitiful player on the stage crying out contempt for the West but no longer has the power to turn that contempt into an art form.
I think Nietzsche’s radicalism is bonkers, even if, in a way, he’s correct about the correlation between suffering and greatness.
Nowadays Macron pretends that France is his Jupiterian domain, while Germany is just stupidly narcissistic.