Popular Posts

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Review: THE RELUCTANT FUNDAMENTALIST - Reading Through Baudrillard

A Fine Movie

Production Credits

Company Information

  • IFC Films - Domestic Theatrical Distributor
  • IFC Films - Domestic Distribution Rights
  • K5 Media Group - Worldwide Distribution Sales

For a review and comments more traditional please go to the New York Times Link then come back for a post modern reading of it through Baudrillard.

Jean Baudrillard's thinking clarifies this movie. He writes of The Order of Production and the Symbolic Order of the Sacred. We see Changez alternating between the two orders.

To simplify this thinking there is a scene when Erica invites Changez to the opening of her art show. The art is similar to the art below: 




Erica's words in light are about Changez, their relationship, her love for him. Art is in the Order of Seduction, the Sacred. But modern contemporary art has become something different. It has become a production standing firm in the Order of Production. So Erica has "produced" art about something sacred to Changez, his love for her. He is furious that she has commercialized their love. She cannot even understand what she has done in terms of his world. He rages at her, she weeps bitterly that he doesn't understand the "gift" she has made of turning their love into art. He cannot believe she would do such a thing as to cheapen it. 

Two worlds, two different ways of perceiving. The difference between the "US as a business" (Killing Them Softly quote) and the Eastern world of the sacred separate from the secular. Changez has accepted the American dream because colonized countries have been permeated with the American Dream and have no dream of their own. This is what he is beginning to understand. 

And this understanding converts him from a genius financier to a revolutionary Islamist, a non-violent one as he returns to Pakistan to teach at the University and influence younger students in a different world from the American secular success story. One not ready made, but one that must be created, imagined and forged in Pakistan. One that is not completely secular. One that holds sacred values important. 

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Review: THE GREAT GATSBY - So Excessive It Is OBSCENE

All Gatsby did, he did for love of Daisy
 It was built by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his third wife,Mumtaz Mahal
THE TAJ MAHAL
Two men ruled by obsessive love of a woman

All just for Daisy
Alan Smithee's tweets from Cannes on Gatsby
Recent first:
God help you if you use narration in your work my friends! God Help You! - Robert Mckee in Adaptation

But this isn't his fault. This is the price that an actor has to pay if he is degraded to a marionette of/for an narrator.

from 'nice moment' to 'nice moment' because the characters have nothing more to offer except their appearance. --- That, however

As Walter Benjamin quotes Pirandello in his well known essay Art In The Age Of Mechanical Reproduction: The actor used as prop, the face used as pornographic prop as Baudrillard argues.

But that can't disguise the fact that we need more to fill a film with emotion and content. From the very beginning we got butt kicked...

Leonardo DiCaprio is brilliant. No question. His detached acting in pink linen is exceptional and worth watching the film.

Hollywood is no longer capable of to draw on over 100 years of film dramaturgy in order to tell a story with the easiest, most formal means.

that today's recipient's aren't capable any more to get the clue if he had used the original music --- and keeps us all for complete idiots!

smoking factory and the black men shoveling the dirt of New York, degenerate into pure maculature.

'The Great Gatsby' is an impressive movie but it miss the subtlety of the literary text.

Unfortunately, the bombast of knitting technology destroys the intimacy and prevents it really crackles between the actors.

pounding hip-hop beats. The Idea is: Kick the recipient by force into the Roaring Twenties of Jazz and Green Screen atmospheric set ups.

The story threatens to be buried, especially in the first half of the film under the gadgetry, fast cuts, tracking shots,

You are sucked in like in a black hole and your common sense experiences Spaghettification.

Steven Soderbergh mentioned (mutatis mutandis) he his tired of Hollywood's Mega-Budget-Madness. He will do TV and Twitter Novellas!

schizophrenic camera that buries Fitzgerald's fragile prose under thick layers of equipment, Haute Couture

The first half hour of ‘The Great Gatsby’ is a overproduced, to fancy to be authentic extravaganza nightmare of ecstasy of a detached,

self-promotion. Cannes knows how to party. As Fitzgerald said, A ‘magnificent mirage’. Fitzgerald wrote his novel years before the stock

Besides the cast of ‘The Great Gatsby’ I saw also audience and people on the streets dressed up in ‘Roaring Twenties’ style in shameless

Interestingly enough, the Grand Opening of the Festival with ‘The Great Gatsby’ was more or less a reflection of the film itself.

And in this last comment we have it. The excessive frenzy, particularly of the opening sequences is even more excessive than the excessiveness it is presenting. So excessive it is, as Herzog, Nietzsche and Baudrilard would argue, OBSCENE. And mirrored by the excessiveness of Cannes.

Gatsby is a film composed of floating signs circulating referring only to other signs. A simulation empty of meaning, only speculation is possible.A simulation of the Roaring Twenties, which were themselves a simulation. A film that is a simulation of a simulation, a SIMULACRUM with its own uncanny meaning.

Darren Mooney's Review HERE: At them0vieblog.com

Thursday, May 16, 2013

THE HOST REVIEW: Reading Through the Paintings of Mark Tansey


OK I'll try Albert


Bob7 commenting on a review of The Host HERE:  http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/review-andrew-niccol-hammers-another-nail-in-his-own-careers-coffin-with-witless-the-host



Maybe Niccols hates systems. Truman Show deplores reality TV. I haven't seen his other movies, but maybe he's protesting bad cultural and political behemoths. Maybe's he's warning society what will happen if these systems rule our lives and thought, just like Truman Show way before reality TV became prevalent, explored its popularity and its effects. Just saying.
March 28, 2013 at 7:29PM EST Reply to Comment

THE HOST is more and more disturbing the more you think about it. Every scene is framed as a cliche. The screenplay presumably approved by Meyer is composed of ready-mades. There is not one original sentence in it. Each gesture is preprogrammed.The editing is unsurprising, the plot the same.

Mel - a - nee/ Steph - a - nee  Do you believe this Lacanian reading?

What is surprising is that there is nothing surprising in the entire movie, except the ubiquity of cliches as "floating signs", but I can't figure out why they are there.  The seduction between Melanie and Jared is produced, which means there is no perception of seduction. The same is true of Wanderer - Wanda - with  Ian. Both have a playing/kissing scene in the rain. There is a dance scene outside with Melanie and Jared jitterbugging. Wanda in the caves takes a bath and she raises her hands in a sensuous move, or it is supposed to be sensuous. Are you getting the boredom just reading this. Stephenie Meyer's standard GAZE with strange contact lenses, the incest between species, is all predictable from Twilight. 

The music is syrupy romantic 1950's slow dance music. Telling us how romantic the scene is to be experienced. You listen in astonishment not quite able to believe you are hearing this.

Who was responsible for this?

A diversion into Baudrillard:

The Simulacrum According to Deleuze and Guattari



From Copyright no.1, 1987, pp. 90-97.
There is a seductive image of contemporary culture circulating today. Our
world, Jean Baudrillard tells us, has been launched into hyperspace in a kind of
postmodern apocalypse. The airless atmosphere has asphyxiated the referent,
leaving us satellites in aimless orbit around an empty center. We breathe an
ether of floating images that no longer bear a relation to any reality
whatsoever.

1 That, according to Baudrillard, is simulation: the substitution of
signs of the real for the real.

2 In hyperreality, signs no longer represent or refer
to an external model. They stand for nothing but themselves, and refer only to
other signs. 

(As Vija Kinski says to Eric Packer in Cosmopolis, "Money is talking only to itself.") Meaning "money" is only sign now.


So what is going on?

Niccol wrote The Truman Show coming out of the gate long ago. Here's Zizek on The Truman Show:


The ultimate American paranoiac fantasy is that of an individual living in a small idyllic Californian city, a consumerist paradise, who suddenly starts to suspect that the world he lives in is a fake, a spectacle staged to convince him that he lives in a real world, while all people around him are effectively actors and extras in a gigantic show. The most recent example of this is Peter Weir’s The Truman Show (1998), with Jim Carrey playing the small town clerk who gradually discovers the truth that he is the hero of a 24-hours permanent TV show: his hometown is constructed on a gigantic studio set, with cameras following him permanently. Among its predecessors, it is worth mentioning Philip Dick’s Time Out of Joint (1959), in which a hero living a modest daily life in a small idyllic Californian city of the late 50s, gradually discovers that the whole town is a fake staged to keep him satisfied... The underlying experience of Time Out of Joint and of The Truman Show is that the late capitalist consumerist Californian paradise is, in its very hyper-reality, in a way IRREAL, substanceless, deprived of the material inertia.

So it is not only that Hollywood stages a semblance of real life deprived of the weight and inertia of materiality — in the late capitalist consumerist society, “real social life” itself somehow acquires the features of a staged fake, with our neighbors behaving in “real” life as stage actors and extras... Again, the ultimate truth of the capitalist utilitarian de-spiritualized universe is the de-materialization of the “real life” itself, its reversal into a spectral show.




The Aliens have inhabited the bodies of the humans and taken over the planet Earth to save it and us from ourselves. Everything is peaceful and utterly boring, emotionless and cold. It is Simulated Reality. When we go to the caves where the humans are hiding out it is about the same. The young stud types are competitive, the older woman (Francis Fischer) hostile to Wanda and her difference, Uncle Jeb (William Hurt) is predictably protective of her, her little brother Jamie is a typical rather stupid child. The dialogue as boring as in the Simulated sci fi city, the CGI all hard edges and clean, sparkling bright in the city and curved and darkly mysterious in the caves.

(You can read my first reaction to this film that is like everyone else's HERE )

And then it begins to be clear just what Niccol is up to. The humans in the caves are also in Simulated Reality. There is no real. We are in the Matrix. Only the Desert is real so we are reminded of Morpheus's welcome to Keanu, "Welcome to the desert of the real!" Niccol is revealing Simulated Reality to us, our own and our reality to come - all of it simulated.

Every actor is behaving as stage actors and extras.

And then I get it, but only because I heard a presentation on Mark Tansey's work a month ago and was intrigued enough to pursue his paintings further. 
Derrida Queries de Man

MARK TANSEY BY JUDI FREEMAN

What does it mean to make pictures about pictures in 1993? ...When Mark Tansey elected to make pictures about pictures, his was a strategy of confronting the predilection of critics of the late 1970's for minimalism and other forms of abstractions. - Judi Freeman

And BTW reproductions of Tansey's paintings are impossible. Detail is blurred and frustrating. Tansey himself has refused reproductions to become available for authors. It is obvious that he is saying we must see the originals if we want to see them at all.
Which is exactly in line with what his art is saying. He is confronting us with the simulacra that is engulfing us today. When Pap pics of Rob Pattinson walking like a Muybridge motion study and a fan phone camera shot is far more treasured than a gaze at a loved celebrity.

I saw this in Venice in 1972 as I watched the Japanese tourists so busy photographing the city that they never looked at it. Never saw it. I laughed at them. What astonished me then is mainstream today all over.

Andrew Niccol has made a film about films.

Niccol has done with film what Tansey has done with painting.
Niccol has made a film composed entirely of cliches. No fancy costumes to entice us, No cleavage, no faux passion we could mistake for real, music to tell us how to feel that doesn't at all, no real plot twists to surprise us, no face porn to squeeze emotions out of us, no exploitation of the audience to mask the emptiness of mass filmmaking, of film as "empty sign."
ZIZEK
STILL LIFE - MARK TANSEY
Now what can we say about Meyer?

We know she has said in an interiew that she preferred Jacob to Edward. She wants Bella to remain human because if Bella changes, she enters Simulated Reality. 

Is Meyer in on this game strategy? I really can't say, as it is ambiguous to me. Does she or doesn't she know what Niccol did?

Saturday, May 11, 2013

THE HOST: A Terrible Review of One Trick Pony Stephenie Meyer

Director:Andrew NiccolWriter:Andrew NiccolActors:Saoirse Ronan
Diane Kruger
Max Irons
William Hurt
Bokeem Woodbine
Producers:Stephenie Meyer
Nick Wechsler
Composer:
Antonio Pinto


Stephenie Meyer is never going to eat lunch in this town again.

 Be grateful that she only got the clout to ruin Breaking Dawn I and II and had no input to speak of in Twilight, New Moon or Eclipse.  Breaking Dawn I, II made huge amounts of money and now we know Meyer had nothing to do with it. 

And Pattinson and Stewart had everything to do with the success of the franchise.

The Host has an excellent cast and that's it. Even excellent sounds dumb with these lines.

How Andrew Niccol could do the screenplay for The Truman Show and the screenplay for The Host will forever remain a mystery. His direction is awful also. 

Every visual cliche is in it over and over and over and over again and again and again. You feel as if you are watching one of those terrible movies from the 1950's.

The musical score is awful. The syrup flows with each passionate kiss without any passion. 
I cannot pan this movie enough. I even groaned aloud while watching it in all the right places.

It pulled in about 6 to 7 million above production costs. How it even did that I'll never know. Maybe because the Twilight audience came hoping against hope for another Edward. They definitely didn't get him.

________________________________________



I am quite sure now that this is what I have done with The Host. I have been programmed to perceive it as I have written about it above just like all the other reviewers. I shall be re-reviewing it reading it through the paintings of Mark Tansey. CLICK HERE

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Review: The IMPOSSIBLE As DISASTER PORNO


Scummit now a production company of Lionsgate has dispensed with their mountain logo for a more classical look,but their schtick is still the same. 

This movie is DISASTER PORNO
OBSCENE
Every microgram of melodrama, just plain drama, every cliche, every little tidbit of sentimentality in word, gesture or image has been plastered on the screen to manipulate your emotions and wring your feelings and penetrate your guts.

I hated myself for every tear welling in my eyes when I knew how they were playing me for that and still succeeded.


The very worst ones are when the wonderful Naomi Watts is battered almost beyond recognition in the hospital. Women are not allowed to be portrayed as battered by men anymore, but it is OK when a tsunami wave does the job. So we see her bloodied face, swollen, blackened eyes, and we even get a bit of tit that she quickly adjusts in front of her son in a desperate scene when other matters take precedence.

The cast is wonderful but the screenplay plays every bit of personal tidbit of drama it can eke out of a tragic happening. It is a porno erotic masochistic marathon with close close-ups so we can see the suffering really up close and personal. 

I cannot begin to say how awful this film is with its wonderful performances and it resonates with what Robert Pattinson had to endure with the terrible screenplays of Melissa Rosenberg for the Twilight films. 
Certainly Watts and McGregor had no idea from the screenplay that they were going to be photographed almost exclusively so close that their entire faces could not be contained by the screen. It was obscene in how close we felt to them, how close we endured their suffering faces that became pure eroticism for the effects of perversion. As close to a snuff film as you are going to get. 

The end has this family - it's another true story you know - flying to civilization to receive the best medical care money can buy, leaving all the poor folks and brown folks still wretched in their loss and bereavement on the island of paradise ruined.

The last scene is pure soap opera with Watts's face huge, trembling,  letting sobs out that have been held in so long, her quivering lips and chin and her completely vulnerability giving in to tragedy. She is beautiful in this moment and brings tears to even my cynical eyes in my fury at this grotesque display of obscene weeping in a close up that is so close it might be sexual.
Her face is reflected in the plane window, pales out as the ruined landscape appears in the window of the private jet and the credits begin to roll where we see the real family all happy and smiling that they lived through this horror.

The box office is about 200 million including domestic and overseas. The CGI was Summit's typical on the cheap, but what else can you expect from this bottom line player that Twilight saved from bankruptcy. 

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

THE GATEKEEPERS


Director: Dror Moreh


A documentary featuring interviews with all 

surviving former heads of Shin Bet, the Israeli 

security agency whose activities and 

membership are closely held state secrets.


These are well educated, subtle, exceptionally 

intelligent and humane men.

Retired from service they have entered 

contemplative time to reflect on the past. Had 

they read Thucydides..........but if they did they 

did not remember what he advised.

Here is a link to Thucydides that parallels 

Israel's destruction as it does the US.

Friday, March 29, 2013

Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty: Cracking the Thucydides Code

Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln
Spielberg has made a marvelous film. Day-Lewis is perfection. It is a memorial to a time when some men were almost gods in political office leaving resonances lasting beyond a century. The strength one feels in these United States led men against the storm of mediocrity and self-seeking to simply do what they felt was right and honest and best for a people.  
It is a film steeped in nostalgia for a time that has 

passed. Spielberg attempts to infuse his audience with a 

respect and renewed energy fueled by the integrity we 

feel as we watch this film.

You will watch it with tears in your eyes, with a never 

again felt pride in 

being an American

And remorse that it is not now nor ever will be again. 

Jackson, M 2007, "Cracking the Thucydides Code", Antioch Review, vol. 65, vol. 1, pp. 173-85.  ONLINE HERE:

PROFESSOR EMERITUS MICHAEL W. JACKSON


The truth is that the explanation for most things is before our eyes but we see it not.
The truth is not out there, hidden; it is right before our eyes most of the time. 

The secret is that there is no secret.

Thucydides knew all of this and passed the word in his book the History of the Peloponnesian War. It is an X-file that explains much of what happened in that war and does so in a way that sheds light on our wars, too. He wrote about the famous war between Athens and Sparta.

One of Thucydides' greatest accomplishments was to see a single conflict in the period 431 - 404 B.C.E.
A comparison with modern history makes the point. We take for granted that World War II began on September 1 1939 with the German invasion of Poland but that excludes the Spanish Civil War and more than three others before. 

Thucydides was an Athenian. That simple fact needs to be stressed as will become clear. 

Thucydides tried to write history avant le mot; so restrained is he that he speaks in his own voice about eight times in 500 plus pages of the book.

 On one such occasion early in the book he declares it was his intention to write a book that would last.

 One means to that end was the concept of the conflicts as a single war with a single meaning.
 A second means to that end was his insistence on facts and evidence.
The History of the Peloponnesian War  is a keystone in the wall of history.
There is in Thucydides a twin of Aeschylus, the playwright, not just in the large-scale drama but also in the personal intensity of the characters. 

As with Aeschylus's Seven Against Thebes,there is a moral in Thucydides.

Thomas Hobbes's magisterial Leviathan, a study of political authority and life, is reduced to a passage about life in the state of nature being "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" as though there is nothing else of note in the book. Equally, Niccolo Machiavelli's subtle Prince is reduced to "it is better to be feared than loved." 

What sentence is Thucydides reduced to?

In the case of the History of the Peloponnesian War, it is abridged to this:

 "the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must." 

...they agree on conferring the title "Founder" on Thucydides. Against that tide of opinion, I argue that Thucydides neither deserves nor would want this accolade, 

....but that the book is best understood to have a different meaning.

Rather than meaning that the strong rule the weak, what Thucydides tells us in that line is 

that Athens is now finally, fatally corrupt and, what is more, that those who think like those Athenians fail to realize this simple and all-important fact: things change.

That lightning bolt - the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must - strikes in a context that the playwright in Thucydides conjures for a purpose. 

It occurs in the fifteenth year of the war and from its position in the book, it would seem to have been intended to be placed near the middle of the book. That is not where it would lie if the book simply followed the chronology, since the war went on for twenty-seven years. 
(Genealogy does not follow chronology.)

(This may be the first recorded historical happening presented to the reader or listener as a genealogical CUT rather than an historical occurrence in the continuum. I would love to be able to ask Foucault this question.)

It occurred on the island of Melos in the Aegean Sea, a place of no military importance.

Athens sent a fleet to Melos in 415 B.C.E. to demand that it come into the war on its side. Melos had been settled by Dorian people from Laconia seven hundred years before, making them distant cousins of the Spartans. While the war had criss-crossed the sea it had only lightly touched Melos until the day the Athenians arrived, in force, with a demand for immediate acceptance. 

When the war began Thucydides portrayed Athenians as moderate. ...They are judicious, not bellicose; they are rational, not blinded by ambition; and they are restrained, not out of control.  In their speech defending the integrity of Athens against those trying to rouse Sparta to action, they invoke an Athens that is the defender of Greece from the Persians at Marathon. 

Other Athenians repeat this claim at Plataea in the fourth year of the war. 

At the end of the first year of the war there occurs another major event in the book, the speech of Pericles at the ritual of burying the war dead. If a contemporary reference be needed, it is Armistice Day in the course of the Iraq War today.  On that day Pericles gave a speech reminding Athenians of the nature and value of their city. In it he praised Athenian democracy ....

He also celebrates Athens as the educator for all the Greeks in its lustrous arts, drama, poetry, philosophy, architecture, and monuments.
...that speech again shows Athens to be magnificent in its aspirations for Greece.
Thucydides shows Athens at its best in the early days of the war, and this brings us to a major theme.  On one level the History of the Peloponnesian War is about Athens. It is certainly much more about Athens than it is about the war. Thucydides loved Athens; he did not love the war. 

 In part, the History of the Peloponnesian War is a story of how the wonderful and beautiful city of Athens destroyed itself along with a great deal of the Greek world.

Returning to Melos, the Athenians pronounce their ultimatum: join us and pay tribute or we will slay one and all. There is nothing subtle and self-restrained about this message. There is nothing in this message about the greater good for Greeks.

The elders of Melos ask for a private discussion.
The dialogue at Melos is so remarkable that it needs no exegesis. The Athenians demand compliance. The Melians argue for their neutrality.  The Athenians admit the Melians have been neutral these many years but say they can no longer tolerate any neutrals. It is as if they say,
"If you are not with us, then you are against us." 
The Melians plead the justice of their cause, neutrality. The Athenians say, let us be practical and put matters of justice aside.

Indeed they go further and say "justice" means nothing. 

None of the Melian elders is identified by name and neither are the Athenians, though we do know some who were there...Again one suspects that this omission is contrived by Thucydides to make this unique dialogue, placed at the center of his book, generic, beyond this space and time. 

...arguments remind us that Melos had no military significance. Their arguments undercut, reduced, and rebutted, the Melian elders finally say,

 "We trust to the gods and the Spartans." 

To which one Athenian replies

,"the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must." 

From this astounding assertion erupts the argument that this is the natural law, and the Athenians are the helpless tools of it;...This claim, that it is the natural law of the jungle, is the claim upon which the house of Realism in International Relations theory is founded. 
If that is so, then let us look to the foundations

It is time to put that line and that dialogue in context, and not just within the war, but within the moral life of Thucydides and his kind. 

Hesiod's Works and Days was a well-known poem at the time and it includes these lines:

Thus said the hawk to the nightingale with speckled neck, while he carried her high up among the clouds, gripped fast in his talons, and she, pierced by his crooked talons, cried pitifully. To her he spoke disdainfully: "Miserable thing, why do you  cry out? One far stronger than you now holds you fast, and you must go wherever I take you, songstress as you are. And if I please I will make my meal of you, or let you go. He is a fool who tries to withstand the stronger, for he does not get the mastery and suffers pain besides his shame."

Hesiod describes savage nature, not civilized people. 

These Athenians, the most civilized of people, act like a hawk, a feathered beast of nature; moreover, they admit that is what they are doing. It is likely that Thucydides realized this parallel. It is also likely he realized another parallel that his first intended readers knew, especially the cultured and learned Athenians.

In 490 B.C.E. a Perisan fleet crossed from Asia to Eurpoe. On a hot day in September, an Athenian army of perhaps 10,000, counting camp followers, sutlers, squires, and the like, as well as armed men arrived at Marathon on the coast.  The Persian army landing there greatly outnumbered it. ...What is sure is that the Athenians knew that they were substantially outnumbered, and they probably also assumed that however many Persians were already there on that day, a lot more of them were to come. 

The Persian commander offered terms to these Athenians. What did they say to the ultimatum of Imperial Persia? 
They said, "We trust to the gods and to the Spartans," 

for the word had been sent to Sparta that the Persians were massing and help was needed to defend Greece. 
They trusted to the gods because their cause, Greek liberty, was just, and to the Spartans who could be relied upon to rally to this pan-Hellenic cause.  

We may imagine that the diplomat from the Persian camp used the same arguments with the Athenians at Marathon that the Athenians used with the Melians one hundred years later:

 "Let's be practical. If you don't surrender on our terms you will die.
 Don't talk of gods for they cannot help you today. The Spartans - well, they may not come and if they do, they will be slow, as Spartans always are. Face the facts."

Thucydides mastery lies in putting the same sentiments and perhaps the same words in the mouths of the Melian elders who confronted Imperial Athens of over whelming military superiority, only to have the officially designated representative of Athenian democracy ridicule their sentiments.
How Athens had changed!

The Athenians at Melos rely only on the strength they have today. They flattened the man-made world into a sword. The gods, justice, morality, these are all pounded into nothingness in their dialogue. When all else is flattened, what remains is force, and on that day the force was with Athens. 

Halfway through the book, in the dialogue at Melos, Thucydides, this lover of Athens, sees in the thing he loved a disease far worse than the plague that destroyed all that he loved about it. It no longer aspired to the heavens in art but instead built warships. It no longer led Greece into democracy but enslaved other Greeks; it was no longer home to philosophers but soon would kill that great philosopher Socrates....

This was no longer the Athens that Pericles described fourteen years before.

This was a second and dark Athens that dominates the rest of the book, the Athens ruled by democracy, that others called the Tyrant City .......

At Melos the Athenians were true to their vile words and made good their threats. 
....How would a gifted orator like Pericles find a way to praise this lesson?

At Melos Athens crossed a moral point of no return.

Thucydides shows us this with the third island of distant Sicily. ...it was a new world to conquer....for in attacking Syracuse the Athenians went to war against a democratic city for the first time. 
The final stage is tyrannical; the war was no longer about protecting Athens,....It was about conquest. It was about Athenians re-making the world in their own image, without realizing how changed and distorted that image had become

At Melos those unnamed Athenians showed they had not lerned another powerful lesson that is woven through the pages of the History of the Peloponnesian War. 

It is that things change.

This theme surfaces at least five times in pages of Thucydides' book,...
When change is taken into account we see that Athens had forgotten the truth that one day it would no longer be strong, just as virile youths forget, despite all the evidence around them, that one day they will be old and frail.

In its strength Athens failed to use that strength to create a world in which it is safe to be weak. 

It failed to create the practice and even the institutions for a world of the weak, however inevitable it was that one day Athens itself would be weak and drop the heavy sword of conquest. 
It had flattened the world to one dimension, and in its turn it paid the price for it.

...but the Persians recouped their investment by denuding Athens of its wealth so that within a few years of the end of the war Athens was no longer the gleaming moral and material exemplary city that Pericles had built and described. 

Instead it was the city where a wealthy citizen, Thrasymachus, could declare that justice was but the interest of the stronger in Plato's  Republic.

In the moral tale of the History of the Peloponnesian War the Athenians made themselves into the self-destructive monsters, and this became obvious at Melos, but it did not end there; that was only the beginning of its insatiable appetite for conquest....
The war was no longer about Sparta or democracy but about the Athenian empire.

...Thucydides did not speak for himself through one character any more than Shakespeare did, and also to make the case that Thucydides would not accept the title Realist - one who pounds the world flat and then says, "The world is naturally flat and I must act accordingly." 

Instead his book records the change in Athens from the moral and artistic leader and military protector of the Greek world to its destroyer. 
 



 things change. It is that things change. 

 "the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must." Indeed they go further and say "justice" means nothing.

 In its strength Athens failed to use that strength to create a world in which it is safe to be weak. 

It failed to create the practice and even the institutions for a world of the weak, however inevitable it was that one day Athens itself would be weak and drop the heavy sword of conquest.

 This was a second and dark Athens that dominates the rest of the book, the Athens ruled by democracy, that others called the Tyrant City .......

It had flattened the world to one dimension, and in its turn it paid the price for it.
Instead his book records the change in Athens from the moral and artistic leader and military protector of the Greek world to its destroyer. 

How Athens had changed!

At Melos Athens crossed a moral point of no return.
 Athens is now finally, fatally corrupt 
In Iraq the US crossed a moral point of no return.
 The US is now finally, fatally corrupt 

LINCOLN GIVES US THE WORLD WE WERE and ZERO DARK THIRTY GIVES US THE WORLD WE ARE

 And Maya - maya is the veil of illusion over the world - a woman at last who seized some dominence still cannot join the good ol' boys' club. They celebrate her victory without her and as she leaves in the plane, tears down her face, all alone, she experiences how hollow a victory it was for her.