Brief Movie Review - An Ideal Husband

It must be our year for culture, since this was our second time seeing Oscar Wilde's An Ideal Husband in about four months.   (For the other example, see the Archives for July 11.)  The last time was on stage, at the National Arts Centre; this time was the film, with Cate Blanchett and Rupert Everett among others. (But with those two on screen, who can really notice anyone else?)

An interesting study in love and truth and politics, this film is perfect Oscar  Wilde; in fact, I didn't even notice places where the screenplay differed from the script, though I'm sure there were some.  I recommend it to anyone who likes sylized comedy, and doesn't mind period costumes and British accents. Heck, I even liked Minnie Driver in this one!

Lest the title is misleading, I haven't really solved the "falling asleep problem".  Today, I tried reading outside, on the back deck, upright, in a moderately comfortable chair that doesn't lend itself to falling sleep.  And still, while I didn't actually nap, I did get distracted and very tired, and found I had to alternate between reading and other more practical matters, to keep myself awake.  Still, I did complete Weber's "Politics as a Vocation".

I was struck, as I read, how these incredibly dry, often tedious 19th century guys had every reason to be gloomy about politics, economics and public life.   Yet, they were optimists.  These were not cynical men.  Not even Max Weber.  Au contraire, Max (I trust since I've slept with him so often, he'd not object to my calling him by his first name!) was practically Don Quixote in his optimism.   It wasn't quite "Dream the impossible dream", but it was close. 

In making his pitch for a balance between responsibility for one's actions and pragmatism, Max made a pitch for using one's passion for a cause beyond personal power, and education and literacy, to decide when the end justifies the means, and when to dismiss the immediate consequences of one's actions would be just plain wrong.   He argued, in fact, that if one were not able to combine passion and judgment, reason and emotion, optimism and realism, that one shouldn't be a politician. 

Now, if we were to apply this standard today, if these were the admission requirements for public life, how many of our leaders would make it?  The tricky part, it seems to me, is that Max knew people were frail and imperfect; he believed they should act inspite of their imperfections, and not be paralyzed by the drive for what is ultimately impossible: to meet all standards of morality at all times.  We, North Americans in the late 20th century, seem less capable of being as wise. 

Even if we accept his analysis, which of the frailties are we prepared to live with? In the United States, it seems that no amount of competent leadership and genuine compassion for one's countrymen and countrywomen can compensate for bad judgment about what one does with one's genitals and with whom one does it.  In Canada, it seems we can ignore who is sleeping with whom and when, and we can't accept that someone accidentally broke confidentiality associated with one's office, when there was no serious harm done.  In Europe, the public expects political leaders to have affairs, and even to be somewhat unscrupulous some of the time; but incompetence is probably not tolerated well. 

Particularly in the United States, though, I think Weber would be appalled by the impossibly diverse and high standards that political leaders are expected to know and to meet.  Perhaps I'm just projecting my own views, but I think that Max, too, would argue that subjecting to potential political leaders to microscopic examination for human flaws and failings is a test that we would all fail; that not one of us could be perfect.  And yet, to expect perfection is to live with continual disappointment, and in the case of the United States, with growing cynicism about one's political leadership.  

Next entry

Archived entries