First, I have an English degree and here's what I realized when I picked up my diploma. Most of my time in school was spent catching up. What I mean is, taking two semesters of Shakespeare, reading Thoreau or Whitman, or writing pages upon pages about Orwell, Salinger and Fitzgerald brings me simply to a starting point. It only serves to catch me up with what history already testifies to, that these men matter and that the art they created was timelessly important. The fact that you can graduate college without getting a healthy sampling of their work is a travesty, not because everyone should be a literary enthusiast, but because their work is a significant part of how we got here and their voices are still relevant today. It's fundamental. Knowing of their work, to me, seems no more a thing to boast in than knowing what started World War II. To be sure there is always deeper understanding to be found with focused study, but my point is that simply having a spot on your bookshelf for Faulkner doesn't strengthen your opinion. It is, or at least should be, a pre-requisite. Enjoying such work mustn't be required, but acknowledging it should be an unspoken starting point for discussions about art.
I see music in much the same way. Many, myself included, are often quite proud of themselves for loving the Beatles or listening to Dylan. Ironically, this feeling of superiority is only possible because we've allowed these artists and others like them to be labeled as trends or types which some are into and some are not. They are not. They are absolute truths of music. Dylan matters. The Beatles matter. Personal enjoyment of them does not, but acknowledgement of them should be assumed.
I say all that to say that these are often the types of things which people, and again I do not separate myself from their number, tend to believe will bolster their argument when it comes to matters of art and culture. The point I intend to make is that to be 22 and think that my opinion of a movie is inherently superior to someone else's because I get Shakespeare is laughable. If you've read Hamlet it doesn't make you special, it means you're mildly educated. It is one of the greatest works of literature in the English language that exists. That's not my opinion, thats hundreds of years worth of the opinions of people who have read more than you or I ever will. To have read it simply means you might be close to getting out of the negatives with regards to exposure to the art that matters historically. If you haven't, I don't look down on you because you undoubtedly have been exposed to things in a different field which are of equal importance to that field. I probably know nothing of those things. I know nothing about cars. But if I were to have a conversation with a mechanic, he would not get pretentious because he knows how an engine works. Its fundamental. The fact that I don't know how an engine works means I'm behind when it comes to knowledge about cars, it doesn't mean that he's ahead. All I'm saying is that much of what we allow to inflate our intellectual ego should actually serve to humble us. We have to realize that even if we read the entirety of the Top 100 English Language Novels of All Time, we've merely approached a base knowledge of how we got to this point in cultural history. In my own experience, whenever I give myself too much credit for the things I've read, listened too, or seen, discussions about films or literature or music become pissing matches, an opportunity to prove how enlightened one is by praising a slim category of works and judging everything else by their standard, making most things easily dismissible.
What does any of that have to do with The Expendables? Quite a bit actually. Whenever you enter into a discussion about a movie, different people come at it from different points of view. Inevitably, there is someone in the discussion who fancies themselves an intellectual because they've read a few 50 year old books. Secondly, because I have read reviews of this film in which people who I'm sure view themselves as highly cultured bash the movie. It is a bit like Jordan's Bulls facing off against the WNBA's Chicago Sky. The Expendables is not high art. Anyone who claims it is, is an idiot, and anyone who is proud for pointing out that it isn't, is an even bigger one.
Have you seen the trailers for this movie? More people die in the TV spot for The Expendables than did in the first Gulf War. Have you seen the cast? Sly Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren (is that the guy who played Ivan Drago in Rocky IV? Yes), Randy Couture, Steve Austin, Terry Crews and Mickey Rourke. Not to mention small appearances by Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger. This movie never hid what it was trying to be. And it delivered. In fact, I'd say it might be my favorite movie involving any of these guys, with the exception of Mickey Rourke (whose actual acting abilities stick out like a sore thumb in this group.) To the film's credit, it did not ask much of the cast. Dialogue was limited to witty quips in the middle of wildly entertaining action sequences. The most and perhaps only deeply meaningful piece of dialogue is actually more of a monologue, with Rourke reflecting on his days as a killer and Stallone nodding along. The point is, the filmmakers, Stallone primarily among them, deserve a great deal of credit for being honest with themselves and with us. Those with acting chops were given the bulk of the character building responsibilities, while the rest were asked to blow things up and kill people. They never bit off more than they could chew, shoot or detonate.
If you don't go to see The Expendables, I have no issue with you. I avoid movies all the time for a variety of reasons. I don't go see Nicholas Cage movies because I know I'll hit a child on the way out if I do. If action movies aren't your thing, I can understand. Nine times out of ten, I want a movie with meaning and significance that goes beyond the couple hours spent watching it. I love to watch great actors with a great script and a great story. I think it ultimately makes for a better movie. I get it if The Expendables seems like a waste of your time. My only point is this; If you do take the time to see the film, leave your moleskin at home. This movie never asked to be a part of that discussion. If someone tries to convince you that this movie deserves awards, acclaim or more than two and a half hours of your attention, then by all means curb-stomp them with your cultural heel. But for those of us who went in knowing what we were paying for and were happy to get just that, spare us.
