THE HUNT FOR THE LOST ARCHETYPE.

There is that famous saying. “Tough times create strong men, strong men create easy times, easy times create weak men, weak men create tough times.” The Cold War gave birth to tales such as Hunt for the Red October was published as a novel in 1984 and a film in 1990. The 'tough times', eventually gave birth to a character such as Captain Marco Ramius played by Sean Connery in the film version.

Ahh. The archetype we seldom see in movies of today. A protagonist in a thriller who actually portrays the qualities of adult men, casting authority and confidence in their screen presence. For example in one scene, Captain Ramius asks the submarine to be steered in the way of an incoming torpedo missile. He did it showing his knowledge and wisdom of the matter. His surrounding crew, albeit curious, kind of have the faith and are willing to gamble it. Sure, it is Sean Connery. But 50% of what he represents on screen I think depends totally on what is written in the script and screenplay.

We are not short of any good writers I think but the power has been held by those who have the money, and these people want to be sure that the money they throw will come back to them with profits. Unfortunately, one of the only ways of doing that is to serve the majority public. And the majority public wants to see what they like. And what they like comes from the Internet. And what they like from the Internet are those stuff you see viral on places like TikTok. You have to speak their ‘language’ to please the algorithm gods. Go against the trends and no one will ‘see’ you.

And projecting from the same screen, political ‘leaders’ are not behaving as good examples, same goes for the ‘influencers’. And they wonder why kids start to stab old people now.

Anyways.

If there is a thriller such as Hunt for the Red October to be filmed in 2023 by one of the big studios, I am sure there will be some adult characters acting like a whiny hyperactive children just to make it 'easy' and not too 'serious'.

Or a young character who has no background and a proper character arc yet is suddenly made to be better than the well-known trademark character. Or a young character who does not have a single scar from battle yet leading the army, and the rest of the archetype around him has to be taken lower than his level.

I think what Oppenheimer tried to do was to bring back that 'seriousness' into cinema. But recently I talked to one of the masters and answered the question of what defines the genre 'Noir'. And I answered him time and period. Of course, it is wrong but the reason I said it is because I think a good film is like a good bottle of wine. The longer you keep it the better it gets. And the wine bottled today will never be the same as the one 30 years old.

Like the film Godfather. Sure. Anyone can copy the genre and do it today, with all the tech and gadgets. But in my opinion, it just won't be the same. Instead, they might end up becoming a 'try-hard'. Something that just cannot be themselves and wants to become something else. I think the correct term is either 'Kitsch' or 'Pastiche'. The term for copying the wrong way.

Like how the local scenes are K-drama’s ‘try-hard’. I remember back in the late 90s everyone tried to sound like the Indonesians because of their success. And now everyone wants to make a superhero movie even when the genre is already dying.

Maybe, as that famous saying earlier, we are in the ‘easy time’. Perhaps that is why those great arts of the century started in the 50s, which after the great wars. Maybe the archetypes we see on screen are what we all deserve.

Times have changed. The ‘weak men’ are creating ’tough times’ now.