"Well, I don't know, National Treasure could have a place in postmodernist history!"
-Mitchell, 3rd period, February 5th 2016
Let's think about what postmodernism is for a second. What we've discussed in class is an "attack" on modernist principle, a diverging from previous set conventions that is aggressive and self-aware. In the context of historical fiction (which National Treasure sort of pretty much is) we've explored the many different uses of historical fact in our postmodern literature, which usually boils down to recycling these realities and preconceptions and putting them to a different narrative. The movie in question passes with flying colors in these regards. Ben Gates (played by Cage), the titular treasure-hunter of the film, goes on a quest to find the "national treasure" a secret entrusted to his family by the oldest signer of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll. The only clue given is "the secret lies with Charlotte". Gates, also a cryptologist, traces the clue back to the Arctic ship the Charlotte which leads to a heist and following lemon-juicing of the Declaration of Independence, which eventually takes his ragtag mystery gang to the Liberty Bell and some other crap Ben Franklin did. And then they find it! Where was I? Oh yeah, postmodern cinema. This entire movie takes the ideas of historical context and research, crunches it up, and kicks it out the nearest window. All historical points of interest are trivialized and fitted into a new, complex narrative, that suits to entertain viewers and leave all the other malarkey by the wayside. But I guess we can't really PROVE that the Declaration of Independence has some invisible ink on the back, right? It sounds stupid at first, but National Treasure takes a self-aware stand against the boring, plodding versions of American history through it's massive unbelievability. Hey, speaking of conspiracy theories, postmodern American history, and new narratives, remember Mumbo Jumbo?
The reason that Mumbo Jumbo and National Treasure are actually long lost cousins is their insistence on postmodernly recycling certain historical events to fit a broader, differing, brand new story. Warren G Harding might be simply known as one of the worst presidents we've ever had, but what if he was actually the work of a secret Wallflower Order, the anti to the anti-plague of Jes Grew in the early 20th century? "Of course not!", a filthy modernist exclaims. But the hip postmodernist nonchalantly adds: "Yeah, why not dude? And while we're at it, has anyone lemon-juiced the Declaration of Independence, to like, check for a special message?"
During our discussion of secret societies and overarching organizations throughout history on Friday I couldn't help but think of National Treasure. The film brings up very good points of "why not?" and "we'll never know" (albeit taking them to silly extremes at times) which aren't often addressed in society as much. I think there needs to be a balance. Because if you talk about it too much, it becomes a bit of a joke, in the way that the Illuminati have. At this point anything vaguely triangular can be pointed to and have a joking reference to the Illuminati. But if we find a balance perhaps we can dig deeper into history without taking a turn towards the ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI actually really enjoyed reading this post because I had never thought of National Treasure as being good for anything. Pretty much any film critic in the history of ever, whether it be Rotten Tomatoes who cites it as having a 'highly improbable plot,' or uncle Jim who has had one too many and says 'that movie's only for loonies,' dismisses the movie. It is never given a fair chance because of the filthy modernists who say there is no evidence behind the movie. But who is to say? There isn't any evidence against it. While I still don't believe anything from National Treasure, I do look at it in a far different light now.
ReplyDeleteGreat post...I remember bringing up National Treasure primarily as a joke in passing, but you've turned it into a very legitimate point instead of what I saw as a weak connection at best. Especially now that I'm looking at the similarities between the movies, Ragtime & Mumbo Jumbo, I kind of see National Treasure as an "Introduction to Postmodernism for Dummies" sort of deal, where people see it and appreciate it, whether or not they understand and identify it as postmodern or having postmodern aspects, which while pretty ridiculous in the context of National Treasure are still there. Maybe we could watch it at the end of the semester as a class, similarly to The Lego Movie in Hero's Journey? Lot easier than getting the permission slips for Pulp Fiction... :)
ReplyDeleteOh, man--I love seeing my words being immortalized as an epigraph, especially when it's an offhand comment in response to something someone said in class, about a movie I've never even seen!
ReplyDeleteThat said, it does sound like _National Treasure_ could indeed be profitably considered in the context of postmodernism--it doesn't mean that the creators particularly intend any such connection, but more that these ways of thinking about history and alternative narratives are "in the air" at this cultural moment.