The Black Panther

[kerravonsen]

(don't have a Black Panther icon, so I'm using Thor.)

So, I've watched The Black Panther now. It was okay, but there were points where I was bored and wondered whether I should continue watching. I think it was because none of the characters really clicked with me. I mean, they were okay, the nice ones were nice, the bad ones were bad, and so on. But none of them grabbed me by the heart.

My favourite bits:

• T'Challa yelling at his ancestors, saying they were wrong for hiding away from the world.
• Okoye standing by her DUTY, first when she refuses to go with Shuri, and second when she threatens to kill her husband if he won't surrender. MUCH RESPECT.
• Everett Ross going "Whoa! What the hell? ... Okay." (Much love to Martin Freeman)

A few interesting themes here:

Duty to country versus loyalty to individuals.

I think this was done well; balanced perspectives; there was no obviously "wrong" choice. Okoye and her duty to the throne was right. Shuri & Nakia and their loyalty to T'Challa was also right.

To hide, to help, or to conquer?

Lots of tangled things here. Wakandans chose to hide because - why? Because the outside world is evil? Um, okay. But current Wakanda seems to have two reasons to hide:

1. Tradition
2. Must prevent others from doing evil things with Vibranium, and the best/easiest way of doing that is to pretend we don't have any.

Killmonger wants to conquer... and in a way, it's surprising that there hasn't been a Wakandan king before him who wanted to do that. Is there something about Wakandan culture which discourages that? "Wakanda is perfect, why bother conquering anybody?" "We don't need no allies, so we don't need to defend anyone else either?" (Remember, folks, World War I got so big because everyone was dragging in their allies.) Or is it because one can't become King of Wakanda without going on a spirit-journey? But that didn't stop Killmonger. It's interesting that Okoye (I think it was Okoye) said "You have too much hatred in your heart to be king." Indeed.

The burning of the "heart-shaped herb" -- yeah, that was tyranny. And obviously Wakanda does not have the concept of an "illegal order". (It's my headcannon though that somebody managed to save some of the plants. These weird plants that grow underground without sunlight.)

T'Challa is torn, because he feels "How can it be right to withhold a helping hand when we have so much to give?" And yet, the Vibranium still needs to be protected.

A good man versus a good king.

This is a theme that was touched on in the Thor movies too.

And I still disagree with the assertion that it is harder to be a "good king" if you are a "good man" (or a "good father" in Odin's case). Strongly disagree. Because, what are they saying here? That compassion and love and friendship and loyalty to individuals prevent one from being a "good king"? Yes, I know their point is that a "good king" needs to harden their heart if there is a conflict of interest between "the good of the country" and "the good of an individual" but... I maintain that if you have to be unjust to an individual for the "good of the country", then you are doing your country no good. The end does not justify the means; the means determine the end. Nepotism is another matter; that is being unfairly favourable to someone... and I don't think that's the sign of a "good man" or a "good father" either.

King T'Chaka's decision to kill his brother in the heat of the moment in order to prevent murder and/or kill a traitor is one thing. I think that's fair enough. Tragic, but fair enough. What was both unforgivable and also made absolutely no political sense, was for T'Chaka to abandon his nephew in the USA, rather than taking him back to Wakanda. It was his nephew! He was an orphan! He already knew Wakanda existed. It was T'Chaka's responsibility to look after him. I cannot think of a single good reason just to leave him there. The compassionate thing would have been to take him to Wakanda. The pragmatic and coldly political thing -- if he was considered a threat to the succession -- would have been to kill him, then and there. Not leave him as a festering loose end that would come back to bite them. Maybe, just maybe, if he had been brought back to Wakanda he might have hated T'Chaka just as much, have wanted the throne just as much... but at least he wouldn't have been trained as a black-ops specialist, and he would have known Wakandan traditions instead of trampling on them completely.

So. Yeah. Makes no sense to me.

Comments

[watervole]

I think it was mostly modern fiction (and the Victorians) that gave us the idea that a 'good king' was concept.

Albert recognised that monarchies needed to change in order to survive in the modern world.

Most kings throughout history have put themselves before their people. Even now, the monarchy owns a surprisingly large amount of land/wealth.

Easy to tell from the arts. If they spent that much money on beautiful items, then it clearly wasn't helping the populace.

[kerravonsen]

I think it was mostly modern fiction (and the Victorians) that gave us the idea that a 'good king' was concept.

Um, I can't parse that sentence.

Easy to tell from the arts. If they spent that much money on beautiful items, then it clearly wasn't helping the populace.

General problem with the super-rich, whether they're monarchs or not.

On the other hand, rich people being patrons of the arts is often the only reason we have "the arts" at all. Though I suppose the argument there is that it's better to spend money on the Sistine Chapel than it is to spend money on things the public can't enjoy. Which is a good point.

But this all reinforces my point, in a way; because if monarchs are normally selfish, then one is more likely to be a "good king" if one is a "good man", not the other way around.

[watervole]

We'd have different arts without the rich. There's a massive seam of folk arts (including textiles) which are often undervalued.

and the poor wouldn't have been allowed in most places where rich people's arts were on display.

Agreed that a good man is more likely to make a good king - though, of course, the definition of both changes over time!