> --Moreover, (and I have to admit I love the delicious irony of
> this), when Woj posits an obvious and clear delineation between
> "herd" thinking and "individual" thinking, he is repeating a trope
> that is more of less blindly accepted by almost everyone in our
> society: "I think for myself, and it's pathetic how those liberals/
> conservatives/feminists/fundamentalists all just believe what
> they're told".
I agree with you that the contrast between a herd and an individual is itself a tired cliche.
I'd like to pursue another line of thinking, though. Wojtek says that canned speeches in a film -- Paradise Now in his example -- are meant to represent the intellectual poverty of those who utter them. Sometimes, they are, but not always. Platitudes can very well be poignant. Platitudes are poignant when they lead the audience to take interest in the gap between the platitudes on one hand and feelings, thoughts, social facts, etc. that they can not capture, which I believe is the case of the three main characters in Paradise Now. Their words cannot support the weight of reality, not because their words are too flimsy but because the reality is too heavy. Platitudes can be poignant in other ways, too. Munich has Avner say, "There is no peace at the end of this," this being a series of assassinations. That's a platitude, expressed by Israeli liberals and leftists, as well as liberals and leftists elsewhere, countless times. And yet, it is moving in the film -- because it is true (as many platitudes are), and because the political current who believe it is true have no power to change the world immediately based on this realization. I think platitudes are affecting when they express a truth and yet are politically ineffective.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>