In a compelling argument on Sept. 9’s episode of Real Time, Bill Maher emphasized in the renowned “New Rule” segment that Top Gun: Maverick illustrated Americans no longer have an overall consensus on what an enemy is.
It’s a segment I also strongly advise the reader on viewing before completing the article. While otherwise a strong film, there is a peculiar issue. One may note from the highest-grossing film of the year that the enemy is simply referred to as “the enemy” with no identifying characteristics except being a “threat to NATO” in the film’s dialogue.
One could assume that it would have to be a country east of the military bloc, yet it remains telling through the lack of desire to identify it. 21st century action films often never hesitate to identify enemies whether it be a country or some part of it (take the Bond film Quantum of Solace [2008] with Bolivia amongst others), in which that film ironically describes another American issue to be discussed another time. Maher argues that Russia used to be an easy target while it no longer seems to be the case.
He further argues that liberals would call the use of the Arab world Islamophobic while Asian countries would then be racist. He goes on to mention that Martians were often considered the theorized unifier, but now likely a relic. Considering the state of our union, if aliens did in fact destroy the White House like they did in Independence Day (1996), Maher says half the country would be cheering. In that case, one might as well argue that they’re rooting for John Malkovich in 1993’s In the Line of Fire.
However, some of the 90s greatest films reminded us that the enemy was not always foreign but rather within, whether it be Die Hard 2 and active duty military members to Under Siege, Clear and Present Danger, and Enemy of the State with intelligence officials. Sometimes it’s the more expected, such as prisoners, like that of Con Air. Even former police officers can be bitter as well, illustrated particularly well by Lethal Weapon 3 and Speed (1994).
But what does all of this actually mean?
Americans don’t have to agree on everything, just as much as the next country does. After all, this country was founded on staunch disagreement amongst those who were on the same side. Stemming to the earlier dilemma of the blurring line between normalcy and the extremes, clarity is more crucial than ever in America, and if the conception of an enemy is left to interpretation, America’s extremes are only given leverage in their beliefs.
Perhaps Top Gun: Maverick is inadvertently more sinister than it appears as “the enemy” can be virtually whatever one imagines it to be. All we have to do is shoot at it and blow it up, “to whom it may concern” as Maher puts it.
Jive Talkin’ History:
In what may have very well been the best episode of Real Time to date, including overtime, Bill Maher with guests Trace Adkins, Jon Meacham, and Julia Loffe took a healthy dive into America’s issues once more. “New Rule” returned fervently with “A Unified Theory of Wokeness,” on September 16th. However, there was one element that stole the segment, “presentism,” and I insist you watch it.
What is presentism? One could say it’s playing the past by the future or in other words, assessing historical figures by standards outside of their historical context. In a compelling interview that contained race relations, Louis C.K. said on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno in 2010 that no matter what we do, “you can’t take peoples’ historical context away from them.”
Funnily enough, that was also back when I knew him in person. Anyhow, while Louie’s remark serves the defenders of the problem Maher investigates, it also serves both sides.
As more liberal leaning scholars would argue that slavery is an everlasting alteration on American racial dynamics through the present. On the other hand, it’s also true that you, the reader, not owning slave doesn’t necessarily make you a better person than George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. As Maher says, slavery was long the norm, not the exception and “everyone who could afford a slave had one, including people of color.”
In the case of Washington, Maher argues that just because the former president lacked gay friends doesn’t mean he’s automatically inferior to you and the same standards apply to you if you were in the past as well.
For those of you aware of the absurdity in the last sentence, it’s true, some of your peers genuinely believe they have a superiority complex over historical figures for pointers as simple as that.
Back to Maher, he references a new play in England (I, Joan) which argues for the iconic Joan of Arc to be presented as nonbinary with they/them, written by a person of the same traits.
The play argues that Joan isn’t pleased with being a woman, while historical re- cords say otherwise and even more messy, French being one of Europe’s explicitly gendered languages makes the story that much more strange.
Keep in mind the dilemma here has nothing to do with racial changes like The Little Mermaid as we’re looking at history, a realm of things that function on facts, pieces of which exist in the world every passing day to reveal how the past worked.but as we all know, history is far from perfect within itself, whether it’s the idea of being written by winners or being subjective as Maher mentions. He further argues with Napoleon’s words that “history is just a fable we all agree on” in conjunction with his signature humor, “he should know because he was a deaf woman named Diane.”