| Overall Grade: |
D- |
|
| Story: |
D- |
|
|
| Acting: |
N/A |
|
|
| Direction: |
D- |
|
|
| Visuals: |
D |
|
|
A CRUEL AND SELFISH HERO
by (movies profile)
Jul 7, 2008
6
of
6 people found this review helpful
The problem with “Surfwise” is twofold: First, the main protagonist, Dorian Paskowitz, is narcissistic, cruel, shortsighted and shallow. Second, the film barely recognizes this, but, instead, more often than not, idolizes him.
This film falls into a long tradition of American introspection, the questioning of the American Dream, which, in this case, fits within the larger polarity of Classicism vs. Romanticism. To simplify, 18th century Classicism held that man and nature are inherently evil and can only be made good when shaped, contained, and controlled by extrinsic society; reason rules over emotion. In contrast, 19th century Romanticism held that man and nature are inherently good and corrupted by society; emotion rules over reason. The epitome of the 18th century is the well-manicured and geometric garden, in which nature is subjugated to reason. The epitome of the 19th century is the weed garden, in which nature is allowed to manifest its glory with the least inhibition or interference.
Dorian Paskowitz attempts to return to what he conceives of as man’s natural state, a 19th century idealization of primitive man, pure, uncorrupted, and unfettered by possessions or conventional social responsibilities. A physician, he turns away from the American Dream of success and wealth to surf and lead a nomadic life off the grid.
He is one of those simplistic creatures who can only exist in extremes, a purist, with no interest in or tolerance for any of the irresolvable paradoxes, ironies, conflicts, or compromises of life. For instance, he, and the movie, reject American medicine as materialistic and greedy, when in fact there are ample opportunities to practice mainstream medicine not for profit but in the service of mankind. There are countless academic institutions where one can do research; there are innumerable public health facilities where one can provide care to the indigent. Dr. Paskowitz in effect threw away a fine medical education (subsidized by the American taxpayer, by the way) in the search of self-fulfillment and personal gratification. This was a selfish, not altruistic, decision.
Ironically, Paskowitz, and the film, exploit the prestige and status of his having been a doctor, at the same time that both claim to be above these things. An overachiever by nature, he channeled all his energies into surfing, a nascent sport at the time with little more than a hundred participants, in which he easily became a champion, drawing the public’s attention, in which, of course, he basked. He would rather mindlessly bob in the waves than struggle with the ugly realities of life.
He has a narcissist absolutist preoccupation with his body. He makes a religion of not eating fat or sugar. Because he notices that apes do not eat the skin of an apple, he won’t. Never mind that simian social systems are based on force, on the rule of the jungle, the strong dominating the weak.
By the age of 25 he has been rejected by 2 American wives (or lovers; the movie is in this, as in many places, vague). He finds his final mate (were they ever married?) in a mestizo Mexican woman who teaches him cunnilingus and reciprocates his animal lusts. She bears him 9 children, which they raise on the road in a 24-foot trailer, as we are endlessly reminded.
It is as a father that this man has his most significant failings. We never once see him loving his children. We never ever see him playing with, holding, or kissing any of them. His rule is tyrannical, absolute. He uses the oldest son to enforce his orders, often with brutal force. During the day, the children are largely left to their own devices, where the strong dominate the weak. Crammed into a small space, the father and mother freely copulate amid their children, mimicking apes, impervious to the trauma this may cause the children. One little boy, lying on the camper floor at night, folds his ears over and over inwardly upon themselves, in order to shut out the sounds of his parents having intercourse.
Most significantly, the good doctor provides no formal education for his children; they never go to school. As adults, this hurts and limits them immeasurably. Unlike their father, who enjoyed the full benefits of an American education, they are left ill-equipped to deal with society. Most struggle with poverty, many with anomie. He doesn’t even allow or encourage them to leave the nest, but instead selfishly holds on to them for as long as possible.
Not surprisingly, the family is estranged from one another when we meet them in present time. The resentments are deep and lasting. The movie stages a sappy reunion, an unconvincing maudlin ending.
The American idolatry of the rebel, the Bohemian, here discovers, if it were the least bit honest, a man who selfishly had his way at the expense of others, whose irresponsibility directly contributed to the suffering of innocents. |
My Public Profile 
