The Americanization of Emily (1964) starred James Garner (as Charlie) and Julie Andrews (as Emily), both whom call it their favorite movie. Be warned; I give spoilers in this post. Here is the movie’s most famous
Thank you. I watched the film last night. It questions our biases, not only as warriors and anti-warriors, but also as family members who erect monuments to the fallen. The film raises questions which I hope to resolve one day.
My guess is that we are expected to accept that the main point of acting altruistically is to attract a mate.
This guess implies that people know (at least unconsciously) that altruism is often hypocritical. Do the people attending "efficient charity" conferences that you address really understand, at some level, that their "altruism" serves selfish mate-seeking? Why would they, when their altruism serves its function without their knowing it?
When the movie was made, the Vietnam War was just heating up. Perhaps viewers wanted reassurance that it was OK to ignore it.
[Added Aug. 5] Here's how you might determine whether the charity-conference goers know their actual charitable motives. If they know consciously, being told so would bore them; if they know unconsciously, it would be like a premature (or "wild") psychoanalytic interpretation, which would enrage them; and if they don't have a clue at any level, they might react like Robert Wiblin and say, fine, let's exploit humanity's hypocrisy when it leads to results we like--or, more precisely, want to signal that we like.
Thank you. I watched the film last night. It questions our biases, not only as warriors and anti-warriors, but also as family members who erect monuments to the fallen. The film raises questions which I hope to resolve one day.
they're very selfish! They want all the not-murder for themselves!
My guess is that we are expected to accept that the main point of acting altruistically is to attract a mate.
This guess implies that people know (at least unconsciously) that altruism is often hypocritical. Do the people attending "efficient charity" conferences that you address really understand, at some level, that their "altruism" serves selfish mate-seeking? Why would they, when their altruism serves its function without their knowing it?
When the movie was made, the Vietnam War was just heating up. Perhaps viewers wanted reassurance that it was OK to ignore it.
[Added Aug. 5] Here's how you might determine whether the charity-conference goers know their actual charitable motives. If they know consciously, being told so would bore them; if they know unconsciously, it would be like a premature (or "wild") psychoanalytic interpretation, which would enrage them; and if they don't have a clue at any level, they might react like Robert Wiblin and say, fine, let's exploit humanity's hypocrisy when it leads to results we like--or, more precisely, want to signal that we like.