MovieChat Forums > The Last Station (2010) Discussion > Wanted history, got pornography

Wanted history, got pornography


I just wanted to voice my general discontent and disgust with this movie, as a warning for others like myself.

I have an interest in Mahatma Gandhi, and had just read that he was influenced by Tolstoy's book, "The Kingdom of God is Within You." I've never read any of Tolstoy's fiction works, but I thought this movie might afford some interesting historical insights into his later religious ideas. I should have known better.

It was little else than dressed up pornography.

From the moment the young assistant fumbled at the interview, where he confusedly said "I'm a vegetarian" and meant to say "I'm a celibate", it became clear that the makers of this film were going to disgrace an otherwise noble ideal. Which they went on to do.

This young man seems like he walks around with an invisible sign around his neck saying, "please, put me out of my misery", which shortly happens at the hands of a young lady who acts more like a man than he does.

As is usual for these kinds of dream-worlds that the movie-makers make millions spinning for people who love to dream false dreams, none of the dire results of wanton unbridled lust are shown. Instead, we are fed the idea that this sanctified lust is actually love, and all ends happily in the end. No sexual diseases, no unfaithfulness afterwards, no broken homes and families. Is this reality? If so, I must be living in another world.

The portrayal of Tolstoy's relationship with his wife, is little better. Constant bickering, fighting over money, foolish animal antics in the bedroom, self-pity, etc. One wonders why, even though humans are weak and make many mistakes, we delight so much in dwelling upon the negative aspects of people who strove to do great things?

Couldn't at least a few minutes have been devoted to how Tolstoy tried to help the poor, how he later found satisfaction in simple labor, how he strove to break out of the traditional religious mode and find something more alive and vital, how his ideas influenced other men such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King?

There is material in his life that would have been worth considering and watching. Then why does this movie portray none of that, except to make fun of it, and instead sell us the old, old story that lust is the way to happiness? It's simply pornography in a dignified dress...but underneath, the same old lie that we humans are infatuated with.

These words from Gandhi put the idea of celibacy in an entirely different light, and he lived out these principles to a noble end:

"The ideal Brahmachari has not to struggle with sensual desire or desire for procreation ; .. never troubles him at all. The whole world will be to him one vast family, he will centre all his ambition in relieving the misery of mankind and the desire for procreation will be to him as gall and wormwood. He who has realised the misery of mankind in all its magnitude will never be stirred by passion. He will instinctively know the fountain of strength in him, and he will ever persevere to keep it undefined. His humble strength will command respect of the world, and he will wield an influence greater than that of the sceptred monarch.

"But I am told that this is an impossible ideal, that I do not take count of the natural attraction between man and woman. I refuse to believe that the sensual affinity referred to here can be at all regarded as natural; in that case the deluge would soon be over us. The natural affinity between man and woman is the attraction between brother and sister, mother and son or father and daughter. It is that natural attraction that sustains the world. I should find
it impossible to live, much less carry on my work, if I did not regard the whole of womankind as sisters, daughters or mothers. If I looked at them with lustful eyes, it would be the surest way to perdition."

"Procreation is a natural phenomenon indeed, but within specific limits. A transgression of those limits imperils womankind, emasculates the race, induces disease, puts a premium on vice, and makes the world ungodly. A man in the grip of the sensual desire is a man without moorings. If such a one were to guide society, to flood it with his writings and men were to be swayed by them, where would society be ? And yet we have the very thing happening to-day. Supposing a moth whirling round a light were to record the moments of its fleeting joy and we were to imitate it regarding it as an exemplar, where would we be ? No, I must declare with all the power I can command that sensual attraction even between husband and wife is unnatural. Marriage is meant to cleanse the hearts of the couple of sordid passions and take them nearer to God. Lustless love between husband and wife is not impossible. Man is not a brute. He has risen to a higher state after countless births in brute creation. He is born to stand, not to walk on all fours or crawl. Bestiality is as far removed from manhood as matter from spirit." - Teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, p.44, 45

reply

The movie could have gone that route, but it instead decided to take a more honest approach. Tolstoy's preachings were indeed noble, and they did indeed inspire great minds like MLK and M. Gandhi. However, Tolstoy himself admitted that he was not the strongest of men. He (as he himself phrased it) whored around in the caucuses. He was nearly tempted into adultery multiple times. Having never read his fiction, you most likely are unaware of the deep secular themes of his novels and stories. He wrote of the common struggles and temptations of mankind. These were the struggles and temptations that he learned of through experience. Tolstoy changed his mind many times on his ideas. As evidenced by the self-inspired characters Pierre Bezuhov(War and Peace) and Konstantin Levin (Anna Karenina), Tolstoy went through long periods of spiritual growth, always searching for one perfect ideal regarding love and sex. Near the end of his life, he renounced all of his former works and wrote that sex is something to be despised, used only for necessary reproduction. Many took these writings extremely literally, although Tolstoy himself still had not made up his mind. His spiritual growth continued until his death.

As for calling this movie pornography... well. I suppose that depends on the looseness of your definition. I for one could not more strongly disagree with that label. It is important to remember that even your oft-quoted Gandhi struggled with sexual temptations. Toward the end of his life he was known to spend nights with several young girls at once to test his celibacy. For a movie to display young men and women giving in to temptations that tested men like Gandhi and Tolstoy so strongly is not pornography, it is honest. The movie's core message is that wonderful feelings of love and compassion can be easily found, and that it is common for the search for chastity to distract us from those feelings. It in no way promotes unhealthy, whorish sexual habits.

The movie was not based on Tolstoy's entire life and writings; it was based on his final disputes with his wife regarding his will and his relationship with the founders of Tolstoyanism. Knowing the plot of this film, you should not have watched it if you wanted a film that focused more on the spiritual writings of Tolstoy. I suggest you just read them yourself and leave it at that.

reply

>The movie could have gone that route, but it instead decided
>to take a more honest approach.

The female seductress was an entirely fictional character! How is that "honest"? It is propaganda...a film writer thrust his own biased view of Tolstoy's better principles upon us and made fun of them. Since he couldn't find a historical character to do it, he made one up! Sheer dishonesty.

Your comment regarding Gandhi makes no sense. He tested his decision to control his sexual feelings for the good of others...and succeeded. There is no dark story surrounding the young girls he tested himself with.

>The movie's core message is that wonderful feelings of
>love and compassion can be easily found, and that it is
>common for the search for chastity to distract us from those
>feelings. It in no way promotes unhealthy, whorish sexual habits.

Well you have bought into the dream-world promoted by this movie. Let us dream a bit more...what if this lady gave the fellow an STD? Since she probably had previous sexual contact, it is possible. Maybe there was no cure for it in those days. How then would the man feel about her "wonderful feelings of love and compassion"? She could express her love this way, "See how much I love you, I even share my diseases with you!"

Or what if she got pregnant? Very possible, since there was no visible use of contraceptives. They didn't show all the grief and misery that follows such an "unplanned birth". Is that also "wonderful love" towards the child? I'd call it criminal irresponsibility.

Or let us imagine that they actually got married. How long do you suppose those "wonderful feelings" would last, when she got bored of having the same person all the time? I expect they wouldn't last long, and she would be off to climb the next mountain. These are not unrealistic imaginings, they happen all the time...just look around you.

The movie portrayed none of these consequences, therefore it can only continue to promote the delusional dream that if you do the same things, "it will all work out fine in the end."

Using other people simply for good feelings is whorish. The idea that it is "unselfish" because "I'm making them happy also" is just an excuse; it's just the lamb skin covering the wolf underneath. If you want "unwhorish love", find out how to love others without regarding personal reward or happiness. It's not natural to mankind, but it is attainable.

reply

How's the air up there on your high horse? :)

-T (Tim)

reply

Tim,

It's fine. How is it on yours?

Frank.

reply

LOL. just LOL...

reply

You obviously suffer from great personal inadequacies, AKA "small dick" syndrome.

reply

 I didn't make it to the end of his post. I saw what an ass he was being in the replies though.

No need for that Or to present your opinions as superior.

Thanks for letting us know, in detail, why you did not care for the film OP.

reply

Yes, I agree, you must be living in another world.

You write very well, seem to be well read, yet you make this statement:

"It was little else than dressed up pornography."

If you can bring yourself away from the horror of having seen a boob you might find that scene does contain historical insights to Tolstoy's views.

I find your discontent and disgust to come from puritanical views.

reply

Bkinzeys,

I think there are three main possible "world views", and most ideas will fall into one of these categories:

1. We are here to experience life and pursue happiness, but we need to restrain ourselves from too much pleasure (through fear of consequences, religious beliefs, etc)

2. We are here to experience life and pursue happiness, and there are no restraints...we are only restrained by our own human inhibitions and slavish ideas...therefore, cast them off!

3. We are here to experience life and pursue happiness, but this can only be fully realised through pursuit of truth and the living principle of love (not the love of human passion, but a higher principle that controls us for the good of all men).

Pornography is an extreme application of view #2: happiness is derived through sex, therefore practice it continually, without end. I don't think this film was a porn movie, but it definitely supported view #2, and seemed thereby to caricature Tolstoy's later religious views as simply a guilty response to his earlier sinful life, and an attempt to return to view #1.

I rather like to think, (although I don't think I could definitely prove it), that Tolstoy was striving for view #3. That is certainly what Gandhi was striving for, and where they found common ground. Personally, I find Gandhi's writings almost astonishing in their depth and honesty. He wrote of his view for India:

"I shall work for an India, in which the poorest shall feel that it is their country in whose making they have an effective voice; an India in which there shall be no high class and low class of people, an India in which all communities shall live in perfect harmony. There can be no room in such India for the curse of untouchability, or the curse of intoxicating drinks and drugs. Women will enjoy the same rights as men. Since we shall be at peace with all the rest of the world, neither exploiting, nor being exploited, we should have the smallest army imaginable. All interests not in conflict with the interests of the dumb millions will be scrupulously respected, whether foreign or indigenous. Personally, I hate distinction between foreign and indigenous. This is the India of my dreams for which I shall struggle at the next Round Table Conference. I may fail, but if I am to deserve the confidence of the Congress, my principals, I shall be satisfied with nothing less." - Young India: Sept.10, 1931

India never realised that view, otherwise they wouldn't have needed to develop nuclear weapons. But they did experience at least part of it: they were freed from British rule, by the practice of non-violence, and the British remained their friends (as Gandhi predicted). When Gandhi first set out to accomplish that end by those means, it was deemed impossible.

Anyway, I think human potential is greatly wasted when it pursues happiness through view #1 or #2. Real human dignity, freedom, and happiness is found in #3. I guess I was disappointed because that view was left out of the film. Probably my fault for not investigating beforehand.

As for the boobs and all, I think probably a lot of teenage boys have the dream that a girl will walk into their bedroom, undress and make love to them. But it's not a realistic dream, and even if it happened, what then...what after that? Like the young man in the movie was portrayed...he was ecstatic at the stream, exclaiming aloud about the pleasure he had with that young lady, as if he had just discovered the true aim of life. But there are consequences, and these are usually not portrayed in the dream. Therefore it is unreal. When I see it played out in a movie, I just think, "Oh, not that fantasy again..." It's not that I'm against human pleasure, but there is much more to life, and when the true aims are not seen, it frustrates me.

By the way, since you mentioned "puritanical"...there were two types of puritans. Roger Williams, the first one to introduce the principles of religious liberty in America, was a Puritan. He called it "soul liberty". He was way in advance of his time...his views were considered heretical, his book against persecution for conscience sake was burned by some in England, and they tried to banish him from America. But he made an escape and originated the colony of Rhode Island. He was a really great man, and a true friend to the Indians as well (one of the few who actually paid the Indians for the land he got from them). Those are the kind of "puritanical" views I want to have, because I believe mankind is capable of attaining much more than we currently settle for.

reply

[deleted]

Wow, some real thought expressed in a comment thread on IMDb! Thank you for your insights web1-2. I think you are right (although calling it pornography may be a little hyperbolic, but I get what you're trying to say).

reply

Web 1-2 - You've spent waaaay too much time thinking about this.

It was in the book - Hoffman filmed the book. No porn.

reply

Succinct and honest answer. Thank you.

reply

I believe there are infinitely more views than those three, and even the wording of those three views do not adequately describe the motivations and consequences of such views.

To me, human psychology plays a greater part to this than you think/or know.

Pleasure is good but pain is bad obviously. In the same way that disgust and pain ensures survival (we would not eat dirty things off the ground and we would not touch hot pans), pleasure also brings about greater survival and of course happiness. This is indisputable in itself. The chemicals released in our brain ensures this. Studies reinforce this. Of course excessive pleasure seeking also brings about negative consequences without question, such as sexually transmitted diseases and such.

Celibacy is of course a noble cause. It testifies to the strength of will of said person and is in that respect respectable. However it serves to create a different kind of pleasure, a kind achieved through the idea of belonging to others and having an identity. Also the belief that a higher state of mind is achieved is also quite invigorating to the mind, though it may or may not be true.

In no way is this 'better' or 'worse' than other forms of pleasure seeking. In fact, I believe when you mention the pursuit of goals in life, or there being more to life, I wonder often what these things are. You create pleasure by assuming an identity that you find admirable, and you seek approval through the proclamation of said identity. This of course brings you great pleasure, and is in all, vain. I do not suggest that you seek a life of solitude devoid of pleasure in order to fulfill your inner vanity, quite the opposite. However I must remind you that while you read and learn, there is always more to be read and learn and until you have seen and heard and read all there is to know about and from all there is to know, then you might have a better and more objective idea of life. But even then it is questionable, because you cannot separate life from circumstance.

'I know one thing, that I know nothing.'

reply

In fact I can imagine your childhood to have had quite a profound effect on your views. The lack of approval and ability to fit into social norms and/or negative experiences regarding women has led you to seek other forms of 'fitting in'.

It is noble, yet not objectively so.

reply

You're poking at me with a pretty long stick!

Yes, of course any high ideal can be followed with a secret desire to justify and exalt ones own self. I like to think it is possible to follow high ideals just for their own sake, and to forget about self. To unselfishly follow an unselfish ideal: that's what I strive for.

Of course I believe in a "God", and therefore don't expect to attain that ideal without something much higher than myself to focus on and to imitate.

I'm not aware of these negative experiences from my childhood that you surmise.

reply

[deleted]

Yes, the script relies heavily on the juxtoposition of death and sex.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

Yes, that seems to be the case. As I said, there were many other great ideas in the life of this man that could have been dwelt on.

I found the similar problem with another movie-biography I recently saw: A Dangerous Methodhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt1571222/ (about Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud). Again, some really interesting historical figures, and many things that could have been dwelt on, but instead we are served up a dish of extra-marital sex and sado-masochism.

It almost makes me think of doing my own documentaries...

reply

I didn't watch that one -- it was obvious they built the story around sex. It wasn't difficult since the glossy media have been gleefully peddling the story that Jung and Freud slept with their patients and students. The presence of Keira Nightly also instantly rang a bell.

As for LS, the sex part was awfully distracting. I don't know how it managed it to be so, there's normally some sex in almost all movies but in this one it poured over the top.

If you want to learn about Tolstoy, I suggest you watch Russian War & Peace, that one is truly a great movie. Its message however doesn't seem to be very complicated IMO.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

Thanks for the tip...I'll look it up.

reply

Clearly, we have not watched the same film...

This film is certainly not flawless... and I am far from being overly convinced by it... what it does manage to make clear quite well though is how conflicted a man Tolstoy was... A man of contradictions who had a hard time reconciling the man he would have wanted to be and the man he actually was... One just can't pass over the fact that despite advocating chastity for most of his married life and proclaiming his loathing of procreation, he got his wife pregnant 13 times...

If nothing else, the film shows that Tolstoy was human and flawed. An immense author, but still a man.

Pornography, huh?

Life’s just a perpetual piecing together of broken bits.

reply

I can't verify that he advocated chastity "for most of his married life." It seems these views were made public around 1889, at which point all of his children had already been conceived.

I like the idea he expresses here:

"Getting married cannot promote the service of God, even in the case of marriage
for the purpose of continuing the human race. It would be infinitely simpler if
these people, rather than getting married to produce children’s lives, would
support and save those millions of children who are perishing around us from a
lack of material (to say nothing of spiritual) sustenance." (Tolstoy “Afterward”
117)

I think in these ideas, and others of his later life, he attempted to grapple with the problems of humanity and find simple solutions based on unselfish love.

The treasure (ideas) are greater than the vessel (humanity), but I don't trust a depiction of him that minimizes the treasure and magnifies the real or supposed faults of the vessel. Even Jesus was deemed a "flawed" man by most of the people of his time, and so "flawed" that they condemned him as the worst criminal.

reply

But Jesus-Christ, or a prophet, Tolstoy was not. Not matter what Tchertkov would have us believe. And this is the problem with Tolstoy: when all is said and done, he is, more or less, a fraud. Yes, he wanted to live like a peasant. But, in truth, he was not. As simply and frugally as he lived, he didn't have to deal with the kind of hazards Russian peasants had to deal with at the time. Tolstoy never was in danger of starving when thousands of Russian peasants were. He was a count and a well-published author, whether he wanted it or not. And no matter what people find in his writing to sustain their own ideas on marriage and chastity, the fact still remains that despite his good wishes, he still visited regularly his wife's bed until old age. He may have felt guilty about it, as appears in his diary. But, still, it's typically a case of "Do what I say, not what I do", which, to me, lessens considerably the impact of his philosophy.

Look, I'm not trying to pick up a fight. I too tend to be rather fed up with the current tendency of thinking that sex is inevitable in a movie, the answer to everything... But I feel it is important to point out that a lot of what is generally considered as "Tolstoyism" is mostly the produce of Tchertkov's construction. Tchertkov being the kind of person who resisted until the very end the idea of letting Tolstoy see his wife on his death-bed, no matter his demands, because he feared for his "posterity".

It's true, too, that despite the huge admiration I have for his literary work, I don't particularly share quite a few of his philosophical views: his blatant misogyny, his late denial of the importance of literature, his vilification of music and theatre to name a few. To me, his flaws and his merits go hand in hand... and I'm not really sure saying that "minimizes" the treasure he might represent. To me, it doesn't.

The main pitfall with this film, to me, is that the end of Tolstoy's life (his flight) is not understandable without knowing most of his biography, the particularities of his every day life, the progression of his philosophical thought. It just doesn't make sense to take the last 6 months of his life and make a movie of it.



Life’s just a perpetual piecing together of broken bits.

reply

Judging a man as a fraud who lived 100 years ago and whom you did not personally know, just on the basis of someone's interpretation of his writings or the events of his life, is quite harsh. This is actually criticizing the "vessel" and it will influence your view of the "treasure" of his thoughts or ideas. If a man is a fraud or hypocrite, then how much value will his ideas have? Not much.

But I think his later writings and ideas have value, and I say this because of the acid test of practice. Gandhi was strongly influenced by them, and corresponded very briefly with Tolstoy. Much good came out of that. This influence and it's effects in part justify Tolstoy, regardless of what people may say about his later life.

The rest I leave for the judgment day when all thoughts and deeds will be openly revealed.

reply

I find your lecturing mode a bit amusing... Especially, considering you admitted yourself having not read anything this great novelist (one of the greatest) wrote...

Well, I would argue that Tosltoy's writings, the whole of them, some more than others admittedly [well, to me], have value.

Since I have no interest whatsoever in convincing you, I'll leave you on your high horse... If you ever decide to actually read Tolstoy however... you might find The Kreutzer Sonata and Father Sergius of interest, and most assuredly Anna Karenina. And, of course, reading a good and well-documented biography might help you understand the man and his philosophy too... I personally found much interest in Henri Troyat's one... Just saying...

Life’s just a perpetual piecing together of broken bits.

reply

Fair enough.

reply

Your admission that you haven't read Tolstoy is very telling. It explains why you didn't understand the movie at all.

Also you seem very ignorant to some basic facts about Ghandi's life, like for example he had sex with young girls through out his time as a so called spiritual leader.

What I get most from your post is that you really need to get laid!

reply

Actually, I have read some of Tolstoy's writings, but not his novels. I've read parts of his work on the "Kingdom of God" and parts of a book called "The Wisdom of Tolstoy" which is taken from his work called "My Religion". These are the parts of his life that interest me. They are the later works of his life, and during this period, he himself disowned most of his earlier novels. I tend to agree with his later evaluation of his own works.

Since the movie was supposed to be about his latter days, it did not really do justice to his ideas.

I think your comment about Gandhi's life must be based on some very biased and hateful criticism. I've read what Gandhi himself wrote about his experiments with chastity. He sometimes slept with young ladies to test his vow of chastity. They understood what he was doing, and cooperated with the test. It was an unusual test, and not one I would recommend for most others, but he did not violate the vow, according to his own writings. And I believe him, because I discern the honesty and truthfulness in what he wrote and lived.

reply

You know what I'd also like to see more of many Tolstoy's great deeds, and that's all I can agree w/y. Just that would be more suitable for serial, definitely not for 1,2 or even 10 movies, if you like. You mate completely missed the point of this particular one and I'm truly sorry for you.

reply

It was little else than dressed up pornography.

A statement that proves you know nothing about either respectable film criticism or pornography.

Thank you, thank you--you're most kind. In fact you're every kind.

reply