I think it may be that Ahab is illustrating that all forms, even 'dangerous' ones are merely phenomena of a supreme, inscrutable and evil noumenal force and that he does not fear any of those "masks", unlike Christians and that he will oppose any threat that he encounters and to "strike through" them to that invisable enemy. That is what the famous retort by Ahab to Starbuck is about:
"All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event - in the living act, the undoubted deed - there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the moldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. That inscrutable thing is chiefly what I hate; and be the white whale agent or be the white whale principal, I will wreak that hate upon him. Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I'd strike the sun if it insulted me. For could the sun do that, then could I do the other; since there is ever a sort of fair play herein, jealousy presiding over all creations. But not my master, man, is even that fair play. Who's over me? Truth hath no confines."
Extraordarily powerful words. Ahab (or Melville) is saying "Original Sin be damned" - that it's bullsh*t and that it's "everyman for himself and Evil against All" and that wills shall oppose one and other on a level playing field, ie. that there are no rules or laws in his pursuit of the whale/Evil.
Late in life, Melville read Schopenhauer extensively when the first english translations became available.
"We forfeit three-fourths of ourselves in order to be like other people." - Arthur Schopenhauer
reply
share
earth_controller
19 years ago
Basically all Ahab is saying is that he thinks of himself as a God-like figure while Moby Dick is the evil being he's trying to kill. However, Ahab is actually the evil one while Moby Dick is thought by many to symbolize God. And the St. Elmo's Fire (corposants) is electrical discharge from the lightning. It wouldn't be an uncommon thing for the masts to be struck by lightning like in Moby Dick. I have not seen the entire movie but have read the book so I don't know the differences between the two.
reply
share
Gordon-M
19 years ago
It isn't prerequisite, but being aware of the philosophies of Immanuel Kant and Arthur Schopenhauer is extremely helpful in understanding what Melville is trying to convey in Moby Dick. The film presents a more direct, Hemmingway-esque adventure yarn where the philosophical passages are often presented a little too ripe and the flow of the film falters, I feel. It is a story that, in part, seems to lend itself to cinematic interpretation, but is in actuality, very difficult material to execute on screen, with actors. Huston's film is often a little too light - 'family friendly' - almost in a Disney stylee, but then that was the ingrained style of the times in Hollywood, and even a maverick like Huston could not overcome those habits. The 1998 TV movie also doesn't rise to the challenge, really. It is a story that could only now be told on film most powerfully, given a budget of around $70 million, on-location principle photography and CGI by the best artists back in Hollywood. But it would need a great writer - William Goldman would be my first choice - and obviously great actors (De Niro as Ahab? John Malkovich?) and director (Peter Weir?) and cinematographer (Gordon Willis). But after a slew of shark films over the last thirty years, perhaps audiences are not really too keen to see an allegorical whaling epic.
"We forfeit three-fourths of ourselves in order to be like other people." - Arthur Schopenhauer
reply
share
oscarinca
18 years ago
In Hebrew the word "karan" means horns of light literally and that was also an effect of St. Elmo's Fire in the top of the mountain Sinai in Saudi Arabia instead of Egypt as people think. Wonder Gregory Peck as Moses instead of Chuck Heston (his partner in Big Country)!!!!
reply
share