The Hundred Year Squeaky Wheel

Do you think this era's Shakespeare (assuming there will be one--probably not, theater being just one of many mediums for dramaturgy, and not the most widespread and common as he was in his day) will be writing scores of plays about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

It is perhaps, in part, because of the historical (of course, more topical to their original audiences) significance of Shakespeare plays, revolving around England and France's 100 years war, that they have stuck around so long? No doubt this can be a good thing. Would I know of Henry V or Richard II, if not for The Bard? Of course it is the style, wit, and narrative that has helped keep him in the hands of high-school students to this day, but does not the authenticity of the events stir our collective call to "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more" (Act III, scene I)?

Really, if film can be seen as the true people's medium of the last hundred years--it can--then at this point you would have to look at WWII as the crowning, defining dramatic representation of war for our times. Well, then, where are all the movies of this conflict? To be sure, there are more reasons than I don't care to go into here: from the difference in scale of the conflicts to the indifference of an American audience not directly involved; indeed, Jews, who have had a disproportionate influence in Hollywood, are to be found in both sagas--though with the differing roles of simply and strictly the victim to the more complex persona of victim and aggressor.

Most important, though, is the cushion of time removed from the events: how is one to make a sprawling decades long cinema classic if we don't even know what happens in the end? Hollywood, like any good epic/epoch maker, needs a conclusion. It need not be tidy; in fact messy makes for more interesting. So for god's sake, or at least for Oscar's, get it over with already. I want my DVD box set, with running commentary from the director--I'm looking at you Scorsese.