This archive cleans the hard drive
Assume for a minute that brilliance, intelligence, smarts, comes with it a price of sanity. Say it’s a theme of man vs. self. The cost of enlightenment comes with it a loss of community, of acceptance, of respect. Someone said to me once, saints were disruptions in their day. They were the freaks, the rejects, the avant-garde. The voice in the wilderness is unexpected and violent in its non-violence. The primitive ego-less-ness of these individuals, promote through their naïveté, an abrasive anti-culture. Thus the anti-culture defines the culture, the anti-hero the hero, the anti-christ a Christ and so on. The dichotomies reside in the same foil shell of a leader. The yin blends the yang to construct an exceptional man of history.

It used to be that films were all constructed from a formula of protagonist vs. antagonist in it’s foundation. This seems to have changed. Time progresses, and the consciousness of mankind in a general way, is moving toward a graying of former blacks and whites. Central characters confront audience assumptions on modern day morality by committing often violent crimes in response to a complex ethos inducing situations. Thus the antagonist assumes the public’s sentiment of prior protagonists.

_______
One also asks, is there such a thing a being too honest? But then consider the social mores we hold about what is “crazy.” Typically, they are those who communicate too concisely. They are constantly hung up on the details that seem insignificant to the general mainstream. They are authentic in their reactions, and they react without discriminations based on real intimacy or relationship with the listener. They deliver insights and emotions without any formality. Typically there is a generally accepted formality in disclosure that is based on a context which has been prepared for the receiver. Lunatics create a space of consistent informality.