Tehachapi News

“Mulholland Falls” is one of my favorite films, and in my opinion the best role Nick Nolte ever played. But critics are notorious for missing the mark, and many seemed unconscious when it came to reviews of the film. Too many of them did not really live the era of 50s Los Angeles and the early naiveté of the general population of Americans at the time concerning our government, nuclear weapons and research. But the film hit the mark in its appeal to what was needed in many cases for justice to prevail in the face of those with power flaunting the law.

Much in the way audiences cheered Charles Bronson blowing away the bad guys on that subway in “Death Wish,” many of us cheered Nick Nolte and his “Hat Squad” doing what needed doing, even making people “disappear” when necessary with the approval of L.A.P.D. Chief played by Bruce Dern, reminding me of Ed Davis who I knew personally. Vigilante Justice? You bet! And sometimes that is the only justice victims and their survivors can hope to receive.

The point the military scientist made to Nolte was a valid one; that those who accept authority over others assume greater latitude of behavior than those over whom such authority is wielded. In “Some Came Running” Gwen tells her literature class that great writers are not expected to be held to the same standards of behavior as those not so gifted, that they have standards of their own and are to be accorded much greater latitude than the narrower one demanded of ordinary people. The distinction between what may be sacrificed for the sake of science or art may become blurred at times, but few would question greater latitude of behavior is assumed, when not given outright, in both cases.

However, when it comes to keeping the peace how much better a nation of laws where justice prevails without any need of vigilantes. But that presumes those in positions of authority and leadership to enforce the laws are law-abiding themselves and it is not a matter of wealth and power dictating how much justice one can afford, the unhappy state of America today.

But the abuses of law by those of wealth and power are not peculiar to America by any means; this has a long history, one as ancient as humankind. King David, the “sweet singer of Israel,” comes immediately to mind.

When the Lord sent Nathan to confront David, the prophet could have told the king straight out: God is going to bring judgment against you because you committed adultery with another man’s wife, then had her husband killed so you could have her!

But no, that wouldn’t do. Nathan had to first tell David a heart wrenching story about a poor man whose sole possession was a little lamb he loved, but a rich man took it from him and slaughtered it to feed his guests. This so infuriated David he demanded the rich man be executed! Nathan then says to David, “Thou art the man.”

It’s quite a story; that of David and Bathsheba. And including the way Nathan handled it in confronting this great sin of David the story in its entirety lends much credence to the overall impression it is factual, and I have preached a few sermons, usually homiletically, from the text.

How very often does a story preface the point someone wishes to make; and it was a characteristic of Jesus to do this even as others like Nathan. But why did Nathan tell a story about a poor man and his lamb rather than simply confront David with the bald facts of his sin? Ah, it is the way of storytellers to gauge their audience in order to make a point, and Nathan would have David pronounce himself guilty rather than leaving it to others. So Nathan masterfully crafted a story that would not only reach the heart of the king, but cause him to confess being guilty as charged.

The one seeming incongruity noticed is how David could have committed such a great sin and still have a conscience that could react to Nathan’s story? The prophet knew David’s background was that of a shepherd, that he had the heart of a shepherd inclined to protecting the flock and fending off threats from wild animals. But was he more disposed to having a conscience toward a helpless little lamb than people? If so, he wouldn’t be all that unusual, since it is quite common to find people with more sympathy for helpless animals than humans. Fish and game laws in many instances carry harsher penalties than those relating to crimes against people, and in many instances the laws concerning the care of pets carry stiffer penalties for their abuse than the laws concerning child abuse.

It is often a case of skewed priorities when it comes to matters of conscience. God knows I would not want to be held to account by the conscience of another; and David’s case is an excellent example of this. Legal systems are designed around laws that describe certain rights, crimes and their punishment or penalties. And while some may be based on matters relating to conscience, most laws are designed for the practical working of a society gained by consensus, civilized nations agreeing for the most part on the general themes.

However, no system of laws is any better than those sworn to uphold and enforce such laws fulfilling their duty to do so. And while David could be confronted with an appeal to conscience, as skewed as it was, I wonder what story might reach the consciences of those in positions of authority and leadership here in America today?

While David repented in sackcloth and ashes he could not contravene the judgment of God and the sword never departed his house. But we have no Nathan to confront our leaders, there is no story to make an appeal to their consciences, and I can’t see any of them repenting of their wickedness in sackcloth and ashes. In the meantime we have the stories and the films, though they never find their mark in those without conscience, such leaders not even having the redeeming qualities of the scientist or artist by which society might grant them wider latitude of behavior.