Eliot Spitzer, Beowulf (the Movie), and Phallic-Morality-Obstructive Disorder (PMOD)


A few months ago I went to see the CGI movie Beowulf. I went for several reasons: 1) I love special effects and wanted to see how far full CGI had come since the somewhat creepy The Polar Express. 2) I teach Beowulf in a British Lit class every summer and was certain that at least a few of my students would have watched this film and wanted to be able to intelligently respond to it. and 3) I am always interested in how literary works are appropriated, used, interpreted and changed when they are translated to film.

The film had some interesting moments and the effects (3D and otherwise) were quite extraordinary, but I left it with the uneasy thought that an ancient story that valorizes heroism, that deals with issues of fate, honor, the clash of cultures, aging and more, had been transformed ultimately into the simple banal tragedy that even the best of men cannot keep their pants on.

The news that has come out in the past few days about the crusading legal prodigy from New York, Eliot Spitzer, has seemingly added new evidence that this particular critique of MANkind is deserved. We cannot, it seems, keep our pants on. Mr. Spitzer’s dilemma (like that of Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Baker in earlier eras or Ted Haggard more recently) is particularly sad because he is hoisted on the petard of his own righteousness. At least in the movie Beowulf’s case, he admitted that he had a penchant for “swiving beautiful women,” but Spitzer is spitted more royally, because he has been such a stickler for legality.

Men, it seems, are plagued constantly with Phallic Morality Obstructive Disorder. This disease is especially prevalent in proud heroic figures, and in leaders who are often elevated by the public as particularly special specimens of righteousness.

So what do we make of this? It seems to me that we can deal with this problem in several different ways:

We can simply go on doing what we’ve been doing. Elevate people to impossible heights. Valorize them as champions. Honor them as bastions of integrity. Give them very little moral support or accountability, and then wait for them to blow it. Then we can make headlines and condemn them roundly, discard them and look for another hero. This seems to be our model – our ritual of choice, but it is hardly the most healthy.


We could admit that PMOD is a continual and unsolvable problem and demand that all of our public servants be eunuchs or women. (Hillary campaign, pay attention, here is another talking point).

We could stop seeking heroes and start looking toward more individual accountability and community support for persons in roles of leadership. This would take a whole lot of effort, and the news wouldn’t be quite as saucy. Everyone made fun of Jimmy Carter when he talked about the “lust” in his “heart,” but to me, that response was more healthy than pretending that everything is perfect and then going out and doing self-destructive things on the side.

It seems to me that our fascination with saints, heroes and role models is a collective version of copping out. We outsource the responsibilities for our personal and collective morality onto these people and, as long as they live up to it, we give them money, power, and glory. When they fall, we say, “what a shame.” And by doing so, we still feel better about ourselves.

So do we wallow, or do we change.