Earlier this week my oldest daughter, her two sons (10 and 8), my granddaughter (almost 3), and I toured Fort Ticonderoga in New York. It was a bright, sun-filled day with a view of Lake Champlain from the fort ramparts that stirred one's love of beauty. But I was reminded that the soldiers who manned that fort in various sieges probably weren't thinking that way. They were hoping their muskets wouldn't misfire or that one of their shots might hit an unknown enemy, whether French, British, or American, since the fort was held by all three powers. We watched a group of smartly trained high schoolers, boys and girls, personify the American drum and fife corps. Their precision and dedication as well as their musicality was impressive, and they were obviously proud of their part in preserving the traditions of the fort.
But I couldn't help thinking of the original drum and fife corps who not only bravely announced the coming regiment but also ran messages behind lines and risked their lives on a daily basis. Most of these boys...and they were often small boys..... did not live to see the freedom they and their older compatriots fought for. And then my thoughts then moved to older boys, girls, men, and women who have been fighting, hurting, and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade. Somehow the comparison won't wash for many reasons. Let me be clear: I support
our troops, but I do not support these needless and wasteful wars. Not only have we lost lives but also family relationships. We are still spending billions of dollars on the most threadbare excuse for invasion..and that is what it is. We will not democratize Afghans. They don't want it, and they won't have it.
Yes, the boys who proudly marched and played their bugles, fifes, and drums stir the hearts of Americans today, some of whom still have the outmoded notion that war is necessary. Let us pray that they will stir us to a vision of peace like the one we see from Fort Ticonderoga, a calm, untrouble Lake Champlain
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
50 Years On...What an anniversary says
This seems to be a year of 5o year anniversaries. Among them is Chubby Checker's "The Twist." But let's look at two milestones that came out within the same summer in 1960. One of them changed the look and subject matter of movies forever; the other was a milestone in our country's understanding of racism. Of course, these cultural events are Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho and Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird.
One of the obvious similarities is that both are mysteries and operate on a "we want to know what happens" basis. They both deal with heinous crime, a form of madness, and strong characters. But here the similarities taper off. Psycho is a purposely low-budget horror flick that Hitchcock shot quickly on old television lots, almost as a joke. But the joke was on American moviegoers. Viewers went into the film cold and quickly identified with the main character Marion Crane, played by Janet Leigh. After 30 or so minutes of involvement in her theft and her growing psychosis, we are horrified to watch her (SPOILER ALERT) brutally knifed in a motel shower. More bloody murders occur until the final denouement when we find out the weird truth behind the Bates Motel murders. So why should such a lurid film be considered a cultural milestone. Obviously, Psycho unleashed the never-ending stream of much bloodier, more sadistic, and less thoughtful movies such as the Halloween series, the Elm Street franchise, and even the lowest of the low--the wretched Saw movies. But Hitchcock's film also proved to be a truly deep exploration of the depths of mental illness. Its extremities of horror emphasized how easily "normality" can sink into madness. The central scene of the film takes place in Norman's parlor where he and Marion Crane discuss their backgrounds and the traps they are in. Norman points out that Marion stepped into her trap while he was born into his. Ironically, she declares she will try to correct her mistakes just minutes before her death; Norman never gets the chance. Through brilliant writing, lighting, and acting, Hitchcock pulls us into a foreign world, horrifying but enthalling as well. For better or worse, movies grew up and addressed issues only hinted at during its golden age.
The now legendary To Kill a Mockingbird came at an auspicious time. Racial tensions were rising throughout the country, especially in the South. Civil Rights marches, sit-ins, riots were already on the horizon as the turbulent sixties began. Millions have read Harper Lee's revealing and all too human look at the South of an earlier time, and many of them began to understand the complexities of the racial situation that media could only hint at. Perhaps they trusted the author because she was a Southerner from a small town in Alabama. The novel addressed controversial issues such as rape, racial prejudice, and mob violence while telling a gentle tale of a child's emergence into a difficult world. Fortunately that child, Scout, has a wonderful mentor and single parent in the lawyer Atticus Finch. Finch raises his two children in a loving but Socratic way, urging them to "get into another person's skin" to understand him. For Scout, that includes her neighbors; Tom Robinson, the black man accused of raping a "white trash" girl; and Boo Radley, the reclusive, perhaps mentally ill man who lives nearby. Lee pulls these diverse strands together masterfully and gives us a novel of purpose, empathy, and compassion. Few works have had the powerful influence on American thinking that To Kill a Mockingbird has had.
Fifty years ago the world was rapidly changing. Hitchcock and Lee mirrored those changes. Today their works, Psycho and To Kill a Mockingbird , still resonate with modern audiences.
One of the obvious similarities is that both are mysteries and operate on a "we want to know what happens" basis. They both deal with heinous crime, a form of madness, and strong characters. But here the similarities taper off. Psycho is a purposely low-budget horror flick that Hitchcock shot quickly on old television lots, almost as a joke. But the joke was on American moviegoers. Viewers went into the film cold and quickly identified with the main character Marion Crane, played by Janet Leigh. After 30 or so minutes of involvement in her theft and her growing psychosis, we are horrified to watch her (SPOILER ALERT) brutally knifed in a motel shower. More bloody murders occur until the final denouement when we find out the weird truth behind the Bates Motel murders. So why should such a lurid film be considered a cultural milestone. Obviously, Psycho unleashed the never-ending stream of much bloodier, more sadistic, and less thoughtful movies such as the Halloween series, the Elm Street franchise, and even the lowest of the low--the wretched Saw movies. But Hitchcock's film also proved to be a truly deep exploration of the depths of mental illness. Its extremities of horror emphasized how easily "normality" can sink into madness. The central scene of the film takes place in Norman's parlor where he and Marion Crane discuss their backgrounds and the traps they are in. Norman points out that Marion stepped into her trap while he was born into his. Ironically, she declares she will try to correct her mistakes just minutes before her death; Norman never gets the chance. Through brilliant writing, lighting, and acting, Hitchcock pulls us into a foreign world, horrifying but enthalling as well. For better or worse, movies grew up and addressed issues only hinted at during its golden age.
The now legendary To Kill a Mockingbird came at an auspicious time. Racial tensions were rising throughout the country, especially in the South. Civil Rights marches, sit-ins, riots were already on the horizon as the turbulent sixties began. Millions have read Harper Lee's revealing and all too human look at the South of an earlier time, and many of them began to understand the complexities of the racial situation that media could only hint at. Perhaps they trusted the author because she was a Southerner from a small town in Alabama. The novel addressed controversial issues such as rape, racial prejudice, and mob violence while telling a gentle tale of a child's emergence into a difficult world. Fortunately that child, Scout, has a wonderful mentor and single parent in the lawyer Atticus Finch. Finch raises his two children in a loving but Socratic way, urging them to "get into another person's skin" to understand him. For Scout, that includes her neighbors; Tom Robinson, the black man accused of raping a "white trash" girl; and Boo Radley, the reclusive, perhaps mentally ill man who lives nearby. Lee pulls these diverse strands together masterfully and gives us a novel of purpose, empathy, and compassion. Few works have had the powerful influence on American thinking that To Kill a Mockingbird has had.
Fifty years ago the world was rapidly changing. Hitchcock and Lee mirrored those changes. Today their works, Psycho and To Kill a Mockingbird , still resonate with modern audiences.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Repression, Punishment, Guilt...ah, movies to love.
The front-runner for the 2009 Best Foreign Film Oscar were Germany's The White Ribbon and Argentina's The Secret in Their Eyes. Both are dramas that deal with repressive communities where people must watch what they say and who they see. Michael Haneke wrote the story and screenplay for The White Ribbon, which he also directed. It's a strange film, shot beautifully in stark black and white with allusions to Ingmar Bergman in themes and characters and to the westerns of John Ford in images and compositions. A small village in northern Germany in 1913 begins to experience disturbing events: a doctor and his horse felled my a wire near his home, the local baron's small son tortured, a suicide. Is this a parable for what is to come for Germany or a commentary on the innate evil in men as seen in their children, a la Village of the Damned? Or is it just a really creepy movie with no clear answers. The director cuts from story to story without a seeming logic, but the feeling engendered is that of a vise that will finally strangle the community. The White Ribbon is worth seeing, but one is relieved when it is over and would not want to experience it again.
The same could not be said for The Secret in Their Eyes, the Argentinian film
that surprised Oscar viewers by winning over The White Ribbon. Directed by Juan Jose Campanella, it is a moving meditation on politics, repressed love and speech, and the need to punish. This drama is in color and switches time periods as it releases the details of its mystery. It involves a low level legal counsel and his near obsession with solving a murder-rape case and his long unspoken love for his superior officer. After his retirement 20 years later, he tries to write a novelization of the crime. The more he investigates, the more labyrinthine and dangerous the search becomes. To say any more would perhaps give away too much, but this film is full of surprises, all of which are valid and work towards its stunning climax. The performances of the principal actors are deeply affecting so that they seem more real than most Hollywood film performances.
Both The White Ribbon and The Secret in Their Eyes are films that explore the darkness of repressed societies and desires that lead to violence and death, but only The Secret in Their Eyes offers redemption and even hope. If you rent any foreign film this year, make it this one.
The same could not be said for The Secret in Their Eyes, the Argentinian film
that surprised Oscar viewers by winning over The White Ribbon. Directed by Juan Jose Campanella, it is a moving meditation on politics, repressed love and speech, and the need to punish. This drama is in color and switches time periods as it releases the details of its mystery. It involves a low level legal counsel and his near obsession with solving a murder-rape case and his long unspoken love for his superior officer. After his retirement 20 years later, he tries to write a novelization of the crime. The more he investigates, the more labyrinthine and dangerous the search becomes. To say any more would perhaps give away too much, but this film is full of surprises, all of which are valid and work towards its stunning climax. The performances of the principal actors are deeply affecting so that they seem more real than most Hollywood film performances.Both The White Ribbon and The Secret in Their Eyes are films that explore the darkness of repressed societies and desires that lead to violence and death, but only The Secret in Their Eyes offers redemption and even hope. If you rent any foreign film this year, make it this one.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Rough times for us all.
The continuing oil spill crisis has brought out the best and the worst in many of us. Coastal residents, for the most part, are doing what they can to survive the possible end of their way of life. British Petroleum is spending millions on apology ads in the media, money that should be going to the victims and to clean-up on the coast, in the wetlands, and for wildlife. And the media has had a field day yakking about President Obama's lack of passion or attitude. What do they want? Do they think Obama should weep as he says "I feel your pain"? Sorry, that one's taken. Do they want a raging fury that promises Armageddon for BP? These are not the man Barrack Obama. He is a man who feels, but he is also a methodical and logical thinker, one who studies a problem, consults with the best minds, and then acts. Since he was elected he has been attacked, especially by the GOP and the crazed right wing fringe for everything he has supported. Whether it is the oily Rush Limbaugh, the innane Sarah Palin, the lunatic Glen Beck or the daily sniping of cartoonists like Mike Lester of the Rome News Tribune, Obama has been viciously attacked for acting or not acting. In all of this, the civility that needs to be in public discourse is sadly missing. And it seems likely we won't see it again for some time. But at least there should be a moratorium on damning the President. Show some respect, folks!
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
BEST IN SHOW...still the Best!
Tonight we are watching director Christopher Guest's classic comedy BEST IN SHOW, co-written by Guest and Eugene Levy, both of whom have key roles in their film. We have watched this movie many times, often to alleviate boredom or even depression, but now it's summer and nothing is on the telly or here from Netflix. Guest and his usual troupe of parody actors made their biggest mark with WAITING FOR GUFFMAN, a witty look at a small town drama group's effort to mount a major production. Needless to say, everything goes awry, and the laughs abound. Guest helped spur the documentary, straight to the camera style that is so popular in television today (THE OFFICE, 30 ROCK, MODERN FAMILY).
BEST IN SHOW uses this technique to perfection. The major characters and their dogs are headed to Philadelphia for the annual Mayflower Dog Kennel Show. Any similarity to the Westminster show is purely intentional. As they prepare for the show, the characters get into ridiculous situations that expose typical American foibles that are not exclusive to dog owners.
Guest plays Harlan Pepper, an amateur ventriloquist whose dog is a bloodhound. Catherine O'Hara and Eugene Levy are a childless couple devoted to their Norwich Terrier. Their main problem is her past lovers who seem to show up at all the wrong times. Then there are Parker Posey and Michael Hitchcock as J. Crew preppies who met at Starbucks, actually one shop facing the other in a big city. Their neurotic behavior is seen in their nervous Weimaraner who sees a dog psychiatrist. Jennifer Coolidge is the buxom young blonde wife of an doddering octogenerian (think of Anna Nicole Smith) who has hired Jane Lynch as her trainer for their white poodle. Lynch here is a prototype for her role on GLEE, domineering, emasculating, even trying to psyche out the other contending trainers. Rounding out the owners are Scott Donlan and Michael McKean, the gay owners of Shih Tzu. For 2000, they are the best and least of stereotypes; the younger is flashy, the older is more reserved. They have some of the wittiest lines in the film. And to top it off, there is Fred Willard as the co-host of the show, a man who has no clue about sports or anything else. His hilarious non sequiturs are fine on their own but even better as we watched the restrained pain of his co-host, a knowledgeable Brit.
Too often parody can be cruel but not here. Though the characters are outrageous at times, they display humanity, with the exception of the preppy couple. BEST IN SHOW is one of the great comedies. I would rank it with classics like SOME LIKE IT HOT and TOOTSIE. And compared to the slovenly slacker gross-outs on the screen today, Christopher Guest's film is a masterpiece.
BEST IN SHOW uses this technique to perfection. The major characters and their dogs are headed to Philadelphia for the annual Mayflower Dog Kennel Show. Any similarity to the Westminster show is purely intentional. As they prepare for the show, the characters get into ridiculous situations that expose typical American foibles that are not exclusive to dog owners.
Guest plays Harlan Pepper, an amateur ventriloquist whose dog is a bloodhound. Catherine O'Hara and Eugene Levy are a childless couple devoted to their Norwich Terrier. Their main problem is her past lovers who seem to show up at all the wrong times. Then there are Parker Posey and Michael Hitchcock as J. Crew preppies who met at Starbucks, actually one shop facing the other in a big city. Their neurotic behavior is seen in their nervous Weimaraner who sees a dog psychiatrist. Jennifer Coolidge is the buxom young blonde wife of an doddering octogenerian (think of Anna Nicole Smith) who has hired Jane Lynch as her trainer for their white poodle. Lynch here is a prototype for her role on GLEE, domineering, emasculating, even trying to psyche out the other contending trainers. Rounding out the owners are Scott Donlan and Michael McKean, the gay owners of Shih Tzu. For 2000, they are the best and least of stereotypes; the younger is flashy, the older is more reserved. They have some of the wittiest lines in the film. And to top it off, there is Fred Willard as the co-host of the show, a man who has no clue about sports or anything else. His hilarious non sequiturs are fine on their own but even better as we watched the restrained pain of his co-host, a knowledgeable Brit.
Too often parody can be cruel but not here. Though the characters are outrageous at times, they display humanity, with the exception of the preppy couple. BEST IN SHOW is one of the great comedies. I would rank it with classics like SOME LIKE IT HOT and TOOTSIE. And compared to the slovenly slacker gross-outs on the screen today, Christopher Guest's film is a masterpiece.
Monday, May 24, 2010
"I'm LOST without a clue!"
Earthquakes, volcanoes, black smoke, plane crashes, deep and dangerous mines. No, I'm not talking about recent news events. Quirky characters, meaningless chases, unbelievable underground scenery, scary monsters. No, I'm not describing Tim Burton's eviseration of Lewis Carroll's ALICE IN WONDERLAND. You guessed it...LOST's long-awaited and long on lack of logic finale. Robert Bianco, USA's tv critic gave this muddle four stars and called it one of the great finales and series in tv history. I generally respect this fellow's opinions, but I think he got suckered big time.
Granted, I am not an avid fan and I have never been on line with rabid LOST devotees, but I have watched the show over the last six years and have grown fond of some of the characters.
One of the cardinal rules of LOST is to kill off characters that viewers like. A prime example is the beautiful relationship that developed between Sun and Yin, played with warmth and sensitivity by Yunjin Kim and Daniel Dae Kim. The couple struggled against almost impossible odds only to be torn apart time and time again. In this year's final season they are finally together only to drown with each other. A number of other viewer favorites also bit the dust.
But, lo, the writers and producers of LOST have wrought many miracles, none greater than bringing the entire cast, dead and alive, back for the finale. How? In the last century when I was teaching Coleridge we would discuss the importance of "the willing suspension of disbelief." This divided classes into two warring groups, the realists and the imaginists. Frankly, I have always sided with the latter group and remain a staunch romantic. However, LOST has stretched this axiom beyond the breaking point with the use of flashbacks, flashforwards, parallel times, the disappearance of the island, and even a trip to the 1970's, which might be a worse fate than being on that island with a bunch of warring creeps.
Last night's finale shattered any hope of tying up all the loose ends. People are debating the meanings, religious or otherwise, but in the final analysis we got a giant cop-out. Jack, our hero by default, saves the island but dies in the process just as the plane takes off with some of the original survivors. We have been cutting back and forth to what we thought was a flashforward. It turns out we have been prepping for the show's funeral. Jack enters a church where he meets not only his father whom he never got to bury but also most of the cast. Have they all died? Did they die at the first of season one and all that followed was a fantasy tease? Did some escape and re-start their lives? All we really know is that Jack is in a heavenly church with his former friends and enemies in one great love-in. And as the music swells lugubriously, Jack walks through the door into blinding light. I thought this was LOST, not TOUCHED BY AN ANGEL.
Did Coleridge fail me or was it those guys at ABC?
Granted, I am not an avid fan and I have never been on line with rabid LOST devotees, but I have watched the show over the last six years and have grown fond of some of the characters.
One of the cardinal rules of LOST is to kill off characters that viewers like. A prime example is the beautiful relationship that developed between Sun and Yin, played with warmth and sensitivity by Yunjin Kim and Daniel Dae Kim. The couple struggled against almost impossible odds only to be torn apart time and time again. In this year's final season they are finally together only to drown with each other. A number of other viewer favorites also bit the dust.
But, lo, the writers and producers of LOST have wrought many miracles, none greater than bringing the entire cast, dead and alive, back for the finale. How? In the last century when I was teaching Coleridge we would discuss the importance of "the willing suspension of disbelief." This divided classes into two warring groups, the realists and the imaginists. Frankly, I have always sided with the latter group and remain a staunch romantic. However, LOST has stretched this axiom beyond the breaking point with the use of flashbacks, flashforwards, parallel times, the disappearance of the island, and even a trip to the 1970's, which might be a worse fate than being on that island with a bunch of warring creeps.
Last night's finale shattered any hope of tying up all the loose ends. People are debating the meanings, religious or otherwise, but in the final analysis we got a giant cop-out. Jack, our hero by default, saves the island but dies in the process just as the plane takes off with some of the original survivors. We have been cutting back and forth to what we thought was a flashforward. It turns out we have been prepping for the show's funeral. Jack enters a church where he meets not only his father whom he never got to bury but also most of the cast. Have they all died? Did they die at the first of season one and all that followed was a fantasy tease? Did some escape and re-start their lives? All we really know is that Jack is in a heavenly church with his former friends and enemies in one great love-in. And as the music swells lugubriously, Jack walks through the door into blinding light. I thought this was LOST, not TOUCHED BY AN ANGEL.
Did Coleridge fail me or was it those guys at ABC?
Friday, May 7, 2010
Time to get back to Basics
If you've seen any American movies lately, you know that they are in dire shape. The industry has fallen for the newest craze--3 Dimensions. Though AVATAR uses stunning three-dimensional technology, the story is trivial and threadbare. How many big budget action films condemn American industrial and the military complex while taking full advantage of both? The first IRON MAN, GI-JOE, the X-MEN franchise, the list goes on and on. So what's missing from these films?
Try plot, character development, meaningful and often witty dialogue. A few recent main stream movies have attempted to adapt the process after filming and they have been limited in their success. Tim Burton's beautiful but meandering ALICE IN WONDERLAND lost itself in special effects and make-up and forgot Lewis Carroll's inventive wordplay. Perhaps Burton thought audiences couldn't handle verbal cleverness, which is surprising when one considers some of his better films. A much lesser success was the joyless CLASH OF THE TITANS, which managed to make us long for the original production (1981) with Lawrence Olivier as Zeus and Harry Hamlin as a pretty boy Perseus and Ray Harryhausen's famous stop-motion special effects. Remember Medusa and those creepy scorpions?
Did summer movies once have plot, character development, and witty dialogue? You have to head for Netflix, but they still entertain far more than the current crop. Think of Robert Shaw as the salty and slightly daffy boat captain or Richard Dreyfuss as the marine biologist in JAWS. What about Karen Allen and Harrison Ford exchanging both verbal and physical blows in perhaps the greatest of all adventure films, RAIDERS OF THE LAST ARK? And then there are classic series such as STAR WARS and THE LORD OF THE RINGS, whose unique appeals captured viewers of all ages and intellectual backgrounds. Time and time again American audiences have shown they can enjoy intelligent, story-based, character-driven action films. But Hollywood just doesn't seem to get it.
We can hope the business, and it is a business, will improve, but demanding more is our job, not theirs.
Try plot, character development, meaningful and often witty dialogue. A few recent main stream movies have attempted to adapt the process after filming and they have been limited in their success. Tim Burton's beautiful but meandering ALICE IN WONDERLAND lost itself in special effects and make-up and forgot Lewis Carroll's inventive wordplay. Perhaps Burton thought audiences couldn't handle verbal cleverness, which is surprising when one considers some of his better films. A much lesser success was the joyless CLASH OF THE TITANS, which managed to make us long for the original production (1981) with Lawrence Olivier as Zeus and Harry Hamlin as a pretty boy Perseus and Ray Harryhausen's famous stop-motion special effects. Remember Medusa and those creepy scorpions?
Did summer movies once have plot, character development, and witty dialogue? You have to head for Netflix, but they still entertain far more than the current crop. Think of Robert Shaw as the salty and slightly daffy boat captain or Richard Dreyfuss as the marine biologist in JAWS. What about Karen Allen and Harrison Ford exchanging both verbal and physical blows in perhaps the greatest of all adventure films, RAIDERS OF THE LAST ARK? And then there are classic series such as STAR WARS and THE LORD OF THE RINGS, whose unique appeals captured viewers of all ages and intellectual backgrounds. Time and time again American audiences have shown they can enjoy intelligent, story-based, character-driven action films. But Hollywood just doesn't seem to get it.
We can hope the business, and it is a business, will improve, but demanding more is our job, not theirs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
