Category Archives: Movies

All Quiet on the Western Front

Movies

 

The film “All Quiet on the Western Front,” is based on a novel written by Erich Maria Remarque in 1929 about a decade after The Great War [World War I].  the title of the novel in German was Im Westen nichts Neues, and should properly be translated as Nothing New in the West. I wish they used the proper translation.  The film shows the war from the German perspective. It is interesting to see that perspective, though it is not that different from the Allied side. It is important for us to understand that.

 

That war famously was fought for absolutely no good reason. Not that wars usually have a reason that makes sense of the carnage. Yet that  was a war in which 17 million people died. After years of fighting and killing each other the front lines of east and west had hardly moved significantly.  What was the point of the awful slaughter? This film explores that question.

 

The film is set in the closing days of the war in 1917 following the life of a young German soldier Paul Bäumer who had enlisted after a patriotic address from a school master who told them now lucky they had been born when they were because now they had the glorious opportunity of going to war for the Fatherland. The boys are giddy with excitement over the opportunity. They are told to keep their rifles as clean as the Holy virgin. Soon their faces will be completely covered by mud, but they must keep their rifles clean. The boys were not forced to go to war. They were eager to go to war!

This reminded me of the autobiography of Bertrand Russell who was also a young lad at the same time and when it was announced at Trafalgar Square that England was going to war against the so-called “Huns”, the same people who were cheering in Germany, the young men also cheered wildly. All over Europe young men were ecstatic at the prospect of war. All of them expected the war to be short. One of the lines they expressed  was “Home or Homo by Christmas.”  All of them were sadly mistaken.

The illusion is actually broken in the opening scene of this film of a fox quietly feeding her kits at the breast. This scene was quiet, as was the next. That was a scene of corpses lying on the ground. Silent forever. That scene of death shortly emerges in a horrendous battle. It appears that all soldiers are dead. And really all were dead even those who were alive. They were dead in spirit.

The German boys who enlisted are given uniforms that were previously worn by young Germans now dead. They are also quiet.

The grunts on the front line of course obey the order given to them to “charge.”  That is about the most absurd thing they could do. Run into gun fire because officers ordered them to do that all for no purpose whatsoever. That is what war is all about. Soon another soldier dumps a load of corpses. That is what life and death are all about on the Western front. They are indeed quiet. But nothing else is quiet.

The scenes of soldiers slogging through trenches filled with rivers of water are heart-breaking. The soldiers futilely try to bail out the water. It can’t be done. The young men who cheered the war, now soldiers, cower in the trenches shaking in terror.  The protagonist Paul finds his friend from school lying face down in the mud with his glasses beside his quiet corpse.

Allied soldiers in tanks drive over the trenches filled with German soldiers, crushing many to death. Another squad of Allied soldiers carrying flame throwers burn the German soldiers alive. Where are the heroes?

Trapped in a crater in no man’s land with a lone French soldier, Paul and the soldier  stare at each other for a while and then realize their duty is to fight.  Paul stabs the young  enemy solider with a knife and then watches him die slowl, before him. Blood gurgles out of his throat and Paul is unable to stem the flow. As he dies, Paul becomes remorseless and begs the solider for forgiveness from the dead and quiet corpse. He rummages through the corpse’s papers and finds a photograph of his wife and children. Paul promises to tell his widow what he did.

The soldiers rarely get edible food, but the top German brass dine in style with obsequious soldier servants who must watch the general toss the dregs of his wine glass to the floor as he asks for more.

Paul’s friend Franz spends the night with a French woman, Eloise, and brings back her scarf as a souvenir. He sniffs it, as do the other soldiers. Franz tells the others that Eloise had milk white skin, and breasts. Will wonders never cease? But the men spend their time fighting. They have no time for young women, even if they have white skin and breasts!

On the morning of November 10, the Supreme Allied Commander gives the Germans 72 hours to surrender, leaving no room for negotiations and reminding them that for each minute of delay more German soldiers will die. The senseless slaughter will continue until the Germans surrender. The Germans, unlike the Allies, [our side] do the only thing that makes sense. They surrender. Later, Paul returns to his unit and sees them celebrating the imminent end of the war. He finds his wounded friend Tjaden, who gives him Franz’s scarf. Paul and Kat bring him food but Tjaden, distraught at being crippled, fatally stabs himself in the throat using a fork Paul and Kat brought with the food. Then Tjaden is quiet too.

The Germans agree to surrender at 11 a.m. on November 11 but a German General wants to end the war with a victory, even though the armistice has been announced. So he orders an attack at 10:45 a.m. and with 15 minutes left in the war the young German soldiers attack and kill large numbers of Allied soldiers and in turn suffer huge losses at the hands of the young Allied soldiers. Senseless slaughter again. This epitomizes the war. Young men eagerly launch themselves into the carnage for no reason. They just do it because they are ordered to do it and soldiers obey orders.

A despondent, battle-hardened Paul kills many French soldiers in a brutal killing spree in the last 15 minutes of the war  before  11:00 AM when the fighting stops, and the western front falls silent. After 11 a.m. a newly arrived German recruit that Paul had saved in the combat finds  Franz’s scarf. This is what the boys ought to have been doing. Spending time with girls, rather than brutally fighting each other in bloody and muddy trenches. And all for no discernible reason.

This is a magnificent film. It shows us what war is all about: meaningless slaughter. And it shows us what life could be about—a young girl’s scarf that smells just fine. We don’t see her but we know she has “white skin and breasts”. Because we don’t see her, she is quiet too. After the carnage all is quiet on the western front.

 

 

Everything Everywhere All at Once

Movies

 

 

I have a confession to make.  Even though I am a serious film reviewer who has huge respect for his audience, during my screening of this film I fell asleep! I don’t even know for how long. I was not watching it on my PVR where I could backtrack.

It happened when I was watching what seemed to me to an interminable martial arts scene. Even though the scene was partly a spoof of martial arts scenes I could not take it. It was mid-afternoon and I was stone sober and fell asleep. The reason is I am deeply bored by martial arts scenes. The first time I saw one I was enthralled like everyone else. After the 1,00th such scene I could not resist sleep any longer.

That doesn’t mean the film did not have good points. It had lots of good points. It was a good and interesting film. I think it will probably win the Academy Awards. I am just sick of martial arts fighting scenes. Enough.

There is one very important aspect of this film and it is revealed in the title. That is that the film uses its art to show us Everything. Everywhere. All at Once. And that is not easy to do. As Pablo Picasso. He and his friend George Braque who discovered a revolutionary new method of expressing reality in art called Cubism. Together in the early 20th century these two brilliant artist tried to show us different points of view of various subjects together all at once at the same time. Perhaps not everything as this film tries but a lot. That is why their images appeared fragmented and broken and helped establish not just a new form of painting, but actually, I would argue, helped to establish modern art of all kind including poetry, novels, sculpture, and music among others.

It seems to me this is what the makers of this film are doing and they have done a credible job in making cubism for cinema. How could I fall asleep through that? Stupidly!

As a result, the world explodes as if put through a blender as one reviewer cleverly noted. Perhaps, more in keeping with the film one might say, like clothes are jumbled in a clothes washer or dryer. You get to see all side at once. This film tries to do and therefore you must be prepared for a wild ride. Don’t fall asleep or walk out like a ninny. Then you might get to realize as Evelyn Wang said in the movie, “The universe is so much bigger than you realize.”  You can only look at images flashing through your mind at blinding speed. How else can you look at a multi-verse?  Can you view many stories at once? Or will you fall asleep on the job?

Gary Duong of NPR said, it is “a family hot pot of ridiculousness.”

The film really does try to show us everything, everywhere, all at once. As if the world was put into a blender and chopped up and then is spun around.  Or perhaps as demonstrated in the film, like clothes in a clothes washer or dryer at the laundromat. Like cubism. See all sides at once. How is that possible?  This film tries to show us how. To find out you have to be prepared for a wild ride. There really is nothing else like it.

Then, as if that is not enough, the film brings us to a simple yet immense conclusion: Be Kind. Even when you don’t know what is going on!

 You can do it.

 

The Fabelmans

art, Movies

 

 

This is a movie about movies. A subject dear to the heart of Steven Spielberg. This movie is based on the story of his own life. Really, it goes farther than that. This is a movie about passion.  Sam Fabelman is a young man who is a stand-in for Spielberg. Perhaps no one in the film exemplified passion more than Sam’s uncle Boris played by Judd Hirsch with consummate skill . Uncle Boris the disreputable Uncle Boris makes it clear that passion matters.  Perhaps it is all that matters. People who know they have talent must commit to it. The worst thing they can do is waste that talent. That would be a great sin. If that means they might have to neglect their loved ones, so be it.

Boris knows that Sam doesn’t want to make the film about his mother’s camping trip because he wants to work on his own war film.  As Boris says,

“But you, Mr. Director, you don’t wanna do this, what your daddy tells you, because you wanna make your war picture, ah? [Sammy’s embarrassed, startled to be understood so exactly. BORIS (CONT’D) Yeah, yeah… Believe me, Sammy Boy, I get it. Family, art: (he makes a fierce gesture meaning: “Pulled apart”]”

 

That is the price the artist must pay. Art plays hell with family life. along with everything else.  But Sam agrees to make the film and it leads to big trouble. That film does more to break up the family than his war film would have done. It really does rip the family apart.

Uncle Boris explains to Sam how important art is in their family. At least it is important for his sister Mitzi, him, and for Sam. As Boris says to Sam:

“You see what she got in her heart is what you got, what I got – ART. Like me, like you I think, we’re junkies and art is our drug. Family we love, but art, we’re meshugah for art. You think I wanted to leave my sisters, my mama and papa and go stick my stupid head in the mouth of lions?!?! SAMMY Putting your head in a lion’s mouth is art? BORIS (roaring with laughter, then with ferocious seriousness:) NO!! Sticking your head in the mouth of lions was balls!! Making sure that lion don’t eat my head?? That is art!! (he takes a drink:) You see Teenee, she didn’t say to Mitzi “go do what you gotta!” I mean she was a good person, my sister, but she was scared. Scared for your mother, she should have safety and family. So Mitzi, she gave it all up.”

 

Boris wants Sam to know how hard it will be to pursue his art. He squeezes Sam’s face and it hurts. Sam howls. That is what art does. He tells Sam:

“I want you should remember how that hurt. Because when they say all this – [gesturing to the film preparations all over] – when they say what you do, it’s cute, it’s a hobby, it’s like stamps or butterfly collecting, you feel your face how it feels now!

And Sam knows. His uncle nearly pulled off his face.

Boris tells Sam,

“So you remember your Onkl Boris and what he’s telling you: Because you’re gonna join the circus, I can tell. You can’t hardly wait, you wanna be in the big top, you’ll shovel elephant shit until they say “OK, Sammy, now ride the goddamn elephant!” Oh you love those people, ah? (gesturing to the rest of the house) Your sisters, your mama, your papa, except – [whispering, gesturing to the editing machine]– except this, this I think you love a little more.”

 

Sam denies it but it is obviously true.  Boris tells him:”

Run all you want, boychick, but you know I ain’t whistlin’ Dixie here!! You will make your movies, and you will do your art, and you remember how it hurt so you know what I’m saying: Art will give you crowns in heaven and laurels on earth. BUT!! It’ll tear your heart out and leave you lonely. You’ll be a shonde for your loved ones, an exile in the desert, a gypsy. Art is NO GAME!! Art is dangerous as a lion’s mouth, it’ll bite your head off!! LOOK AT ME!! LOOK AT ME!! IS IT A WONDER THAT TEENEE, SHE WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH ME?! WITH – WITH M- [crying brokenheartedly:] TEENEE!!! OH, TEENEE!!! [He tears his undershirt and pulls at his hair].

Sam is horrified by his uncle, but his uncle knows the truth.

Sam’s mother, Mitzi, is also obsessed by art. But she did not pursue it like Sam will. Yet she passes on some wisdom to Sam. In her case her art is the piano. She recognizes that her son has the passion. All she can do is get out of the way, and keep her husband, the practical scientist, out of the way. She tells her son:

“Movies are dreams that you never forget”…You do what your heart tells you you have to, because you don’t owe anyone your life. Not even me.”

 

There are other interesting aspect to the story. Like Sam’s wacky Christian girl friend who thinks Jesus is sexy and asks Sam, after he gives her a cross, if he found Jesus and he says, “Yeah in the jewelry store.”  What kind of religion is that?

The viewers job is also hard.  And important. It is to appreciate the art. Go ahead and stick your head in the lions mouth: watch this film, if you dare. But remember, it might hurt.

The Way of Water

Movies, New Attitude to Nature

 

I am sorry that I have got stuck in Salina Kansas, but I have realized the Academy Awards show is fast approaching so I must post my thoughts on the awards before the show. Otherwise you might not believe that I had predicted the winners correctly. Each year I try to see as many of the films nominated for best Pcture a possible. I think with one week left to go I have seen all but 2 of them. I think I have a week to go.

The film The Way of Water supports the view of Professor Moriarty who influenced me so strongly more than 50 years ago when I was a first year university student at the University of Manitoba. Moriarty, in an old lecture I discovered on YouTube. Moriarty was of the view that humans were the Aids virus of the earth.

I think James Cameron, the co-writer, co-producer, and director of the film would likely agree with that assessment. Humans, in that film are clearly on the side of mechanized death fighting with life.  The original Avatar was not that different.

In this film we are once again shown the ubiquitous plot of a group of ‘good guys’ fighting a larger group of ‘bad guys.’ Frankly, I am getting tired of this template for every action film, but this film did have some redeeming social merit that ought to free it from the grip of artistic censors.

Though the narrative may be weak and overdone, the technical production values in this film are indeed immense and worth the trip to see the film all by themselves.

In the film the humans once again lead an assault not just against the Na’vi but actually against nature itself. This caught my eye because it is one of the two themes of this Grand Finale Tour I am on. The humans in the film frankly look at lot like Americans with their awful mechanized war equipment. To me this was the most interesting aspect of the movie. Americans, as “leaders of the free world”, at least in their minds, are leading the charge of humans against all life. Yet, amazingly Americans seem to love the movie that attacks them!

There is actually one sympathetic human in the movie, namely, Spider, who is the apparent son of Colonel Miles Quaritich who was born in Pandora, the land of the Na’vi but is allied with the humans who want to colonize Pandora which unsurprisingly is losing the war with humans from earth and is dying.

The invaders include ‘recombinants’—Na’vi avatars implanted with the minds and memories of deceased human soldiers.  Quaritich is the mainly evil leader of the recombinants.

The film is filled with suggestions that humans ought to appreciate and respect non-human life. This is of course an idea that is foreign to many humans. This is a lesson I endorse.

The whaling vessel manned by humans, brought me fresh reminders of that classic book Moby Dick I that read last year. In that book the fanaticism of Captain Ahab’s relentless pursuit of whales was severely critiqued, much as Cameron does in this film. The “whalers” pursue the hapless creatures for the purposes of harvesting their inner liquids which are the most valuable substance on earth. Of course, the rest of the carcass is dismissed. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

Tonowari, the chief of the Metkayina clan who accept the arrival of the newcomers who are seeking asylum from the invaders, again pointing to a lesson to which Americans, and the rest of us, ought to pay attention. Many of the Metkayina lack sympathy with the Na’vi because they have human blood in them, but their leader teaches them the evil of discrimination and racism. More valuable lessons again.

Showing the respect to other creatures that humans at times seem incapable of, the Metkayina respect the intelligent and peaceful cetacean-like species called Tulkun. They consider these creatures part of their spiritual family much like Indigenous people of North America have for creatures other than their selves. Clearly, Cameron believes, as do I, that the indigenous have a better attitude to nature than American, and amazingly, from watching Americans viewing this film so do many Americans! Maybe a new attitude to nature is actually possible. Or is this pure science fiction? In any event the film explores some interesting ideas though often in a too conventional and clumsy manner.

All in all, it is a good but not great film. To me it was interesting.

 

It’s Dangerous to Believe your own Lies

Death of Truth, Movies, War, War in Ukraine (2022)

 

The 2021 remake of the film Nightmare Alley was worth seeing for many reasons. I have blogged about it earlier  (Under the category of Movies), but did not comment on an important theme in the film. The movie is about the carnies in a carnival, and in particular about a conman who has impressive abilities to convince people of lies. He is what used to be called a magician but now we call an illusionist.  Bradley Cooper plays the part of Stanton Carlisle the illusionist.

 

One of the carnies, Molly, tells Stan about her father. She says, “he could charm his way out of anything.”  Stan replies, “A man after my own heart.” That is exactly what Stan is. Until he isn’t. Molly too deceives people into thinking she is being electrocuted. Naturally, they fall in love and Stan promises her, “I’ll give you the world and everything in it.” She should know better, but she falls for that illusion.  The most effective illusions of course are those which you want to be true.  Those illusions are almost impossible to resist. And illusionists take advantage of such desires. Like the illusion that after you die you will go to paradise in heaven. Let’s face it there is not much evidence to support it, but many people want it to be true, so they believe it.

 

In the film, the rich man Ezra badly wants Stan to materialize his dead wife.  He wants it so bad he will believe it. Stan asks Ezra if he thinks he can buy his wife back. Ezra’s answer was this: “Not to be crude. I know I can.” This is the deadly illusion of the rich man who believes he can buy anything.  When Stan says he wants Molly to help him to convince Ezra that his wife has materialized he says to Molly he is just helping Ezra to unburden his guilt: “Far as I can tell, that is what preachers do every Sunday.”

 

At one time Stan rescues the geek who was lying in a puddle dying in the rain. He knocks on a door hoping they will answer and save the geek. But Clem, who “owns” the geeks tells Stan to get out of the rain and join him, telling Stan to quit pretending that he cares about the geek. That is an illusion he suggests.

 

Pete who teaches Stan the art of becoming an effective illusionist warns him that the book he has prepared on those arts is dangerous. That’s why he quit. Pete says, “When a man starts believing his own lies—that he’s got the power—He’s got shut-eye. Because now he believes it’s all true.”

Despite this good advice, Stan eventually starts to believe his own lies.  That is hard to avoid when you are worshipped by adoring fans and your reasoning powers are numbed by the applause. When the illusionist believes he actually has the power to see the future  he is done. Eventually, Stan learns the truth that he has been deceived. Then he is in nightmare alley. He has become the pitiful “poor soul”—i.e. he is the geek.  Stan says, begging to be the geek, “I was born for it.”

Believing one’s own lies is particularly dangerous in times of war or pandemic.

That is exactly what may have happened to Vladimir Putin. Recently U.S. intelligence has reported that Putin has been misinformed by his military advisors about the poor performance of the military.  Would those advisors dare to lie to Putin? Or rather, would they dare not to lie to him? In any event, Putin seems to believe the lies of the Russian propaganda machine. He wants his own lies to be true.  He apparently, doesn’t even realize Russia is suffering grievous economic harms by his war. Does he also believe that Ukrainians are welcoming Russian soldiers as liberators? Does he believe his own lies?  Has he gone down Nightmare Alley? What a poor soul indeed.

 

Toxic Masculinity; Toxic Femininity

art, Male Dominance, Movies, Philosophy/Ideas, Social Issues, violence

 

 

 

When  recently I was frantically trying to see all 10 movies that had been nominated for best Picture, I never realized that the Oscars ceremony would so closely mirror the films and life. After they award show was over where Will Smith walked up to Chris Rock who was  introducing an award and made a poor joke about his wife I was amazed. It is amazing how much we can learn about life from art and about art from life.

 

I had noticed from the stunning film The Power of the Dog how masculinity could be toxic. Phil one of the two brothers in that film shows himself as a vessel of toxic masculinity when he mocks the “art” of Rose’ son Peter who he clearly sees as effeminate and weak. Later he comes to change his views, perhaps because of his own latent homosexuality. Then Peter is driven to extreme measures to protect his mother, much like Will Smith at the Oscars was driven to extremes to defend his wife from a perceived insult. This may have been brought on by the fact that  at a young age Smith saw his father beat his mother and always considered himself a coward for not defending her. At the Oscars he tried to be more manly and do better. Did he succeed or cruelly flop again?

I noticed that when at first Smith heard the poor joke about his wife that he was laughing and enjoying it. Then the camera switched to his wife who started laughing but quickly switched  to disapproval when she realized what was being said.  Did she communicate her disappointment to her husband? Did she goad him to act? That was not shown, but it was remarkable how quickly Smith’s manner change from jocularity to menace. It is also remarkable how quickly men can stoop to violence to defend the honour of their women. Do women like that?  Do they want their men to get violent in their defence? Sometimes it seems so. I was surprised to read 2 New York Times female writers  presumably, weak kneed liberals, say they thought Smith did the right thing?

I had just the day before watched the film The Tragedy of Macbeth. The tragedy was that Macbeth’s  wife goaded him into killing the king  and in doing so mocked his lack of courage. If that is not toxic femininity what is? When Macbeth hesitates to do the dirty deed she urges him to do it. This is part of what she said,

 

“When you durst do it, then you were a man;

…I have given suck, and know

How tender it is to love the babe that milks me:

I would, while  it was smiling in my face

Have pluck’d my nipple from his toothless gums,

And dash’d the brains out, had I sworn as you

Have done to this”

 

Then after he kills the king but still has doubts,  she mocks him and finishes hiding the evidence for him.

 

I realize that this entire Oscar  incident was coloured by the ugliness of a black man defending his insulted wife. Many a black man has been cruelly emasculated by such actions. Violence is deeply engrained in American and Canadian societies. This is true even in societies where black men react violently against other black men.  This is one product of centuries of oppression. Deep and persistent hatred has led to deep and persistent self-hatred. After all they learned it from their masters. What can be more cruel than that?

 

But to deny this painful and ugly fact, as we are urged to do by white supremacist pundits today, is to drive the hatred and resentment deeper where it can do even more perverted harm. Ugly truths must be faced. Denying them is not the way out. It just makes things worse.

 

What really bothered me about this incident at the Oscars was that about an hour or less later, when Will Smith won the award for best actor, and he stumbled through a tearful speech that included an apology to the Academy and fellow actors, but notably not Chris Rock, the audience erupted with applause.  What are the rest of us (including children who witnessed it) to think? Are we to think that violence is the answer to insults? That after all is the American way (with Canadians not far behind). Is this not how cycles of violence perpetuate themselves harming no one more than the victims turned aggressors?

 

Art can help us understand such questions, but it offer few clear and definitive answers.

 

The Tragedy of Macbeth

Movies, Tyranny and Fascism, War in Ukraine (2022), Wisdom

 

This is a film that all would be tyrants should watch.

 

This play is nearly 500 years old, but is clearly still relevant.  This is the perfect time to watch this film or read the play. In these times when we see tyrants challenging freedom we should turn to Macbeth for spiritual nourishment. Macbeth, like so much of Shakespeare can drizzle wisdom on us in our hour of need.

 

Early in the play, the 3 weird sisters, or witches ask us to “all  hail, Macbeth, that shalt be king.”  Remind you of anyone? Then we are told “Fair is foul, and foul is fair.” Is that not the 21st century?

 

This is also the land of untruth. For as honest Banquo tells us:

 

“The instruments of darkness tell us truths,

Win us with honest trifles, to betray us

In deepest consequence.”

 

I immediately felt at home in the black and white colour of the film, with ominous black birds alarmingly in the sky.

 

Lady Macbeth the Putin master of the story tries to guide Macbeth the prize of kingship:

 

“Yet I do fear thy nature;

It is too full o’ the milk of human kindness

To catch the nearest way: thou wouldst be great;

Art not without ambition; but without

The illness should attend it: what you wouldst highly

That wouldst thou holily; wouldst not play false,

And yet would wrongly win”

 

Like the little general from Moscow, Macbeth is filled with “vaulting ambition” and that, as we know, leads straight to pain and sorrow.  She urges Macbeth to “look like the innocent flower; but be the serpent under it.” These are the men with whom we are entirely familiar. And the man who would be king knows what he must do. He must not only commit foul acts he must also must ensure that “False face must hide what the false heart doth know.” Welcome to the 21st century.

 

In the Scotland of Macbeth, like the Ukraine of Zelensky “the earth was feverous and did shake” and as all good despots know, “Confusion now hath made his masterpiece.” And “Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill.”

Yet the real question, the same question Shakespeare asks of Macbeth, and we ask of Putin, what is the point of this all?  Why? Tyrants must “be bloody bold and resolute” but for what end.? In the end Macbeth is described this way: “now does he fell his title hang loose upon him, like a giant’s robe upon a dwarfish thief.”  Who can doubt that our modern dwarfish thief will not look any more regal? And who can doubt that in the end the tyrant will be forced to acknowledge, at least if he is open to the terrible truth, as Macbeth was, that this is profoundly true:

 

“Tomorrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time,

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.”

 

I so wish the Putins of the world had read deeply of Shakespeare. The world would be so different.

King Richard

Movies

 

Some films surprise me. This was one of them. I knew this was not Shakespeare’e Richard, but rather a sports film.  Really, I thought. Have I not seen enough sports movies? It is like action movies. x

 

But this film—to my surprise—was different. It had some of the same elements of typical sports movies, but still it was different. I thought I would hate the father of Venus and Serena Williams. Wasn’t he the unreasonable parent who had driven his children to compete for fame, glory, and wealth?  How could I like that guy?

King Richard (Will Smith) is the father who devotes his life to his 5 daughters, 2 of whom have extraordinary talent to play tennis.  The others seem destined for more traditional success as doctors and lawyers.

Even though this movie had some of those elements it was more than that. It asked some interesting questions. How much freedom should young parents give to their young children? How much is it reasonable to expect of their children. How much can parents do for the good of their children?

 

The story tells the story of a father who has extensive plans for his young African American daughters who seem to have a lot of talent to play tennis. This is often a dangerous and foolish presumption. From a very young age, he wants and expects his daughters to become professional tennis players. In fact he expects them to become the best tennis players in the world. He starts off coaching them until he realizes he need professional coaches, but he can’t help interfering. He also thinks he knows what’s best for his girls. Which fathers don’t believe that?

 

One of the issues is faith.  Not so much children having faith in their parents, but parents having faith in their children. King Richard seemed to have near absolute faith in his daughters, yet at times, when they are young, he does not have enough faith.  Then he  expected his 14 year-old daughter to make momentous decisions for herself.  Does that make sense?

From a young age King Richard had incredible well developed plans for his children. He wrote a book of his plans. He planned their lives. I have never thought that was a good thing for parents to do. If the parent makes plans how can he or she trust his kids?

In this film the father was not solely stuck on sports success. He wanted more for his daughters.  As he said to a coach of his young star, “The main reason we’re not rushing, is that without an education no matter how good you are, by the time you’re 18 you’re gone no matter how good you are and you’re gonna have 50 more years to live like a fool.” Richard is a complex man. He is not like other tennis parents who he says “should all be shot.”

How much is big money worth?  How does it compare to “patience, family, and education?” How important is humility in the face of success? What if the success is huge?  What is the effect of failure?

The film explores many important questions and it does that well with an interesting story.  This film is worth seeing. Even if you don’t like sports films.

Licorice Pizza

Movies

 

I like this movie. I don’t know why? I don’t care. I just enjoyed it. I enjoyed it like—well–I enjoyed it like licorice pizza. I suspect you have to be in the mood for it.

In this story 15 year-old grinning, fast-talking and precocious Garry Valentine (Cooper Hoffman) tries to get a date with  terminally bored cantankerous and nasty  25 year old Alana Kane who is disgusted with herself by the thought that a peon–who was only 15 years old would actually interest her. The lad persists and she finds herself sickeningly interested. That she is interested strikes her as showing how low she has sunk.

This is a conversation between Alana and her friend:

“Alana:         Do you think it’s weird that I hang out with Garry and his friends all the time?

Friend:        No.

Alana:         I think it’s weird.

Friend:        It is whatever you think it is.

Alana:         I think it’s weird  that I hang out all time with a boy and his 15-year old friends all the time.”

 

There are some brilliant short roles in the film. Sean Penn performs as a motor cycling Jack Holden who is persuaded to “fly” over a bonfire with his cycle. Bradley Cooper plays the part of Jon Peters, the psychotic husband of Barbara Streisand. A few other zany roles add sauce to the pizza. The relationship between Kane and Valentine is interesting and anything but smooth.

 

Alana sits in on a conversation between her boss, a municipal councilman up for re-election who is spotted by a spy having dinner with his boyfriend.  Even though he considers himself filled with integrity and has no time for relationships he doesn’t want people to think he had a date with this guy during the campaign so he calls up Alana and instructs her, even though she is is his integrity officer, to act as his friend’s beard so his secret won’t come out. Meanwhile, his friend is humiliated by the subterfuge.

Thinks only go better for Alana when she finally realizes there is no point in doing what others would want her to do. Why care about them? That’s not integrity. Do what you want to do and don’t worry about whether others think you are weird.

Yes you are weird. Revel in that. Make your pizza out of licorice. Red or black, it doesn’t matter. It’s all good.

 

West Side Story 

Hate, Movies, Polarization

 

West Side Story is a remake of a classic film that I had never seen before. Let me confess, I have never been very keen on musicals. Is that actually pretty dumb? I admit I enjoyed this film a lot.

I found it interesting that this film is not unlike Belfast.  Both films deal with hate of one group against another coupled with demands from zealots in the group to amplify hatred rather than finding a resolution. Some people don’t want to find solutions; they want to fight. both films have a boy and girl from each group attracted to each other.  Both have outstanding production values.

The West side story is really an ancient oft repeated story, but it is no less important for that. It is a crucially important theme. Many times we have learned that we have not learned enough about it because we keep creating a trap for young lovers and others.  The background to the film is  is the enmity between 2 gangs in New York and the lovers caught in the melee.

The first line from Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliette, which explores the same theme,  makes a very important point in its opening paragraph:

Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.

 

And that is the point—two groups that are actually very similar hate each other and draw blood, making unclean hands. And for what purpose? Very often as Shakespeare said, the two groups are alike. Sometimes the more alike the more vicious the fighting.

In that play it was the Montagues and the Capulets and the dynamite created when a young girl from one family and a boy from the other fell in love with each other.  The issue was the same as the issue in this film. Can the hatred keep the lovers apart? What is more powerful , love or hate? In this film it was the Jets against the Sharks, but it could just as well be the Catholics and the Protestants as in the  other film nominated for best film, Belfast. It could just as well be the Conservatives and Liberals, Republicans and Democrats, Russians and Ukrainians, Hutus and Tutsis, or Mennonites from Winker versus Mennonites from Steinbach, or vaxxers against anti-vaxxers. All groups can come to hate the “other.”  It is easy to fall into hatred. Getting out is not so easy.

After Steven Spielberg announced that he was interesting in renewing this old musical he explained why he wanted to do that. This is what he said:

 

“Divisions between un-likeminded people is as old as time itself. … And the divisions between the Sharks and the Jets in 1957, which inspired the musical, were profound. But not as divided as we find ourselves today. It turned out in the middle of the development of the script, things widened, which I think in a sense, sadly, made the story of those racial divides – not just territorial divides – more relevant to today’s audience than perhaps it even was in 1957.”

 

The film has a lot going for it.  Great art design, excellent music with familiar tunes, well sung by beautiful young people, and one old person who starred as a younger person in the earlier version. Everyone should see this film and make up their own mind. I am just not entirely convinced that a musical with stylized violence is the best way to deal with such classic themes. But that’s OK. Every film does not have to be best in its class.