Friday, October 31, 2008

Orissa: Priest Attacked in Anti-Christian Riots Has Died



Fr Joseph Kalathil, Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Cuttack-Bhubaneswar hs sent this report.

Fr Bernard Digal, Treasurer of the Archdiocese, residing at Archbishop's House, 9/16 Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar, had been to Sankharakhol under Tikaballi P.S., Kandhamal district., on 23 August 2008 for official work. While he was camping at Sankharakhole, communal violence broke out and his vehicle bearing Reg. No. ORO-2- Q-6838 was set on fire. Fearing further violence and attack he took shelter in the jungle with his driver Mr Sisiro Pradhan, S/o Late Mr. Lokhono Pradhan. Looking for a safe place they walked through jungle and reached Dudukangia village near Kottimaha under Tikaballi PS. There a violent mob with latis ironbars and other sharp weapons attacked Fr Bernard, Mr Sisiro Pradhan and Mr Dondapani Mallick who joined them. Mr Sisiro Pradhan and Mr Dondapani Mallick ran away and took shelter in the jungle. Some miscreants attacked and assaulted Fr Bernard with , iron bars, sharp weapons etc. inflicting severe injuries on the head and other parts of the body. They left him on the spot totally naked and thinking that he was dead. However he regained consciousness but unable to move and frightened in the deserted place.

At about 6.30 in the morning Mr Pradhan and some of the villagers spotted Fr Bernard and gave some water to drink. With the help of the Gramo Rokhi of the village Mr Pradhan informed the police at Tikaballi by Phone. After one hour the Inspector of Police arrived on the spot with five constables. Seeing the serious condition of Fr.Bernard Inspector of Police drove Fr Bernard to the health centre at Tikaballi in the police jeep. After some primary treatment the doctor on duty referred the case to the District Headquarter Hospital at Phulbani and shifted Fr. Bernard to Phulbani in the hospital Ambulance. After a day's treatment the Doctors at Phulbani referred the case to Cuttack Medical College. Fr Bernard was brought to Bhubaneswar and admitted in Kalinga Hospital, Bhubaneswar. After three days of treatment in Kalinga Hospital he was shifted to Holy Spirit Hospital in Mumbai by flight as his condition continued to be very serious.

In Holy Spirit Hospital his condition slowly and steadily improved. Finally he was discharged from the Hospital. He further underwent Physiotherapy in Mumbai and felt better.

Fr. Bernard went to Chennai to meet a friend of him who was sick and hospitalized in Chennai. In Chennai he felt exhausted and sick and so got himself admitted to St.Thomas Hospital. There his condition became serious in spite of the care and treatment by a team of well known doctors. Finally he succumbed to death on 28 October at 8.50pm.

A SHORT BIOGRAPHY OF FR BERNARD DIGAL

Fr Bernard Digal was born on 27 January 1962 in Tiangia village, Raikia PS, Kandhamal district., Orissa, as the fourth child of late Mahajan and late Lucia Digal. He has a brother and two sisters. He attended school in Tiangia, Mondasoro and Raikia and did his Intermediate in Phulbani College. He continued his higher studies in Calcutta and was ordained a Priest on 29 May 1992 for the Archdiocese of Cuttack-Bhubaneswar. He served the Archdiocese in various capacities such as Assistant Parish Priest, Parish Priest, Spiritual Director to the Seminarians, Vocation Director, Treasurer of the Archdiocese etc. He was committed to his responsibilities, was friendly, sociable, helpful outgoing, generous and very human. His untimely and sad death is a great loss to the Archdiocese and the people.

Fr.Joseph Kalathil
Vicar General
Archbishop's House
Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar.

© Independent Catholic News 2008

Is 3 parking tickets in 3 days some kind of record?



"She's once, twice, three times a parking ticket and I love her..."

I realised today that I left my car on the level for three days so I have three parking tickets. Doh! Forgot to move it the morning after I left it there and then forgot about it totally. Oh dear, I really have to sort my life out. If only traffic wardens didn't take their job so seriously...

More on "Weeding Out Gay Priests"



Rector: "Young seminarian, we have brought you to this room to test you psychologically to make sure you are not, you know..."
Seminarian, "Ah, I see. Righty-ho..."
Rector: "Did you like the ewoks in Star Wars. Remember, the little fluffy animals loved by ladies and men of a um, queer persuasion?"
Seminarian: "Certainly not! I was only too pleased when those cute little furry animals were slaughtered by the Empire!"
Rector: "Good answer!" Now I am going to show you some pictures. One is of Marilyn Monroe in that scene from The Seven Year Itch where the dress goes up a bit caused by the hot air in the car park."
Seminarian: "Right, okay."
Rector: "I will judge your response."
Seminarian: "I say, what a beautiful lady, I must say rector I feel a bit hot under the collar."
Rector: "Good answer my man. You're doing well. Sorry could you just shake my hand."
Seminarian: "Certainly."
Rector: "Splendid, a good firm, manly handshake. Good chap! Now I am just going to show you a range of soft furnishings, including curtains, a range of different coloured silk pillows and a chaise-longue."
Seminarian: "Oh how charming."
Rector: "Now, I want you to tell me which is your favourite coloured silk pillow?"
Seminarian: "The...erm, blue one?"
Rector: "I'm sorry that was a trick question, and by no means are you worthy of consideration for the Priesthood because you are clearly the type of man who likes soft furnishings. I'm afraid the seminary is not for you."
Seminarian: "But I...I"
Rector: "Next!"

New Vatican Document Urges Screening out of 'Gay' Priests



"God is not an obligation or a burden. God is my joy!" -- Fr. Mychal Judge

Damian Thompson posted a controversial blog yesterday about a new Vatican document encouraging "psychological tests" to screen out potential priests with a "deep-seated homosexual orientation". I think this is an over-reaction to the abuse crisis in the States. Some very good people could be screened out. Grace is an incredible thing. A man with same-sex attraction could still be very graced by God with the virtue of chastity and could live out his vocation as a Priest with great passion and love for God. If all candidates with "psychological" failings or flaws were screened out of the Priesthood there'd be none left. Jesus takes weak, frail human beings, with moral weaknesses and makes them into Saints. Were that not so, St Peter, who denied our Lord three times would not be up there waiting for us at the Gates of Heaven when we die.



Here is a link to a good blog on the life of Fr Mychal Judge. Above is a picture of Father Mychal Judge, who died giving the Last Rites to the dying in the World Trade Centre in 2001. His case for beatification was dropped rather unfortunately once the Church heard that some people said his orientation was homosexual. As far as I know, the patron saint of homosexuals or those who have the condition of homosexuality is St Sebastian, not because he overcame a same-sex attraction with a life of heroic virtue, but because of his martyrdom by many arrows.

Read the blog article here and let me know your thoughts. For the original source article click here.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Platoon


Wow.

On Saturday, I reviewed W, which I'm sure most of the three of you are already aware of, and that movie sucked the high hard one. On Tuesday, I returned to the world of early Oliver Stone - you know, back when he had talent and promise and wasn't just coasting on his reputation as an enfant terrible - with Platoon, which turned out to be an absolute materpiece. Watching those two movies within three days of one another provides an amazing example of the gulf of quality between early Stone and the hack zombie trudging around Hollywood today. The contrast is almost as complete as that between Jaws and Jaws: the Revenge, and it's simply inexplicable that they were made by the same person.

Based closely on Stone's own experiences, Platoon chronicles the experiences of Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen), a college wash-out who felt obligated to serve his country in time of war - even if that war is the hellish jungle of Vietnam. Taylor struggles to adjust to his new country, and finds himself on a front-line platoon, which is polarized between two leaders: the sensitive, virtuous, almost mystical Sgt. Elias (Willem Dafoe) and the battle-scarred, vulgar and violent Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berenger). Taylor struggles to navigate between the two groups, but after their destruction of a village of suspected Vietcong sympathizers, the split within the platoon leads to irrevocable conflict - just as the VC launch an all-out offensive against them.

Platoon is clearly a labor of love for Stone, his tribute to the soldiers who fought and died in a war many of them did not believe in. Technically it's a skillful film, and on levels of narrative and characters it is particularly strong. Stone has affection for most of these characters, and sympathy for even the less heroic ones.

Private Taylor is largely a fly on the wall, a bland Dickensian Everyman used to illuminate more interesting side-characters. The conflict between the intelligent, compassionate Ellias and the boorish redneck Barnes provides most of the film's dramatic tension, showing the two kinds of men who developed out of such a conflict - men driven to the breaking point. Supporting characters like the petrified O'Neil (John C. McGinley), blindly obedient to the braver and more determined Barnes, the voice of reason King (Keith David), the indecisive Lieutenant Wolfe (Mark Moses), who is too weak and cowardly to intervene, the by-the-book Captain (Dale Dye) who is too distracted by the war to see what's happening to his men, and grunts like Warren (Tony Todd), Gator (Johnny Depp), and Bunny (Kevin Dillon), who are either drug-addicted, angry and battle-crazed, or just plain scared, provide vivid shades to complement the extremes. These men are believable as characters, not just archetypes and symbols.

The movie is anti-war without being particularly obnoxious about it - only a few moments, like the Nazi flag adorning an APC during the final battle, go a bit overboard, and there isn't much actual criticism of the war itself by Stone, save presenting the everyday Hell of fighting a guerilla war. The raid on the village is the centerpiece of the movie, and it is refreshingly presented in a straight-forward manner. It's not an atrocity ordered by higher-ups, and so we aren't treated to the "we were just following orders" claptrap of so many anti-war flicks; rather, it's a simply a group of men pushed to their breaking point, retaliating for the deaths of several of their own men. Nor is the entire platoon revelling in the massacre; only Barnes and his more devoted followers are engaged in what carnage we do see, and the more moral platoon members like Taylor and Elias try to intervene. This scene works so much better than most of its equivalents in other films: no heavy-handed message is shoved down our throats, merely the simple but effective idea that war is hell, and that it drives men mad.

The chaotic close-range ground fighting is presented straight-forward, lacking for the most part cheap blood, squib and slow-motion effects, preventing any real visceral thrill. This is war; men are killing each other, and we're given an objective perspective rather than the visceral thrills offered by Peckinpah and his legion of imitators. Stone doesn't want to glorify death, merely to depict it, and it works wonderfully. The only moment of stylization is the death of Sgt. Elias, left to die amidst a swarming batallion of VC troops by the callous Barnes - and on an emotional and visceral level, it's appropriate and dramatically affective rather than garish or sentiment.

The cast is exceptional. Charlie Sheen shows a dramatic range he's never really equalled, completely convincing as the normal guy in an impossible situation. Willem Dafoe and Tom Berenger are both exceptional as the two Sergeants who battle for Taylor's affection and respect, nearly tearing the platoon apart in the process. Keith David gives an underrated performance as Taylor's father-figure, King. The supporting cast includes a veritable who's-who of up-and-coming actors, including Johnny Depp, Forrest Whittaker, and Tony Todd.

Overall, despite a few scant moments of formula and heavy-handedness, Platoon is a success on all levels. Its flaws are minor, and its virtues quite evident. I might rank Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket ahead of this film on my list of Vietnam films, but that's merely praise of how brilliant that film was. Between this and the equally brilliant if historically suspect JFK, one wonders what happened to Oliver Stone. Maybe he just worked better on coke.

Rating: 9/10 - Highest Recommendation

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Incredible Iceberg Pictures



This spectacular series of images circulates via email and has also been posted on various websites, blogs and online forums. A description commonly included with the images claims that they depict a large tidal wave or tsunami wave instantly frozen as it breaks. However, the ice formation shown in the images is not an instantly frozen wave.



The photographs were taken by scientist Tony Travouillon in Antarctica. Many of the images can be seen in a gallery on Travouillon's website. The pictures do not show a giant wave somehow snap-frozen in the very act of breaking. The formation contains blue ice, and this is compelling evidence that it was not created instantly from a wave of water. Blue ice is created as the ice is compressed and trapped air bubbles are squeezed out. The ice looks blue because, when light passes through thick ice, blue light is transmitted back out but red light is absorbed. An article on the Alaska Science Forum notes:

The color of ice can be used to estimate its strength and even how long it has been frozen. Arctic Ocean ice is white during its first year because it is full of bubbles. Light will travel only a short distance before it is scattered by the bubbles and reflected back out. As a result, little absorption occurs, and the light leaves with the same color it had when it went in.



During the summer, the ice surface melts and new overlying ice layers compress the remaining air bubbles. Now, any light that enters travels a longer distance within the ice before it emerges. This gives the red end of the spectrum space enough to be absorbed, and the light returned at the surface is blue.

Arctic explorers and mountain climbers know that old, blue ice with fewer bubbles is safer and stronger than white ice. An added bonus for explorers is knowing that floating camps built on blue ice will last longer.

Thus, the deep blue colour suggests that the ice in the formation was built up slowly over time rather than formed instantly. Subsequent melting and refreezing over many seasons has given the formation its smooth, wave-like appearance.

My Friend Merv Doing A Highly Accurate Rocky Impression

Every Child Matters...or Every Family Matters?



From my work at ATD Fourth World several years ago, a charity that campaigns for the rights of the family, whose rights are often violated by severe poverty in the UK, my ears always prick up when I hear Social Services are interfering increasingly in family life. It has turned out that recently 7 children who are obese have been removed from their families and taken into care for anti-obesity treatment, under the concern that obesity amounts to neglect or even to abuse. Now, children being removed from their families is a great concern to me, a great concern to society and especially the Church.

The family is the unit in which children learn, grow and develop. If obesity is a great threat to a child's health and objectively speaking, it probably is, then if Social Services care that much for the child they should work with the family in the home and offer the family and child help. That children who are suffering from their obesity are being removed suggests that the Government do not care for the institution of the family or the best interests of the child. Because a child is overweight, it would seem his immediate connections with the family are being severed. This is very damaging! What is happening to these children? How long does this 'treatment' last? What does being removed and taken into care do for the self-esteem of the child (and let's face it, self-esteem and eating disorders are intrinsically linked) who is deemed 'at risk'? More and more it seems, the State is trying to 'parent' the nation, 'parent' children and it cannot. What is more, when the State tries to parent anyone, too often, it does so without love.

A child living in a family may learn bad habits sometimes but don't we all? No parents are perfect. The care system is riddled with failings, though many who are employed by it are very committed and passionate about their work. I am, however, yet to be convinced that the 'care system' knows how to care.

Click here for the article

Too Cold to Smoke or Even to Busk



I live in a flat where I cannot smoke because I live with my landlady and friend who is a non-smoker. I've just been outside for a fag and its too cold to stand out there smoking. Boo hoo. I've never tried to give up this the least of my vices and doubt I have the energy and willpower to do so. However, its freezing outside and smoking in arctic temperatures is not fun!

I've been doing more busking recently and have been trying to encourage a couple of people I know around town to use my exciting new busking amp (with microphone), but when it is so cold, busking is not fun either. Guitarists fingers suddenly start feeling numb and its not so nice and we only last about half an hour in town.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

More Obamania Concerns



Trying to get some accurate and objective reporting about Barack Obama these days is hard. You only really get it from people concerned about freedom, life and the Church..While there seems to be a kind of collective mass hypnosis about the "change" that Obama could bring to America and the World, it is worth pausing for a second and examining what his actions and beliefs really mean.

Gerald Warner on Barack Obama

Two Pilgrimmage Sites in One Day? That's Just Plain Greedy



Today I visited two shrines in Kent, one in Aylesford called The Friars, which is Carmelite and dedicated to Our Lady and St Simon Stock. The other shrine I visited was the Shrine of St Jude in Faversham nearby. It was by pure chance I saw the signpost for The Friars in Aylesford and got there in the car just in time for Holy Mass. I wanted to visit the Shrine of St Jude as he is a favourite Saint of mine and had been making a Novena to him for 9 days. Unfortunately I didn't realise Novenas are meant to be made nine consecutive Sundays, not nine consecutive days in a row. I hope he still listened anyway. Today is the Feast of St Jude and St Simon.



The Friars of Aylesford, Kent

Cardinal Keith O'Brien's Open Letter to PM Gordon Brown



In an open letter Cardinal Keith O'Brien explains to PM Gordon Brown the depth and gravity of the horror that the Government are intent on unleashing in the scientific field. He does so with great eloquence and seems to be one cardinal at least, who is fulfilling his apostolic mission to proclaim the truth of the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

28 October 2008

Dear Gordon

I write this open letter to you on a matter of immediate urgency, namely tomorrow’s debate in the Lords on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Although I was relieved that last week’s debate in the Commons on the Bill did not address the issue of abortion, I remain convinced that the Bill is misguided and certain sections are potentially most harmful.

Among these is Schedule 3 which has never been properly discussed in Parliament. It provides for taking tissue from incapacitated adults and children without their consent for the express purpose of creating embryos for research. It will be debated in the House of Lords tomorrow (Wednesday 29 October) with Government support.

The Bill could allow for the derivation and use of human eggs from the ovarian tissue of aborted baby girls, a proposal which was first aired by the HFEA in 1994. The HFEA public consultation at that time showed that 83.2% of the 9,000 respondents opposed the practice, and even the few in favour underlined the necessity of consent.

Should this Bill become law, removing tissue from incapacitated adults or children, without their specific consent in order to create animal-human hybrid or other embryos would be permissible, as would creating artificial sperm or artificial eggs from bone marrow or even cord blood.
The grotesque implications of these procedures are utterly horrifying. The proposals in this Bill represent a breach of 50 years of ethical medical research. They by-pass the Declaration of Helsinki, the Human Tissue Act, the Mental Capacity Act and the Human Rights Act. Removing parts of people’s bodies without their consent, utterly flies in the face of all BMA and GMC guidance on consent to research.

Such behaviour was last seen under the Nazis. Following the liberation of the concentration camps in 1945, the full horrors of the Nazi’s atrocities were revealed to a shocked world. The hideous savagery of their experiments convinced the civilized world that such practices must be outlawed forever. I am appalled that you are promoting a Bill which seeks, by stealth, to create a regime where extracting tissue and cells from human beings no longer requires their consent or involvement.

I am staggered that you would endorse legislation, which describes the creation of embryos from a person without their consent as 'non-invasive' and which enshrines the concept of ‘presumed consent’ in UK law. This legislation would set a nightmarish precedent, by allowing scientists to experiment on those lacking capacity - in the absence of explicit consent - largely as they see fit.

I urge you to amend Schedule 3 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill as a matter of great urgency and human decency.

Yours sincerely in Christ

+ Keith Patrick Cardinal O’Brien
Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh

Saturday, October 25, 2008

W


Christopher Hitchens once said that making jokes about George W. Bush - or more specifically, obvious jokes about his allegedly low IQ and obvious verbal inarticularity - is the kind of humor that dumb people laugh at. It's very easy to see the truth behind this statement. When Bush trips over his words during an interview or press conference, it's easy to point and laugh. And everyone does it, to the point that it's tiresome and ridiculous. Not even criticism of Bush's policies, but of Bush himself - and not even Bush himself, but his inarticularity. How clever. Gee, do you pick on the fat kid with a lisp too? Not that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage and Ann Coulter aren't guilty on this front, but it's no better the other way - our level of political discourse has been largely reduced to playground bullying.


Not that Bush is above ridicule. In spite of my once-rabid Republicanism, like so many Americans I have grown disillusioned with Bush, and think his second term has been nothing less than disastrous. I disagree with those who think he's on the level of James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce, and I still think he's absolutely right on the single most important issue of our generation - the War on Terror. But at this point, that's about the extent to which I'm willing to stick up for him.

Which brings us to Oliver Stone's W. For months, Stone has been trying to depict this film as not the expected hatchet-job against an unpopular President, but a reconsideration of a misunderstood man. The director who gave us notoriously-slanted polemics like JFK and Nixon wants us to believe that his portrayal of George W. Bush, one of the most polarizing, controversial Presidents of all time (and one occupying the exact opposite ideological position of Stone) is a balanced, perhaps even sympathetic portrayal. Sorry, Oliver, I ain't buying that for a second. For W embraces the most mean-spirited, broad, simple-minded anti-Bush satire - about the maturity level of a 9th Grader with a Bush is Hitler sticker on their planner - and awkwardly tries to mix it with a character study. The movie has a schizophrenic, uncertain tone throughout; it simply can't decide what it's trying to be. Is it a political drama, a biopic, or a satire? Does it like Bush, at least as a person, or hold him in contempt? The movie can't even answer this question, and right off the bat it's in trouble for being unable to descide.

Let's get straight to business. Perhaps the movie's absolute nadir - a scene which inspired a lengthy and quite awkward bout of laughter in myself, much to the consternation of my fellow movie-goers - is its set-piece debate over the Iraq War. The scene climaxes with Dick Cheney giving a ludicrous speech explaining why the invasion of Iraq is essential to American interests. Guess why? Well, so America can build an Empire in the Middle East, to get at all of the world's Oil, of course - and there's NO EXIT from Iraq either. Not only the idea of that, mind you, but all of those words explicitly stated. How ridiculous and childish can you get? This is nothing more than Stone putting evil words in the mouth of a man he doesn't like. All that's missing is a facial scar, a cat, and perhaps a maniacal laugh, and we've got Blofeld or The Penguin (or Dr. Evil) rambling about his latest plot for world domination. It would be like Rush Limbaugh writing a film about Barack Obama, and giving him a speech where he declares that he despises America and wishes for the deaths of all American soldiers stationed there. It's cheap, it's mean-spirited, and worst of all, it doesn't even work dramatically.

The last bit is the sticking point, not only for that scene but the entire film. If all of this worked on a dramatic level, whether as a serious drama or a satire, I would be much more willing to accomodate its political posturing. Make no mistake: I love movies, TV, and works of fiction that disagree with me if they're done well. The West Wing is one of my favorite TV shows, for just one example. You can also rest assured that Spartacus and Battle of Algiers aren't on my Top 25 list because I'm a fan of Marxism. Even with Stone, I loved JFK as a film, even if it was utter bullshit as history, and Platoon is nothing short of a masterpiece. This, however, is not just a political screed I disagree with vehemently - simply put, it is just poor film making all around. The direction and cinematography are cheap and shoddy, seemingly unable to even stabilize and focus the camera, the art direction on the level of a made-for-TV film (and not a good one, either; the Situation Room of W seems like the set of a high school play compared to the aforementioned TV series' equivalent), Stanley Weister's script awful in its character and plot development and giving us rather bad dialogue in the bargain (the few moments of intentional humor that work are mostly appropriated verbatim from real-life Bush gaffes, which only leads back to my initial point). The musical score blares out a never-ending stream of banal rock and country music, like a second-rate Scorsese film. And dream sequences? Really? It's barely even competent on a technical level, so why am I not surprised at its other aspects being subpar?

More than anything else, though, is the film's portrayal of its subject. It absolutely cannot get a grip on what it wants to say about George W. Bush. Stone seemingly wants to have it both ways, portraying him as both a figure of ridicule and a sympathetic man, well-intentioned but none-too-bright, advanced beyond his station, and manipulated by those around him. The movie shifts between the two extremes almost from scene to scene. If we're ridiculing Bush, then what the hell are with the lengthy and theoretically dramatic scenes with his father, and his tender moments with his wife, trying to contemplate the mess he's dug himself into? If he's a sympathetic character, what the hell is with shaping a three-minute set piece around the infamous pretzel-choking incident? The movie doesn't help matters by skimming over virtually all of Bush's redemption and rise - all we see of his gubernatorial campaign is a now-infamous interview gaffe, and we barely even hear about the whole 2000 election mess - although we do get a nice and lengthy of scene of Bush's boozy frat initiation in college. Nor does the film's Oedipal father-son conflict make much sense - it's poorly constructed and seems absolutely false from beginning to end. So, who is Bush, a clown, a rube, a puppet, a nice guy in over his head, a living illustration of the Peter Principle? Make up your mind and stick to it, Stone. Clearly, you aren't capable of having it both ways.

This is no fault of Josh Brolin. Long a criminally underrated actor, he has finally hit the big time - his quadruple act of No Country For Old Men, American Gangster, In the Valley of Elah and Grindhouse last year is nothing short of astonishing, and he certainly has the chops to be a star if he continues to land the right roles. His impression of Bush is quite good - he's got the demeanor and accent and mannerisms down absolutely pat - but even such a talented actor as Brolin can't keep up with the changing, shifting hologram Bush of the script. I praise Brolin for a job well-done, but unfortunately he was up against an impossible obstacle - an absolutely awful, schizophrenic script that has no idea what it's trying to say.

The supporting cast consists of very good actors trapped in ridiculous parts. All of the characters we've come to know and either love or hate from the nightly news are here, portrayed in the most broad, cartoonish, borderline offensive manner possible. The only two who manage to escape the morass of stereotyping and lazy writing are Jeffrey Wright, who gives us a dignified Colin Powell (perhaps not surprisingly, given that he serves as the mouthpiece for Stone's own views on Iraq), and James Cromwell, giving a strikingly layered and sympathetic performance as H.W. Bush, alternately ashamed and proud of his son, managing to cut straight through the bullshit script and deliver a great performance. Richard Dreyfuss's turn as Cheney has already been noted; he's playing basically the same character as his heinous, evil, maniacally-laughing Republican Senator in The American President, and it's no better here than there (but at least The American President was an excellent movie otherwise). Thandie Newton (Condi Rice), Ioan Gruffud (Tony Blair), Scott Glenn (Donald Rumsfeld), and Toby Jones (Karl Rove) are no better; they're all cartoonish caricatures worthy of a bad Saturday Night Live sketch (a redundancy if there ever was one). Elizabeth Banks is pretty as Laura Bush but she's little more than a background character, while Ellen Burstyn has no room at all to breathe as Barbara Bush (she compensates with some frenetic scenery chewing though). Stacey Keach's cameo is so tiny as to be virtually worthless. Not to blame the actors, though - South Park couldn't make a more cartoonish and ridiculous portrayal of Bush and Co. if they tried.

Finally, I must ask the following question: Who exactly is demanding this film be made? Bush is a joke at this point, a lame duck waiting out the results of the upcoming election. People are simply sick and tired of Bush after eight years, so why did Stone and Co. think that giving them more Bush was a good idea? Perhaps a few months or years down the road, this might have been a good idea, but now, I should think Joe Average would want to see less of Bush, not more. (The movie's mediocre box-office take seems to confirm this) I can see a good movie about Bush being made, for instance, from Bob Woodward's Bush at War trilogy. But this is just bumper-sticker drek that would make Michael Moore and MoveOn.org blush; and Stone, for all his Shakespearean pretensions and protestations of fairness, is doing nothing more than piling on an oft-ridiculed, now-unpopular President who in three months will be out of office, with arguments and insults that were tiresome in 2000 and are simply fetid and rotten now.

W is not a bad film because I disagree with its politics. It's a bad film because it sucks. For this reason, I find it extremely hard to believe that this is the same man who brought us Platoon and JFK. As might be said of both the director and his subject: How the mighty have fallen. The potential was there for something special, but Stone couldn't resist the temptation to grasp at relevance with a subject most people could care less about, and doing it in the most insipid, banal and insulting manner possible. Farewell and adieu, Mr. Stone; you've had your day as America's leading cinematic polemicist. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


Rating: 2/10 - Utter Shit

Friday, October 24, 2008

Spartacus: The Thinking Man's Epic

"Oh, FUCK!"

In Rome circa 55 BC, Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) is a Thracian slave who is purchased as a gladiator by the sniveling Lanista Lentulus Batiatus (Peter Ustinov), and along with his colleagues is trained in the art of killing. Falling for a slave girl, Varinia (Jean Simmons), and motivated by the death of one of his colleagues, Draba (Woody Strode), for refusing to kill him in a duel, Spartacus leads a bloody slave uprising that spreads throughout Italy. In Rome, political rivals Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Olivier), a Patrician with dictatorial ambitions, and Gracchus (Charles Laughton), a Republican "man of the people", along with their subordinates Glabrus (John Dall) and Julius Caesar (John Gavin), manipulate the rebellion for their own gains. As army after army is defeated by Spartacus, the situation grows more desperate - until Crassus is given the ultimate authority to deal with Spartacus, and leads three huge Roman armies to trap him in a final showdown.

The stories behind the making of "Spartacus" are legendary. The firing of director Anthony Mann, the clash of ideas between screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, novelist Howard Fast, director Stanley Kubrick, and producer/star Kirk Douglas, and the attempts of various right-wing groups in Hollywood to block the film's release, are as interesting as the film itself. With all these troubles, it's hard to believe that "Spartacus" is such a good film. It's flawed, yes, but nonetheless several notches above most films of its type.

Most historical epics of the '40s and '50s were superficial spectacles which relied on casts of thousands, huge sets and scenery, giant battles, and star-power to (hopefully) overlook poor period writing and ridiculously formulaic stories. In 1959, William Wyler's "Ben-Hur" began to elevate the epic above mere shallow entertainment; in 1962, David Lean would take the genre to its pinnacle with "Lawrence of Arabia". "Spartacus" is very much in the mold of these films, rather than the empty spectacle of C.B. DeMille Biblical epics.

The film contains plenty of spectacle, with its use of gorgeous Spanish scenery (offset by the occasional back-lot scene), and the giant marching armies of Rome and Spartacus, whose army becomes so large that it literally blots out the screen. The film contains a few duels and fights (particularly the memorable trident-vs.-sword fight between Spartacus and Draba), but only one major battle scene: the climactic defeat of the slave army. The prelude to the final battle features one of the most awe-inspiring spectacles ever filmed, as the enormous Roman Army maneuvers into attack formation; this scene is so impressive that the failure to represent Spartacus's earlier victories is easily forgotten. Combined with Alex North's rousing musical score, this scene is one of the most memorable in film history.

But it's the much-debated political aspect of the film which propels it to classic status. The film manages to preserve most of Dalton Trumbo's notion that Spartacus is a genuine people's hero; he is motivated by the cruelty that he sees, the love of Varinia, and goes from an almost animalistic brute to a humanist who genuinely loves his followers. At one point, he refuses a request from his turncoat ally, Cilician pirate leader Tigranus Levantus (Herbert Lom), to evacuate Spartacus and his family to a life of luxury for themselves. The revolt may be futile from the beginning, but Spartacus feels that "just by opposing Rome, we may have won a victory." This is definitely a liberal point-of-view, but I don't see it as particularly offensive; then again, it was released in the aftermath of the McCarthy era, with a previously blacklisted screenwriter, so it was definitely more sensitive at the time.

Even more interesting than Spartacus himself is the intricately woven chess match between Gracchus and Crassus. Gracchus is old, crooked, and venal, and yet he recognizes the threat that Crassus poses to Rome: "I'd rather have a little Republican corruption, with a little Republican freedom, than rule by Crassus and no freedom at all!" Crassus, as written by Trumbo and portrayed by the great Laurence Olivier, is a fascinating character. At first glance he is simply a power-hungry egomaniac, but upon examination he is a much more complex character. Unsure of himself, and of his abilities, he feels threatened personally by Spartacus's rebellion and wants to gain power, we suspect, more to assuage his personal insecurities than for power's sake. Even after his victory, purging Rome of its enemies ("Lists of the disloyal have been compiled" - a line which must have really resonated in 1960) and marrying Varinia, Crassus is still unable to feel secure.

The acting is generally top-notch. Kirk Douglas gives a sterling portrait of Spartacus as a man who grows to have deeply-held convictions. He is more than a simple rock-jawed, noble hero; he is a complex character who grows over the course of the story. Laurence Olivier proves himself the brilliant actor he was with his wonderfully subtle and layered performance as Crassus, with Charles Laughton, in one of his last roles, a brilliant counterpart as his ultra-pragmatic rival. Tony Curtis is also fine as Antoninus, the romantic slave who becomes Spartacus's right hand man, and Peter Ustinov does a fine job as the sleazy Batiatus, who cares not a wit about politics, viewing the whole situation as a mere inconvenience to him. Smaller parts are ably handled by John Ireland, Herbert Lom, Charles McGraw, and Woody Strode. On the other hand, Jean Simmons, while gorgeous, is rather one-note as Varinia, while John Dall and John Gavin are given one-dimensional characters and play them accordingly.

Despite some flaws in its execution (too long, poor pacing, leaving out important battle scenes, undeveloped subplots involving supporting characters), "Spartacus"'s reputation as the "thinking-man's epic" is well-deserved. Skillfully weaving a tapestry of complicated political messages, well-rounded characters, and the usual pomp and spectacle expected of the genre, Kubrick's film, if not a masterpiece, is still a classic.


Rating: 8/10 - Highly Recommended

A Very Lean Retrospective

"By Jove, this Chris Saunders bloke is one perceptive fellow. I knew SOMEONE loved Ryan's Daughter..."

Well, now that Lean Quest! is over, I shall appropriately enough post a retrospective of Lean films. I will of course come back and write/post reviews of those who are missing - well, the remaining epics at least - but this will suffice for now. (Originally posted on IMDB.)

In Which We Serve - Lean's first movie, and it really shows - though undoubtedly Noel Coward had a great degree of influence over the film as producer, writer, star and co-director. Decent for what it is - the most interesting aspect of the film is the cast, made up of virtually every up-and-coming British actor of the time - Coward, John Mills, Kay Walsh, James Donald, Celia Johnson, Richard Attenborough. A bit stiff and overwrought, but not bad.

This Happy Breed - As with In Which We Serve, clearly a formative effort. Lean shows a great camera's eye, with some impressive set-pieces - the Armistice Day parade, and most notably the great scene where Celia Johnson learns what happened to her son. Still a bit stiff and oh-aren't-we-British, with a decidedly preachy and reactionary social attitude, but for the most part it's an entertaining work regardless.

Blithe Spirit - Lean's first great film. A witty drawing room comedy with excellent use of Technicolor (the spirit effects on Kay Hammond hold up remarkably well), a crackling good script, and an excellent trio of leads in Rex Harrison, Constance Cummings and Kay Hammond, with broader humor handled well by Margaret Rutherford.

Brief Encounter - A near-flawless masterpiece, with only a few minor flaws, most notably Stanley Holloway and Joyce Carrey's annoying doubles-act. Perhaps the best, most mature, intelligent and believable of its type, the adult melodrama, it succeeds due to its purity of form - aside from the comic relief, it tackles its story head on with remarkable clarity and simplicity, with an immensely sympathetic lead in Celia Johnson and a fine star turn by the great Trevor Howard. The cinematography is wonderful too, and the Rachmaninoff score adds immeasuribly to the film's sad, wistful tone. Fully deserving of its status as one of the best romances of all time.

Great Expectations - I've never been much for Dickens, and trying to scale down such a massive tome as Great Expectations inevitably leads to problems. It has great technical aspects and some marvelous set-pieces, including the fabulous and justly-praised opening in the graveyard and the set-design for Miss Haversham's mansion is astonishing, but the story plods like molasses and the characters are drawn in only the broadest strokes, preventing much identification with them. John Mills is badly miscast (and gives his usual stiff performance), as is Valerie Hobson. Acting honors go to Finlay Currie, Martita Hunt and a radiant young Jean Simmons.

Oliver Twist - Lean's second attempt at Dickens is much better. The movie has a brisk pace which maintains the spirit of the novel without suffering from the same pitfalls of its predecessor. The movie has a genuinely dark, creepy atmosphere which enhances its power immeasuribly. Alec Guinness is utterly remarkable as Fagin - especially considering he was only 29 at the time. Robert Newton is a brilliant Sykes and Kay Walsh is a lovely Maggie.

The Passionate Friends - Basically Brief Encounter with a bigger budget and more recognizable stars, but Lean manages to make the old concept work like new. The interesting concept here is focusing the movie on the relationship between husband and wife, with Trevor Howard's charming stranger on the outside looking in. Ann Todd is luminous and sympathetic, but Claude Rains steals the show with arguably his best performance (save perhaps Mr. Smith Goes To Washington). Nice location photography too.

Madeleine - The first half is an interesting, atmospheric melodrama with creative, imaginative camera work (particularly use of deep-focus and intercutting - the visual motifs used to symbolize Madeleine's seduction are also quite striking) that make it seem almost noir like. After the murder, however, the movie devolves into a stiff and didactic courtroom drama, and the ending is extremely unsatisfying. Ann Todd seems much too old for her character, and none of the supporting cast gives a particularly memorable performance. Meh is the word I'm looking for, I think.

The Sound Barrier - Perhaps the only Lean film I outright disliked. Pretty tacky melodrama with lots of plane scenes equals boring. There's quite a bit of character and dramatic potential there that's kept below the surface in favor of lots and lots of plane scenes. There are admittedly some redeeming features - the final two confrontations between Ralph Richardson and Ann Todd are brilliantly done, and it's really ashamed that they didn't really address this conflict until the last fifteen minutes of the film. But such moments are only blips of life in a boring, repetitive movie, where even the technical aspects and cinematography is merely adequate - a phrase one would never think to say of a Lean film. Another such phrase would be, "This film is boring."

Hobson's Choice - Lean's only straight comedy except for Blithe Spirit. The movie is pretty dull, with an over-obvious sense of humor - mixing rather straightforward and tiresome slapstick with overdone, poorly written sub-Coward satire. Charles Laughton gives a schizophrenic performance; in some scenes he's completely hilarious, but in other scenes he's given too much of a free reign and engages in some truly hideous clowning. And I'm sorry, I don't get John Mills - I find him stiff and dull in everything, save his excellent against-type performance in Tunes of Glory. And I find Malcolm Arnold's score to be atrociously annoying. Not much to recommend this one, I fear, although it has some nice individual scenes - the opening shot parodying Great Expectations, Hobson knocking a stack of leaflets into a windy street, and the inexplicably hilarious giant rat winking at the drunk Hobson.

Summertime - Lean's first "big film", clearly a trial run for his epics with its gorgeous Technicolor and great use of Venice locations. The most remarkable aspect of the film is Katharine Hepburn. I find Kate annoying in 95% of her films, but here she is a completely sympathetic and even loveable character, keeping her mannerisms and persona in check and creating a character with depth, sympathy and pathos. It falls back on a few cliches and the cast is pretty bland aside from Hepburn, but for the most part is engrossingly beautiful and extremely entertaining. It just edges out Brief Encounter as my favorite of Lean's pre-epic films.

Bridge on the River Kwai - A great achievement, if only for its ability to balance out intelligent, ironic allegory with a more conventional adventure film. The second half focusing on the commandos lacks the dramatic power of the Nicholson-Saito showdown in the beginning, but the movie remains entertaining throughout, the extraordinary ending making its essential irony presentable without spelling it out for the audience. Alec Guinness is extraordinary, giving one of THE great performances in cinema history, but the other three leads - William Holden, Jack Hawkins, and especially Sessue Hayakawa - are all brilliant as well. The cinematography is a bit murky, some of the details seem odd or out of place (the revue performance at the prison camp? Come on), and the music is mediocre, but these are minor flaws in the context of the whole.

Lawrence of Arabia - Just read the damned essay.

Doctor Zhivago - Same.

Ryan's Daughter - I don't quite understand the hatred and invective directed at this film. The movie's big scale does seem odd given the relatively simple story, but I'd say the material on the whole justifies the length. The cinematography and locations are gorgeous, the characters well-drawn (if rather broad archetypes), and the set-pieces are extraordinary - Rosy and Doryan's first meeting in the pub, Charles' hallucination on the beach, and of course the storm sequence. Sarah Miles is amazing as Rosy - she makes her character convincing through all of her evolution, being sympathetic throughout even when she's engaging in illicit activity. Robert Mitchum is similarly excellent, doing a fabulous job playing as much against type as humanly possible. Trevor Howard really steals the show as the righteous priest, Leo McKern, Barry Foster and Gerald Sim are quite good too. Perhaps a bit overlong, the music is rather grating and out-of-place at times, Christopher Jones is a bit stiff, and John Mills gets tiresome at times, but on the whole it's a great film.

A Passage to India - Probably my favorite Lean next to Lawrence, a grossly underrated movie that never fails to fascinate me. It has a few missteps (Alec Guinness's bizarre casting as an Indian, the ending is a bit rushed and somewhat uneven) but they're very slight. The story moves at a brisk clip, keeping the general outlines, plot and characters of Forster's novel while adding a few new flourishes to it. Cinematography is gorgeous throughout, as one would expect from a Lean film. Maurice Jarre's score isn't up to his work on Lawrence and Zhivago, but its economic nature is perhaps a blessing after the excess of Ryan's Daughter. The cast is mostly excellent, with Judy Davis, James Fox and Peggy Ashcroft walking away with acting honors. Victor Bannerjee is an excellent Aziz too.

Rough order of preference:

Lawrence of Arabia
A Passage to India
Bridge on the River Kwai
Ryan's Daughter
Summertime
Brief Encounter
Blithe Spirit
The Passionate Friends
Doctor Zhivago
Oliver Twist
Madeleine
This Happy Breed
Great Expectations
Hobson's Choice
In Which We Serve
The Sound Barrier


So, that's done. And now onto other things - perhaps a rewatch of Spartacus tonight? Stay tuned.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

All That Heaven Allows

"I don't think this is a very flattering picture, Rock. I mean, the lack of color fails to bring out the flannel's true potential."

The last two films watched in our film class, Blonde Venus and Stella Dallas, were not films I had a great deal to say about. Blonde Venus was pretty dull and formulaic, Stella Dallas entertaining but rather forgettable I thought, Barbara Stanwyck's performance notwithstanding. So it is with great pride that I return to my once-weekly film class column with a film decidedly worthy of note: The Deer Story!

Oh wait, it's All That Heaven Allows: A Deer Story. Mea culpa.

Cary Scott (Jane Wyman) is a widow living in a small town. She is pretty much resigned to her lot in life, with her kids fully grown (and golly gee, they sure are swell at annoying the shit out of everyone in the audience!) and a few friends at the exclusive, gossipy Country Club. But this was before she paid attention to Ron Kirby (Rock Hudson). Yes, Ron Kirby. The quintessential Man's Man. Studly, handsome, secretly gay and always wearing flannel shirts, he's many degrees removed from the high-society types she usually hangs with. Cary falls in love with this younger, flannel-wearing Stud Muffin who is the rugged manly type who doesn't talk much, reads Henry David Thoreau, lives in a shack in the woods, and is so in harmony with Nature that he not only wears flannel (the epitome of Manly Toughness) and pets wild deer, but shoots geese as well. Unfortunately, he's not a member of the Upper Class, and he's younger than Cary, so when she begins a relationship with him, everyone in town from the fuddy-duddies to her obnoxious cildren take issue. Cary drops him like a hot potato as a result, only to find that sacrificing her love for her community ain't all it's cracked up to be. Then there's some contrived, gushy ending which is supposed to make us feel happy and warm, but then makes us laugh so hard our appendixes explode. Er, or something like that.

So, here is a Douglas Sirk film. With a name like Sirk, you've gotta make Crap!

Actually, this is my first Sirk movie, although I've heard a great deal about them beforehand. And boy, I was expecting a cheesefest, but this exceeded my wildest possible imagination. Nowhere in the recesses of my quite imaginative mind, the one who used to watch Days of Our Lives on a daily basis and who willingly sat through 4 Leprechaun movies and The Sound Barrier, could I have ever imagined the Hell wrought by Mr. Sirk.

Here is a movie, quite frankly, that drips syrup out of every frame. Overwrought emotion. My irrational paranoid fears about diabetes are given extraordinary credence after watching this movie; it was so syrupy sweet that my pancreas just died on me. (Which means this may be the last entry for this blog ever. Come back guys, I was just making a tasteless joke.) It's not even the cheesiness that bothers me, really. It's the way the film is made, making everything so bloody obvious to the audience - spelling it out every letter for us. It's not enough to have a broken vase show up fixed - you have to talk about it (and then break it again, and then fret about how much effort went into it before it was broken). You can't have people put down without having them then talk amonst themselves. And certainly you can't have them break up, have Cary experience the emptiness which has occurred from this, and want to go back to him, without having her explain all this to the audience. I mean, really. The only good that comes out of all this long-winded exhortation is the cinematography with its wonderfully florid, exaggerated, almost surreal color palette. Either Sirk is a master satirist, or he's assuming that his target audience were rock-stupid. Maybe both.

The characters are even more fun to think about. Cary is like Celia Johnson in Brief Encounter, only without the accent. And the depth. And the humanity. And the intelligence. And the... Okay, she maintains a bit of dignity, thanks to Ms. Wyman, but she's still a cypher no matter how you slice it. At least she has a sliver of humanity compared to Rod, who as played by Rock Hudson is a wooden stump. He may be hot but he can't act any better than the star of a Coleman Francis film - at least not here. No matter how many tough, manly attributes you wish to give him, he's still just a line on a script. The hysterically obnoxious gossipy associates barely rate a mention, except to say that they're the most realisitic characters in the movie. I've known enough horrible people in elementary and high school to know that bitch Mona is a very frightening reality.

Oh, but her children. Son Doug is just a jackass, pure and simple, who feels that something has come between him and his mother - not Rod, but the door that is quite literally in between them on the camera. (Gee, Mr. Sirk, thanks for making literal that metaphor at the same time you are talking about it!!!) And then, at the end he ditches her for a job in Iran. See, this is what being a good parent gets you: you sacrifice your one true love for the sake of your children, and your son runs off to do wet jobs for the CIA. Nice.

As for daughter Kay? At first, with her thin figure, long brown hair, and dorky glasses, I thought she looked like a mousy Sabrina-era Audrey Hepburn, but after listening to some of her never-ending stream-of-consciousness rants about Freudian psychology (as my friend Troy Steele would say, "What.") in an irritating voice, I realized who she reminded me of...

Okay. Imagine that spouting off Freudian psychobabble for an hour and a half. Yikes.

And then there's that damned deer who pops up at the end. I mean, really, what can you say to that? The entire class laughed at the deer, who conveniently pops up to be backgrounded during our leads' reconcilation. If all we wanted were deer, we'd have watched Bambi instead. I'm sure it's a symbol of romance or Ron's rugged MANLY! nature persona, but it's also stupid. And cheesy. But don't take my word for it:

So, is this movie really that corny, or is it actualy a brilliant satire, a scathing mockery of these very sort of films? I hope it's not out of line for me to say that Revisionist Critics need to get a grip on themselves and stop masturbating over how "original" they are for coming up with such concepts. Because really, they're just being thick clods. For yes, I do truly think that Douglas Sirk intended this movie to be that stupid. You can do melodrama and make it interesting, so I choose to believe that Douglas Sirk just plain sucks. I'm simply too tired to consider other possibilities. Besides, if that were true, I'd have to throw this whole review out and start from scratch, wouldn't I?


(Note: I'm classifying this a bad movie simply because it sucks. I'd worry about pissing off a reader or two, but as there aren't very many around as of yet, I'm sure I'll sleep soundly giving it such a classification.)


Rating: 4/10 - Avoid

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Lean Quest! Hobson's Choice

"Don't worry, Mr. Laughton. I'm sure Lord Olivier isn't in the best of health either..."

So, after, I dunno, a little over three years (or a little less than two months), Lean Quest! finally comes to a close. As of right this moment, I have seen every single film directed by David Lean. Rather than rest on my laurels (because I have a job, homework and studying to procrastinate from), I shall regale you with this final review. Not of Lean films period - you'll notice many notable titles have yet to be reviewed or copy-and-pasted for this site - but for the Lean Quest!

Hobson's Choice is one of Lean's late-early, or middle-middle, or what you have films. By Lean standards, it's a mite odd, as it's a straight comedy. And David Lean isn't exactly a director known for his comedic prowess. It's not a bad film, and certainly better than the stupefyingly dull last entry in this series, but as with our last two offerings, by Lean standards it's a bit of a let down.

Based on a play by Harold Brighouse, the play tells the story of the Hobson family. Henry Hobson (Charles Laughton), is the middle-aged, drunken boot maker who has lost his wife and keeping his daughters in a state of repression. His oldest daughter Maggie (Brenda De Banzie) rebels, deciding to strike out on her own, bringing her Father's talented but gormless employee Willie Mossop (John Mills) along with her, for a more or less forcible marriage, and to start their own business. While Mr. Hobson wallows in alcohol, his daughter and former employee become a huge success, and ultimately Hobson is forced to sell out to them.

Now, I think we need to reiterate a key point for the sake of either elucidating the argument or padding the review: David Lean is not a comedic director. The only other straight comedy he did was Blithe Spirit - admittedly, a very good film, but then he was directly adapting a Noel Coward play. When he does tackle comedy in his other films - exceptions being made with Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia - he displays British humor at its worst: stiff, insistent, and oh-so-proper, distinctly lacking in a little thing we call wit. Brief Encounter is plagued by the annoying doubles-act of Stanley Holloway (who was only ever funny in The Lavender Hill Mob) and Joyce Carrey, whose sequences not only seem out of place, but actively bog down an otherwise wonderful film. Holloway proves similarly grating in This Happy Breed, whose idea of comedy is getting drunk and singing army songs with Robert Newton. (Aren't you getting married in the morning, Stanley? Make sure you get to the church on time.) If you can name any hilariously side-splitting scenes from other Lean movies, or even chuckle-worthy moments, I'll retract this whole paragraph. Lean is a dramatic director, and while he may excell at an occasional witty line, he's clearly not that comfortable in the laughter territory. And so we come to Hobson's Choice.

Hobson's Choice has its merits, no doubt. On a technical level, it's quite good. The cinematography and direction are good, with a few stand-out pieces of direction. The opening scene is quite clever, parodying Great Expectations as it prowls through Hobson's boot shop, ended by a drunken Hobson belching. A similarly striking shot has Hobson throwing a stack of leaflets into the air, and they trail after him in the wind. In a film with more substance than this, it would be quite impressive. Auteurists will note Willie and Maggie's decidedly awkward wedding night, which brings strongly to mind the equivalent scene in Ryan's Daughter. And there's an odd scene of a Temperance march, blaring Shall We Gather At the River?, which put this writer strangely in mind of a completely unrelated film...

I think we can address the film's sense of humor pretty quickly, or else through the characters. The movie doesn't lend itself to easy analysis: I should probably read something into Mr. Hobson's bourgeois oppression of his three daughters, which signifies misogyny and social restrictions on women, blah blah blah, but I'm not up for it and the film isn't good enough to warrant such an analysis. The movie has an odd sense of humor. It tries for Noel Coward-esque drawing room humor, but it doesn't come off. Whether this is from the screenplay for the cast being a bunch of cigar-store Indians, I can't entirely tell. Maybe it's both. And that brings us to Mr. Hobson.

Although his character is secondary to the drama (billing aside), Charles Laughton naturally dominates the film. The movie clearly is designed with Hobson to be the ultimate Fool, allowing Willie and Maggie to perform the light comedy and drama and then wander in and steal the show through sheer force of weight. This is both a blessing and a curse, as Mr. Laughton gives a performance that is bafflingly schizophrenic. Laughton has some fine moments of comedy, particularly when he sits down to, you know, act. But just as much of the film is devoted to his acting like, well, a drunken clown - waddling and stumbling and falling down holes in the street and belching and goggling and generally making himself into a huge nuisance. A pity, as I've loved Laughton in the few other works I've seen him in, most notably his great turn as the hilariously corrupt Senator Gracchus in Spartacus, but his performance here is simultaneously atrocious and excellent - I know not what to make of such a conundrum at 11:45 on a Tuesday night.

As for our leads? At the risk of pissing someone off, it has to be said: John Mills is one of the most bland, stiff and boring actors I've ever seen. He did give one astonishing performance in Tunes of Glory, managing to match and at times even overtake the great Alec Guinness - but in everything else I've seen him in (particularly his work with Lean) he's been a dull, stiff, overly earnest bore. So basically, here he's playing John Mills in a David Lean film, only he spends the whole movie saying "By Gum!" Great. Brenda de Banzie is alright, but her character is quite obnoxious and thus it's very hard to care about her.

Malcolm Arnold contributes the score, and it's annoying to the extreme: loud, intrusize, and all-too-insistent of the film's whimsicality, it's the worst kind of score this kind of film could have. The score is at its absolute worst during the puddle-chasing scene, which might be funny if it weren't for the blaring "Oh 'e's drunk!" trumpets and whakced-out theramin. Taking into account Arnold's work here, his banal action/melodrama score for The Sound Barrier and his if-it-weren't-for-Colonel Bogey-it-would-define-generic work on Bridge on the River Kwai, one thanks God that Lean found Maurice Jarre for his later epics.

Well, Hobson's Choice is a decent waste of time, but it earns the dubious distinction of being a mediocre Lean film. It makes the bottom three with In Which We Serve and The Sound Barrier. Perhaps if I had more of a tolerance for stiff-as-a-board Brits who couldn't generate a laugh at Three-Mile Island, or wooing theramins and blaring drunk trumpets, or fat guys falling down constant, I would enjoy it more. Oh well, at least it has that opening shot, and the hilarious moment where a giant rat winks at the drunken Hobson. Yes, you read that right.

So, I'm done with Lean Quest! Everybody PARTY!



Rating: 6/10 - Use Your Own Discretion

The Wonderful Johnny and June

Novena to Saint Jude



I am to begin a 9-day Novena to Saint Jude. One should never presume, but I hope for an answer to praying to one of Heaven's most reliable and trustworthy Saints. I suppose they're all trustworthy really, mirroring, as they do, the Good God. However, I remain an unreliable and unworthy sinner, a lost cause of the Church so to speak, and hope for mercy and Grace.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

John Adams: Birthing Liberty


"A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." - John Adams

And what a fragile thing liberty is. For over two hundred years, America has wrestled with the issues emanating from its historic revolt against British tyranny, inspiring the world with its example of idealistic freedom. Ever since the Founders split into the Federalists and Republicans, the issues have remained largely the same, even if specifics differ. What amount of individual freedom must be lost to the government, and under what circumstance? How strong should the federal government be, and what of the states? How large should the US military be, and how much strength should it have? Should the government tax its citizenry, and if so how much? These issues are still with us today, albeit in a wide variety of variations, and while the Founders may take issue with many of the directions in which our society has gone since 1787 (and the obvious technological advancements), they would still largely recognize the country the bequeathed.

HBO's epic miniseries John Adams takes a look at just how difficult founding America was. Focusing on one of America's less acclaimed Founding Fathers, John Adams (Paul Giamatti), the series provides a sweeping, panoramic view of colonial America and shows how our current system of government came about. It wasn't easy; it took decades of conflict, much compromise and a good amount of bloodshed to achieve, but ultimately success was achieved. America still has a long way to go before it can be a truly perfect nation, but its ability to maintain such a society for almost 250 years is greatly to the credit of its Founders.

Although Adams is the main character of the series, he is a man who lived and moved in interesting times, surrounded by a cadre of memorable figures, some brilliant, some mercurial, all fascinating - and most of them, it would seem, more well-reknowned. The Founding Fathers in particular are a well-rounded bunch of characters, transcending their air-brushed history book caricatures: Tom Wilkinson's Benajmin Franklin is an exceptionally bright and witty man, whose mercurial and perpetually amused nature first intrigues and then aggravates Adams; David Morse's George Washington is a strong natural leader with no stomach for politics; Rufus Sewell's Alexander Hamilton is a fiercely intelligent man who becomes a power-hungry trouble-maker; Stephen Dillane's Thomas Jefferson is a brilliant liberal who lets his revolutionary fervor and purity overwhelm his common sense. Some may take issue with some of these portrayals, but they all manage to avoid the usual one-dimensional cliches and pitfalls associated with portraying such legendary individuals. The Founding of the nation is a near-run thing, with many representatives - including Zeljko Ivanek's dignified Pennsylvania delegate John Dickinson - arguing against independence, and with so many great minds and colossal egos debating not only independence, but the finer points of government and power, makes one marvel at the fact that enough Compromise was reached without significant internicine bloodshed at all.

And what makes Adams stand out from this distinguished crowd? Certainly, Adams lacks the lionization that many of his counterparts received; he tends to be, if not dismissed, then minimized by historians, who prefer the flashier personalities of a Jefferson or Hamilton to "His Rotundity". This is completely unfair to Adams, his character, and his achievements. When the Boston street thugs led by his cousin Sam Adams wanted to hang British soldiers for firing into a mob, Adams defended them, not for any political benefit, but because it was the right thing to do. When Independence was still a radical idea, Adams pushed for it with all his strength. When Federalists and Republicans were at each other's throats after Washington left the Presidency, Adams stepped in and held the country together. Adams was not a perfect man, and his family troubles - from his drunken wastrel son Charles to the illness and premature death of his daughter "Nabby" - were largely, if not his fault, than his responsibility - for a man who devotes his life to politics and the world will suffer at home. And certainly, Adams' prickly personality, touched with a dash of pomposity and perhaps a hint of egotism, makes him less than admirable in certain aspects. But in the end, Adams is far more of a great man than a flawed one, for he was a man who believed in doing what was right, and loved his country above everything - even himself and, regrettably, his family.

Looking at the show from a technical viewpoint, there is much to admire. Green screen technology is fairly advanced by this point, and it's well-used throughout, creating the illusion of 18th Century Boston, Paris, London, Philadelphia, and Washington. Both the harshness of winter and pastoral beauty of rural Massachusetts, the developing, bustling colonial cities of Washington and Boston, and the ornate majesty of Europe's royal courts, are portrayed with luscious attention to deal through the marvelous cinematography by Tak Fujimoto. Tom Hooper's direction is stylish and detailed, grand yet subtle. Kirk Ellis's script does a wonderful job of weaving historical quotations with sharp, word-perfect dialogue. Attention must be paid, also, to the stirring score by Robert Lane and Joseph Viterelli, and to the marvelous, expansive production design, which makes sure that even the smallest button on the barely visible extra's trousers is absolutely perfect. Historical accuracy is not in and of itself a virtue, but when combined with all of the above, it's certainly an asset.

The best episodes of the show are those which focus on specific incidents and events. Episodes 3 and 4 are by far the weakest, simply because they try to cover too much time in too little. The focus on Adams makes this inevitable; Adams spent most of the War being shuttled around Europe, so it's understandable, but it doesn't really make for great television. But when the show maintains a distinct focus on a specific time, issue or event, it clicks - Adams' eloquent defense of the soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre, the framing of the Declaration of Independence, the growing rift between Jefferson and Hamilton (and, as a result, Jefferson and Adams), Adams' troubled presidency and escalating family problems and tragedies. These showcase some of the finest, dramatically powerful moments in television, if for no other reason than unlike Friends or House or The X-Files or even Dora the Explorer (not to bash any of those shows), these events really happened, and these people really existed.

Paul Giamatti gives an extraordinary lead performance as Adams. All of the superlatives have been exhausted by reviewers and critics more eloquent and widely read by than me. Suffice it to say, Giamatti is astonishing. He has 10 hours with which to work - more than most actors get with a character - but he manages to deal with every aspect of his characters' complex and difficult personality, transcending a mere impersonation or even portrayal. The impersonation is quite well-done, but the performance is more impressive; Giamatti makes Adams into a wonderful character, and ultimately a sympathetic, complex human being.


Just as impressive as Giamatti is Laura Linney, portraying Adams' long-suffering, extremely intelligent and fiercely loyal wife Abigail. Their marriage is one of the greatest love stories of all time - two truly loving people in an equal partnership - and it shines through brilliantly. Abigail is a wonderfully strong character who projects a power, presence and fire unheard of in 18th Century women. Her relationship with her husband - sometimes warm, sometimes caustic, but always honest and loving - is the most endearing part of her character. She calls her husband on his faults, but to help him improve himself rather than to mock him. Linney is simply amazing, matching Giamatti line-for-line, word-for-word, as an equally weighty screen presence. Both actors won Emmys, and in each instance, it was extraordinarily well-reserved.

All of the supporting characters are nailed to a tee. Perhaps most worthy of praise are Stephen Dillane's wonderful, layered portrayal of Jefferson, and David Morse's dignified performance as Washington. Tom Wilkinson gives an endlessly fun performance as Franklin, stealing his every scene and making some of the show's drier episodes more palatable. There are also memorable guest appearances, including Zeljko Ivanek (as Pennsylvania delegate John Dickinson, one of the last hold-outs against declaring independence) and Tom Hollander (as the humbled King George III, forced to accept America's seperation and then its friendship), which add invaluable flavor and dramatic weight to the storyline.

John Adams is a great work of television, and a great achievement in historical story-telling. It's not perfect, and it suffers a bit from telescoping important historical events, but many of these are inevitable given the show's format. For the most part, it's rivetting history and well-done entertainment at once. For even a non-discerning viewer, it should be worth a look; for a history buff, such as myself, it's a definite treat.

Rating: 8/10 - Highly Recommended

Levi Stubbs RIP



Levi Stubbs of The Four Tops, a band that made some truly astonishing soul music has died age 72.



They just don't make them like this anymore.

Feast of St Luke, Evangelist



The weather in the UK is beautiful at the moment...by tradition when it is sunny and warm in October, apparently we call it a St Luke's Summer. It is apt then, that his feast is today.


Luke, the writer of the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, has been identified with St. Paul's "Luke, the beloved physician" (Colossians 4:14). We know few other facts about Luke's life from Scripture and from early Church historians.

It is believed that Luke was born a Greek and a Gentile. In Colossians 10-14 speaks of those friends who are with him. He first mentions all those "of the circumcision" -- in other words, Jews -- and he does not include Luke in this group. Luke's gospel shows special sensitivity to evangelizing Gentiles. It is only in his gospel that we hear the parable of the Good Samaritan, that we hear Jesus praising the faith of Gentiles such as the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian (Lk.4:25-27), and that we hear the story of the one grateful leper who is a Samaritan (Lk.17:11-19). According to the early Church historian Eusebius Luke was born at Antioch in Syria.

In our day, it would be easy to assume that someone who was a doctor was rich, but scholars have argued that Luke might have been born a slave. It was not uncommon for families to educate slaves in medicine so that they would have a resident family physician. Not only do we have Paul's word, but Eusebius, Saint Jerome, Saint Irenaeus and Caius, a second-century writer, all refer to Luke as a physician.

We have to go to Acts to follow the trail of Luke's Christian ministry. We know nothing about his conversion but looking at the language of Acts we can see where he joined Saint Paul. The story of the Acts is written in the third person, as an historian recording facts, up until the sixteenth chapter. In Acts 16:8-9 we hear of Paul's company "So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. During the night Paul had a vision: there stood a man of Macedonia pleading with him and saying, 'Come over to Macedonia and help us.' " Then suddenly in 16:10 "they" becomes "we": "When he had seen the vision, we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia, being convinced that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them."

So Luke first joined Paul's company at Troas at about the year 51 and accompanied him into Macedonia where they traveled first to Samothrace, Neapolis, and finally Philippi. Luke then switches back to the third person which seems to indicate he was not thrown into prison with Paul and that when Paul left Philippi Luke stayed behind to encourage the Church there. Seven years passed before Paul returned to the area on his third missionary journey. In Acts 20:5, the switch to "we" tells us that Luke has left Philippi to rejoin Paul in Troas in 58 where they first met up. They traveled together through Miletus, Tyre, Caesarea, to Jerusalem.

Luke is the loyal comrade who stays with Paul when he is imprisoned in Rome about the year 61: "Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers" (Philemon 24). And after everyone else deserts Paul in his final imprisonment and sufferings, it is Luke who remains with Paul to the end: "Only Luke is with me" (2 Timothy 4:11).

Luke's inspiration and information for his Gospel and Acts came from his close association with Paul and his companions as he explains in his introduction to the Gospel: "Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:1-3).

Luke's unique perspective on Jesus can be seen in the six miracles and eighteen parables not found in the other gospels. Luke's is the gospel of the poor and of social justice. He is the one who tells the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man who ignored him. Luke is the one who uses "Blessed are the poor" instead of "Blessed are the poor in spirit" in the beatitudes. Only in Luke's gospel do we hear Mary 's Magnificat where she proclaims that God "has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty" (Luke 1:52-53).

Luke also has a special connection with the women in Jesus' life, especially Mary. It is only in Luke's gospel that we hear the story of the Annunciation, Mary's visit to Elizabeth including the Magnificat, the Presentation, and the story of Jesus' disappearance in Jerusalem. It is Luke that we have to thank for the Scriptural parts of the Hail Mary: "Hail Mary full of grace" spoken at the Annunciation and "Blessed are you and blessed is the fruit of your womb Jesus" spoken by her cousin Elizabeth.

Forgiveness and God's mercy to sinners is also of first importance to Luke. Only in Luke do we hear the story of the Prodigal Son welcomed back by the overjoyed father. Only in Luke do we hear the story of the forgiven woman disrupting the feast by washing Jesus' feet with her tears. Throughout Luke's gospel, Jesus takes the side of the sinner who wants to return to God's mercy.

Reading Luke's gospel gives a good idea of his character as one who loved the poor, who wanted the door to God's kingdom opened to all, who respected women, and who saw hope in God's mercy for everyone.

He is often shown with an ox or a calf because these are the symbols of sacrifice -- the sacrifice Jesus made for all the world.

St Luke is the patron of physicians and surgeons.

Friday, October 17, 2008

The Day of the Jackal

I did enjoy Stella Dallas in class last night, but TCM ran one of my favorites, The Day of the Jackal, tonight, and since I have an IMDB comment written I'll simply re-post it here rather than write a new review (don't worry though, I'll find time this weekend). The Stepford Wives is also on TCM, though I'm not sure if I'm up for that one when I still have John Adams to watch tonight. Anyway...



1963, France. French President Charles De Gaulle (Adrien Cayla-Legrand) has decided, after a popular referendum, to allow the North African nation of Algeria independence from France. This action leads to the death of hundreds of French residence in Algeria and bloody conflict which extends to Europe, as disgruntled French army officers form the OAS, a terrorist group which strives to assassinate De Gaulle. After a failed attempt on the President's life, the leaders of the OAS are tried and executed, and the organization is in tatters. The surviving leaders of the OAS hire a professional assassin (Edward Fox), codenamed the Jackal, to assassinate De Gaulle. Using a bewildering array of disguises, false passports, and other tricks, the Jackal works his way through Europe, being tracked by a frantic French bureaucracy led by milquetoast Police Commissioner Lebel (Michael Lonsdale). It's up to Lebel to find and stop the Jackal before August 25th, Liberation Day, when the assassin will make his move.

Based on the gripping if very long novel by Frederick Forsyth, Fred Zinneman's "Day of the Jackal" is one of the best of its genre. It succeeds largely because, as Roger Ebert said, "it knows exactly what it's talking about". Though fictional, the film's look and feel gives it an air of authenticity that few, if any, other thrillers could hope to match. The film has an almost documentary air about it, which is one of the major reasons it is so successful.

Much of the credit is due to director Fred Zinneman. Despite having a lengthy career making such classics as "High Noon", "From Here to Eternity", and "A Man for All Seasons", Zinneman is generally overlooked when it comes to great directors. Certainly, it's understandable why. Zinneman's films typically do not contain much in the way of flair or flash, at least when it comes to photography. Zinneman's direction is straightforward, unpretentious, with no fancy camera angles: he allows the script, sets, actors, and action on screen to do the work. This might not be the accomplished method of film making, but it works wonders in Zinneman's best films, particularly here. The lack of stylization creates the aforementioned feel that this story could happen in real life. And yet, Zinneman effectively creates suspense in spite of conventional music or camera movements; the finale, where Lebel and a Gendarme (Phillipe Leotard) try to locate the assassin (with La Marseillaise playing on the soundtrack), is sheer nail-biting brilliance.

Other elements contribute to the film's success. The lengthy, in-depth, and almost labyrinthine source novel is reduced by screenwriter Kenneth Ross into succinct, economic dialog which conveys as much information with as little verbiage as possible. Georges Delerue's score functions much the same as his work in Zinneman's "A Man for All Seasons". There is little actual music, other than diegetic music from marching bands or street musicians, which adds immeasurably the look and feel of the movie.

What makes or breaks the film, however, is the cast, and this film is truly unique in its acting. The film recruits a huge, very talented cast of actors from both sides of the English Channel, and every performance is wonderfully understated, free of histrionics or theatricality, which makes the film all the more believable.

Edward Fox is marvelous in the title role. He plays the assassin as the ultimate detached professional; unconcerned about politics or individuals, he simply does his job and does it well. He can be counted on for results. He is neither arrogant nor cocky, just an expert who knows what he's doing and will go any length to achieve it. Fox is completely, utterly, and chillingly believable as the Jackal, and one is torn between rooting for him to succeed or for him to get caught.

Also fantastic is the Jackal's nemesis, Commissioner Lebel, who is played in an equally understated performance by Michael Lonsdale. Lebel is not an action hero, nor particularly exciting; he is a no-frills, straightforward police inspector who uses his brains, intuition, skill, and more than a bit of luck to track down the Jackal. Lonsdale and Fox give two of the most utterly believable performances ever captured on film, a testament to both actors.

The rest of the cast follows suit, although few of the other characters have as much screen time. Cyril Cusack plays the charming gunsmith who builds the Jackal's perfect weapon; Delphine Seyrig is a middle-aged Frenchwoman who begins an ill-advised affair with the assassin; Derek Jacobi is Lebel's dedicated assistant; Tony Britton as the crusty Scotland Yard investigator who gives Lebel his first break in the case; Jean Martin and Eric Porter play the desperate OAS members forced to hire an outsider to do their dirty work. These are just a few of the many fine performers in the film, and all give well-rounded, believable performances.

"The Day of the Jackal" is a brilliant thriller that still holds up well almost 35 years later. By capturing the essence of 1960's France, and by creating a completely believable atmosphere, Zinneman draws the viewer into the film. It is unlikely that the viewer will be able to lose interest as the plot moves along. A brilliant thriller, and a masterpiece for all time.

For the record: The remake with Bruce Willis, Sidney Poitier and Richard Gere is alright, and remains reasonably faithful to the source material, but it does add a good deal of embellishment and over-the-top elements that demean it somewhat (does the Jackal really need to use a remote-controlled automatic cannon to carry out an assassination? Fox's little contraption is infinitely more interesting a weapon). Plus Gere's Irish accent is one of the worst excuse for human speech ever uttered.

(If you want to read more on this film, check out this excellent retrospective of Fred Zinneman's life and career.)

Rating: 9/10 - Highest Recommendation