Sayonara Anime

All three readers of this blog may have noticed that I haven’t reviewed or written about any anime for the past four months. Why is this so? Well, for one I have been busy with other things in my life (fewer blog posts, period) as well as watching other things in my life (mostly watching horror movies for some strange reason recently). But the biggest reason is simply that I haven’t been watching any new anime. Oh sure, I re-watched Martian Successor Nadesico recently, and I got the new DVDs of Project A-Ko and Galaxy Express 999, but I don’t like blogging things I’ve seen before, and I would really have nothing new to say about A-Ko and 999 – there are only so many ways to say “this movie is fucking awesome” before it gets repetitive.

But I have not watched any new anime. In fact, I’m rather burned out on anime right now. There is simply nothing right now that interests me that much. About the only thing that I can think of that I might want to get is the Dirty Pair TV Series but I can wait on that (no money). I even ran into a very cheap copy of the complete series Last Exile at the used bookstore, and I didn’t pick it up even though I was somewhat interested in viewing it about a year ago. I don’t feel like committing myself to a whole series anymore – I just don’t *care* that much anymore. I just can’t bring myself to rabidly watch entertainment intended for Japanese teenagers anymore. Even if that entertainment is very good, which nearly everyone says that Last Exile is.

This isn’t to insult Japanese teenagers, or teenagers in general, or even adults who watch young adult or children’s entertainment (hey, I enjoy a good Looney Tunes cartoon every once in a while). It’s just that maybe, I want something a little more… adult from my animation. And while a lot of anime aimed at teenagers has some crossover appeal with adults (the original Mobile Suit Gundam was aimed at teenagers but found an audience with college students who liked it’s complex world-view, for example) most is just too limited for me to enjoy that much anymore. I even sold off a whole bunch of my anime recently – even shows I really enjoyed but realized I would never watch again, like Nadia the Secret of Blue Water and Twelve Kingdoms.

So how much anime for adults is out there anyway? The answer: not much. A lot of defenders of the art form will say, “Unlike in the West, where animation is something only for children, anime is made for adults too!” This is false. *Some* animation is made for adults in Japan (i.e. it is not completely nonexistent ) but the vast majority of anime is made for children (and there have been *some* attempts at adult animation in the West, but... well, read below). It’s just that most of it doesn’t make it over here to the US (or the UK, or Canada, or….) because we already have animated programming and movies for children. The next largest group of anime is anime made for teenagers, and this is the group with the largest exposure in the West because it fills a niche that Western Animation does not. Animation for teenagers and young adults has been traditionally nonexistent over here for a long time, the reasoning being (as far as I can tell) that when children hit a certain age they’re supposed to “grow up” and stop watching cartoons. Well, in Japan the attitude is that when teenagers become full adults that they stop watching cartoons and “grow up.” What most western anime fans don’t realize is that regular adult watchers of anime in Japan are in a small minority, and anime is not in the adult mainstream. The vast majority of anime that *is* made for adults is hentai – porn. So what most westerners say about anime is ALMOST true – all anime is either kiddie stuff or porn. I say ALMOST because unlike here in America there *is* a minute amount of animation that is made for older *adults* that is not porn. Now, most of this is crap – Sturgeon’s Law states that 90% of *anything* is crap. And most of it, in an attempt to be “adult” and “edgy” employs a lot of sex/nudity and massive violence (not unlike “adult” animation from the US and elsewhere in the west, where “adult” means puerile animated movies with loads of gratuitous nudity and/or gratuitous violence – Heavy Metal and the works of an execrable animator-that-shall-remain-nameless-but-whose-initials-are-RB come to mind). Not that I mind nudity or sex or violence, but one can have adult entertainment without great amounts of both. So, with that in mind, is there any anime for those like me, who want good, adult animation from Japan without the Boobs and Blood? Or, at least, anime made for older teenagers with enough crossover appeal and enough maturity to interest discerning adults?

Well, yeah, although it is few and far between. Note that this list cannot be complete as I have not watched every anime known to man (or woman).

I have already dealt with a few such anime on this blog – Memories, Labyrinth Tales and Planetes – so I won’t go into them again here except to say read my previous reviews for them and watch them.

Cowboy Bebop is a famous “gateway” anime TV show (i.e. it is an anime that gets people into watching other anime, although it does also feature warp-gates) and was really popular back in the late nineties when it first came out. It’s about a group of bounty hunters in THE FUTURE who travel around the solar system and, well, hunt criminals. What makes the show so refreshingly adult is the way the characters are treated and the way the situations resolve themselves – everything does not always work out for the best. And yeah, there is a cute kid along with a cute dog in here, but they are also treated (relatively) realistically and are there (usually) for comic support. And while this *can* be a violent show, it is not excessively or unnecessarily so.

Wings of Honneamise is a great anime movie from Studio Gainax (their first project, actually) about the first steps by human beings into space – in an alternate world. This is great because it not only depoliticizes the story and the human achievement of space travel but gives the animators the chance to invent a whole new world – which they do beautifully. Everything in this world is different from ours – down to the silverware – but it is never truly alien… it is recognizable as human, and the characters in this world gain our sympathy by being like us. The art and animation are spectacular (especially for 1987, which is when this came out) and the story is absolutely gripping. There is a controversial scene involving sexual assault, but it is not gratuitous (despite what some claim) and is not meant to be arousing in any way. Wings of Honneamise is what other anime films should strive to be.

Millennium Actress is a film from Satoshi Kon, a director I really need to see more of (hence the reason there are no more films of his on here). It details (in a very fluid, stream-of-consciousness manner) the life of a movie actress of the 50s and 60s and her lifelong search for a love from her youth. While it does get overly sentimental at a few points, the story is solid, and the imagery is superb. This is a well done, creative, dramatic film from a director that died way too soon.

Speaking of directors, my favorite anime director is Mamoru Oshii (who turned 60 this week by the way – happy birthday, Mr. Oshii). He’s the one anime director who has put out the greatest deal of quality animated material for adults. Some of it does have an excess of Boobs and Blood (*Cough* Ghost in the Shell, *cough*) that will not be dealt with here, but he’s been responsible for not only some of the best adult anime films but best anime films period.

Angel’s Egg is an awesome experimental film from Oshii, but it is unavailable in the US (had to watch it on Youtube – YUCK), so I will highlight the best of his body of work by talking briefly about his two Patlabor films.

Yes, they are movies with giant robots – but they are the two greatest giant robot movies ever made. The reason for this is… are you ready?... they’re not really about giant robots, especially the second one. Oh sure, the first Patlabor movie is nominally about giant robots going berserk because of their operating systems, but you could have replaced the Labors (as the mecha are called) with anything – any machine or tool. The film is all about progress, about whether it is a good or bad thing as well as the status of technology in modern society; you know, fluffy stuff like that. It’s also a good detective movie with a cool twist – we know who is responsible for the crime in this story, but not how he plans to carry it out… and the villain dies in the very beginning, so the whole movie details the protagonists efforts to stop the diabolical plans of a dead man. Brilliant!

Patlabor 2 is even more brilliant on a filmmaking level, although I personally like it a little bit less because it’s not as fun as the first. It also deals with heavy issues like the role of a military in a modern society (especially a society like Japan that has formally renounced war), terrorism and the complicity of citizens in modern democracies with violence in the third world. This is anime that makes you think, and it’s a damn shame that there isn’t more anime like this. The story, the acting, the visuals are all superb. If you were to stick a gun to my head and make me name the greatest anime film ever made I would probably name this one, although again it’s not my *favorite* (there is a difference).

Although he didn’t direct it, Oshii did write Jin-Roh, a fascinating drama set in an alternate 1960s where the Germans won World War II and occupied Japan. I won’t go too much into the plot – it gets pretty twisty – but I will say this this is a well done anime film made squarely for adults. There is quite a bit of blood but it never approaches stupid levels, and there is no cheap titillation or fanservice. If you watch this movie and still think all anime ever made is either for the kiddies or porn then check into a mental hospital because your sense of reality is seriously skewed.

Well, there you go. Some adult anime for your enjoyment – without the buckets of sex and violence. Because you shouldn’t need sex and violence to enjoy something made for adults, right?


Next Week: Sex and Violence.

Nothing To See Here, Just Move Along....

I know I haven't posted in a while, I've been busy.  Looking for work, dealing with other situations life throws at me – no, you know what?  Fuck that.  I've just been lazy.  Lazy, lazy.  And I'll continue to be lazy.  I'll probably post something a little more substantial next week, but in the meantime please enjoy this picture of a stoned Geena Davis.

Let's Get Patriotastic!

Today, to celebrate the United States and the anniversary of the independence of our great nation, I’m going to look at a movie celebrating the German people and one of Germany’s greatest mythological heroes. And I’m going to do it all through pictures, because I’m full of barbecue right now and feeling very lazy. So today you’re not going to get some long winded review from me or some over-the-top pseudo academic analysis – told you last time I’d do something different. Without further ado here’s Fritz Lang’s

 

We start out with a pretty rainbow.  Enjoy it; it gets more sordid from here.

Our "hero," Siegfried.

"Hey man, what's up-"

"-Ow! Oh my God! Why did you do that to me?!!"

"Little pigs, little pigs, let me come in...."

  

"So it's agreed:  the involuntary marriage of your sister in exchange for the 

sexual slavery of a woman I've never even met."  Our heroes, everybody!

Hagen: Clearly, not an evil character.

Nice house.

Haha, I love Brunhild's fashion sense.  Actually, I think she is kinda cute.

 "What did you say about my man?!" 

This is about 30 seconds away from devolving into a medieval episode of COPS.

 "Kriemhild, can I trust you to keep a secret?"

"No."

"Wow, I did not see that one coming."

Kriemhild: from vapid, air-headed bimbo to stone-cold, murdering bitch in two hours.

The Nibelung treasure is sleeping with the fishes.

Attila the Hun, ready for some... wheat harvesting?

"Now isn't this nice, Germans and Huns sitting around for a nice dinner together-"

FIGHT FIGHT KILL KILL DEATH DEATH

"Okay, if any of you sons-of-bitches asks for 'Freebird' one more time...."

"Wow, bitch is crazy."

 And everyone died a horrible death in a bloody rampage of misplaced pride and revenge, 

making everyone's life completely pointless and void.  

THE END.

…Wow, that was a “celebration” that was “dedicated” to the German People? With all of the indiscriminate violence and assholery by the murdering, rapist "hero" Siegfried and the cold-hearted murdering bitchery of the "heroine" Kriemhild – not to mention the pig-headed, “honor before reason” attitude of the Germans in general – you’d think that Lang was being sarcastic and basically tearing German society and tradition a new one… wait a minute….



Happy 235th Birthday, America!

Why Can't All Movies Be This Awesome At Thirty?

It was thirty years ago this month (on the 12th to be precise) that Raiders of the Lost Ark was first released to theatres.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of my favorite movies ever. In fact, if you stuck a gun to my head and made me name my absolute favorite movie of all time, I would waffle between this and Ghostbusters until you blew my brains out. But what is it about this globetrotting adventure film that makes me love it so? What makes it superior to every other action/adventure movie ever made? Well, today I’m going to try and answer those questions while imparting just how much I love this freaking movie.

I’m going to go about this glowing tribute (hey, no one said that this would be an impartial analytical essay) to the Greatest Adventure Movie Ever Made by comparing Raiders to For Your Eyes Only, the twelfth James Bond movie and the fifth starring Roger Moore in the role of the famous secret agent (wait, shouldn’t that be an oxymoron?) 007. Why For Your Eyes Only (FYEO)? Well, to start out it is in the same genre as Raiders (Globetrotting Action/Adventure… a rather specialized category, really). Secondly, it was released at roughly the same time as the first Indiana Jones adventure (roughly two weeks later on June 24th, meaning it also turned 30 this month) making it a good example of a contemporary competing movie. Third, FYEO is a good example of a movie of its type as the Bond movies had been setting the standard for nineteen years prior in the action/adventure genre. And last but most importantly, the James Bond franchise was a major influence on the Indiana Jones franchise (along with all those old adventure serials of the 30s and 40s). In fact, James Bond has been called “the father of Indiana Jones” by Steven Spielberg no less (and in a side note, Sean Connery would of course play Indy’s dad in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). So it is interesting to compare the movies of both the “parent” and “child” franchises back to back and show how Raiders basically blew away the competition back in 1981… and all of the years after, actually.

<><><><><>

Before I begin I want to stress that I am not going to mindlessly bash For Your Eyes Only in order to lionize Raiders and I don’t hate the film. In fact, it’s one of my favorite Bond movies and a vast improvement to the franchise after the horribly goofy, over-the-top MST3K fodder that was Moonraker. Director John Glen really brought the series back to earth (haha) and toned down about 90% of the silliness of the previous Moore outings (it’s still Roger Moore though you are still going to get some stupid moments). FYEO is my favorite Roger Moore Bond movie and one of the best in the Bond series. The fact that Raiders of the Lost Ark is a superior film does not reflect badly on For Your Eyes Only; on the contrary it just goes to show how extraordinary and sublime Spielberg’s magnum opus is.

Oh, and I’m not even going to worry about spoilers with either of these movies. If you haven’t seen For Your Eyes Only, go out and rent it – it’s a good Bond flick. And if you haven’t seen Raiders of the Lost Ark, crawl out from whatever rock you’ve – ah, you know what? If you’re reading this then you are both a member of a sufficiently advanced modern society and above the age of six, in which case you have seen Raiders of the Lost Ark.

<><><><><>

Let’s begin our movie comparison by starting with our main characters: James Bond and Indiana Jones. First up: Roger Moore as James Bond in For Your Eyes Only. Moore really is too old to play Bond even by this point but it *almost* works in this film (it would become ridiculous with the succeeding Octopussy and his last outing A View to a Kill in which he looks positively *mummified*) as he plays 007 as someone who is about one year away from retirement. This reflects in his performance: Moore comes off as an experienced agent with a reservoir of knowledge and wisdom as well as an almost avuncular demeanor. Watch the scene where he persuades Melina Havelock to postpone her vengeance on the killers of her parents so he can find out what’s behind the whole plot and help them both. It just might be Moore’s best bit of acting ever; he comes across not as some playboy secret agent trying to talk his way into a young woman’s bed (like he normally does) but as a concerned man trying to prevent another human being from being hurt.

A lot of people like to hold up Sean Connery as being the greatest Bond ever but I don’t think his 007 could have pulled this scene off; he was too cold, ruthless, and horny (and keep in mind that doesn’t mean that Moore is my favorite Bond, in fact far from it). But, you say, what about badassery? Being nice to grieving girls is nice and all, but James Bond has to kick major ass or he’s just a government employee who gets to travel a lot and eat nice food. Well, Moore gets his biggest badass moment in his entire run as 007 when he kicks a car off a cliff – with a despicable criminal hitman inside.

Badassssss!

So there’s that. Overall a very good movie for Roger Moore, even if he is too old to be playing a British super-spy.

In contrast Harrison Ford in Raiders comes off as having just the right mix of youth and experience as archaeology professor cum globetrotting adventurer Indiana Jones. Even though not a spry young man (Ford was in his late thirties when he made this) he doesn’t seem to be ready for retirement either – remember, “it’s not the years, it’s the mileage.” Ford convincingly displays Indy as a perfect mix of the physical, tenacious, intelligent and academic, as a man who can teach a college class one minute and jump off into the deserts of Egypt to battle Nazis the second (actually, how the hell has he not been fired from his teaching job by now?). He can be both tender and hard, sometimes towards the same person: notice how he’s barely apologetic towards a woman he is implied to have deflowered while she was still underage.

Even after she hits him.

Even though one of the “good guys” his whole career revolves around robbing the sacred treasures of multiple groups of people for the intellectual profit of the Western World (although this admittedly is what archaeology basically was back in the 1930s). He kicks major ass like Bond but messes up too. I guess what I’m trying to say is that Indiana Jones is portrayed as a fleshed out, flawed human being in contrast to the nearly perfect invincible superhuman James Bond (who really has no foibles except indulging in too much casual sex, which is not portrayed as negative by the movies and actually shown as a positive thing). In addition, Harrison Ford has a screen presence that Roger Moore doesn’t have. Now, it’s nowhere near the level of Toshiro Mifune or Klaus Kinski (oh god, no) but it is there. You can see why he went on to stardom.

"Trust me."  Wouldn't you trust him?

Howsabout the leading ladies? Well, FYEO's Carole Bouquet is certainly lovely as Melina Havelock, and has a great combination of intensity and lethal determination to kill the murderers of her parents: just look at the look on her face right after their assassination scene. Electric! However, she can be a little stilted at times and she doesn’t have much of a personality outside of the whole “rampaging revenge” thing. She only smiles genuinely twice in the entire movie. She has some chemistry with Roger Moore, although with his age and more avuncular personality in this installment it comes off as more (haha) of a platonic friendship, which is nice… until the very end where they’re kissing each other and skinny dipping with it being suggested that sex is going to happen later. Argh! They had a chance to do something different with a Bond movie and they fell back on “Bond has sex with the lead Bond Girl at the end” crap. Was it that imperative to keep up tradition (TRADITION! Uh, sorry, although Topol *is* in this movie, people. Had to be done!)? It really does make the woman a reward for Bond saving the day, which is just outdated and sexist and… screw it. If I start to talk about sexism in James Bond movies I’m gonna be here forever. Speaking of which Bond of course beds more than just Carole Bouquet in this movie, although it is only one and someone is closer to his age. Oh, and I can’t talk about For Your Eyes Only without pointing out that James Bond is sexually assaulted by a fifteen year old girl. Which is freakin’ hilarious.

I love the look on his face too.

Awww.

Raiders of the Lost Ark, of course has Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood who sizzles in her scenes with Harrison Ford. Allen does a better acting job than Bouquet (although it could help that she’s a native English speaker) even if she does get whiny at a few points (although nowhere near as bad as Kate Capshaw in the next Indy movie, Temple of Doom… uuuugh I’m getting shivers just thinking about it right now). Although Marion doesn’t have the driving motivation that Melina does, she makes up for it with more personality. And she’s cute too! Karen Allen is my favorite Indy woman (and a lot of other people’s too, which is why she returned for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, in which she is still cute).

A hero is only as good as the villains he faces, and – ah, you know what? Screw it. No analysis is needed. Raiders wins hands down. It’s the Nazis. It’s the fuckin’ Nazis. You can’t do any better when it comes to movie villains than the Nazis. Greek smugglers/Soviet agents don’t even compare to the Nazis. You could make the protagonist of a movie a baby-raping, cross-burning, puppy-decapitating cannibal lawyer and the audience would still root for them if they were beating the crap out of Nazis. On an interesting side note, Julian Glover who is the main baddie in FYEO went on to play the main baddie (who like Kristatos in FYEO starts out seeming like a good guy oddly enough) in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, who collaborates with...

Nazis!

Visual effects, too, is a no-brainer. You have Richard Edlund melting the heads off of, you guessed it,

Nazis!

Music… screw it, I don’t want to write about this either. John Williams’ score for Raiders is one of the greatest ever written, a timeless rousing piece of music you want to listen to over and over again. Bill Conti’s “score” for FYEO is a piece of dated disco dreck.

Which leads me to the biggest reason that Raiders of the Lost Ark is a superior film to For Your Eyes Only, and every other adventure movie for that matter… it’s timeless. When you watch FYEO you can tell when it’s been made – it is obviously a product of the early eighties. In fact it practically screams this at you from the get-go, with Sheena Easton wailing the title song over the by now standard credits (I think Maurice Binder gave up on actual creativity after the sixties – “Okay… naked babes, and guns, more naked babes, more guns… shimmery things, more babes… aaaand done.”). This is actually a fallacy of nearly all Bond movies, actually. Using popular singers of the day will inevitably date your movie (except of course for Thunderball, Live and Let Die and Goooooldfingaaaaaaaah!). The opening to Raiders by contrast is, well, timeless… simple and effective. It doesn’t stop the movie for three minutes to force you to read credits (and look at naked chicks)… it plays the credits while already getting you into the story. And that leads me into the next biggest thing that makes Raiders superior… it’s not forced. It feels very organic, very natural… it flows well, from one situation to the next.

FYEO feels like a series of set pieces strung together with plot, each talky story portion serving to link each stunt and action sequence to the next. Not that this is a horrible thing, after all the stunts and action scenes in Bond movies are usually very, very awesome (and there is no exception here). And admittedly FYEO’s plot is a very good one, involving intertwining themes of vengeance, betrayal and deception. But the execution just seems to be a little… choppy compared to Raiders.

Although it does have a really cool Citroen car chase.

And maybe this is what also what helps make Raiders timeless… there’s no dated style of filmmaking here. Yes, it followed from the blockbuster style of the seventies (which Spielberg helped to invent) and itself influenced the action movies of the eighties… but the final product is one that is hard to pin down to one time period, at least for me. And this isn’t just nostalgia talking, because I can look to some of my other favorite movies from the time period and point out how dated they are. Ghostbusters (which I mentioned earlier) was obviously made in the eighties. Ben-Hur is very obviously a fifties film. Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of a handful of movies (a couple of other examples being The Empire Strikes Back and Alien) that are truly non-dated and timeless.

So, with all of the trumpeting of how superior Raiders of the Lost Ark is over For Your Eyes Only, does the Cold War adventure of Agent 007 manage to do anything better than the classic tale of the search for the lost Ark of the Covenant? Well, yes. I have to admit that the stunts in Raiders, while very, very good aren't quite as good as the ones in FYEO. Look, the stunts in Raiders are awesome – the shots of Indy crawling under the truck and being dragged behind the truck are classic and makes me say, “Woo! This is awesome! I’m having so much fun watching this!” But the first time I watched the part of FYEO when Bond is climbing up the side of Kristatos’ mountain fortress the palms of my hands literally sweated and I had a death grip on my chair. When Bond is kicked off the cliff by a henchman and falls about two hundred feet on his rope, I think I forgot to breathe.

I also winced in pain during the “keelhauling” sequence where Bond and Melina are dragged on a rope by the villain’s boat through shark infested waters (this sequence is actually from the book Live and Let Die). Every time Bond broke off a piece of razor-sharp coral with his body – ouch.

Well, anyways, happy birthday, Raiders of the Lost Ark (and you too, For Your Eyes Only!)… you are truly one of the greatest films ever made and one of my absolute favorites. I will always thrill to your spectacular action scenes, boo your despicable Nazi villains, marvel at your awesome special effects and laugh whenever Indy shoots that Arab swordsman guy.

Hahahahaha!

Next Week: Something different.

Hey, I'm Writin' Here!

It has been a long time since my last post.  I’ve been focusing on looking for a job after quitting my crappy retail job (which in retrospect was a stupid, stupid move), and then my grandmother died at the end of last month. She was my favorite grandparent, and my very good friend to boot. She was the one I could go to and vent at whenever life got me down – she was there to talk to me and sympathize with me, listen to and gently criticize me. She was never judgmental or condescending or unkind. She could be really stubborn though – and I think she had an unhealthy addiction to QVC (I shudder to think about what would have happened had she been let loose on Amazon; thankfully she was never interested in learning about computers). The weird thing about her death is that I have been pretty calm about it all. I didn’t cry when I found out that she was dead and I only came close to tears once during the funeral; the only time I cried my eyes out was when I visited her in the hospital and saw her near the end, barely conscious and hooked up to a ventilator. Maybe I was forlorn to see her in such a state; maybe I could sense her impending death and let my grief out then. I don’t know. I do know that she wasn’t very happy for a few years leading up to her death because it got so difficult and painful to move around and do stuff sometimes(she could not and did not drive, so I got to drive her around some). So maybe I’m not so torn up now that she’s dead because I know that she’s not in pain anymore. Or maybe I’m just numb and the momentousness of her passing hasn’t hit me yet. I don’t know. I do know that my life is going to be very different from now on. I’m going to miss my Nana. So why do I bring this up now when I said in my first post on this site that I wouldn’t write about Real Life in a fluffy blog about movies? Well, in addition to needing the opportunity to get some things off my chest (therapy is expensive), I thought I would do a blog post today (after such a long time) in memory of my recently departed Nana. You see, today I’m going to review her favorite movie.  Here’s to you, Nana, because in your honor today on the Pharonic Fantasy Theatre I’m going to review

Film, 1969

Director: John Schlesinger

You know, it’s funny. Whenever I tell people that this was my grandmother’s favorite movie of all time, they look at me with a funny expression and say, “Oh, my God. Really?” I guess they figure it weird that someone with no predilection towards such things would pick an X rated film as her favorite. Well, first of all I don’t think she was as straitlaced as others thought she was and secondly, Midnight Cowboy isn’t even really an X movie; it’s really an R movie that got rated X unfairly back when it was released. In fact, it got re-rated only a few years later and now says “R” on the back of the DVD box. So there.

In truth, there’s very little material in this film that is truly X worthy. There’s no full frontal nudity or graphic violence (if you want that in a mainstream X-Rated movie, go watch A Clockwork Orange). I would guess that Midnight Cowboy probably got slapped with an X originally because it actually dared to portray homosexual characters in a *gasp* somewhat sympathetic light. The plight of gays in the sixties is actually portrayed very sympathetically here. Most of the supporting homosexual characters in the film are in the closet and very self-loathing. There wasn’t the same degree of tolerance for homosexuals back in 1969 as there is today, and that’s saying something as gays are still discriminated against even in this day and age. John Schlesinger, the Director was actually gay so that might explain a lot of the content of this movie (not just the homosexuality itself but the overall story of two outcasts living outside of normal society). Apparently having a compassionate view towards homosexuals or even just not portraying them as harmful, predatory monsters back in the sixties was too much for the film ratings board.

Oh, yeah and there’s drug use (hey, it’s the 60s).

Every 60s movie is required by Federal Law to have at least one tripping scene.

Oh, a quick diversionary note before I proceed any further: I’m not going to do a standard review with plot synopsis, pictures section, etc. For this little review/essay I’m going to assume that you’ve seen the movie and therefore must warn SPOILERS AHOY!

Okay, back to my rambling.

I can see what my grandmother liked in this movie. It’s a dark but very funny look at a very unorthodox friendship between two very different men. Joe Buck is a *very* naïve but very charismatic and handsome Texan “cowboy” who moves to New York City

while Rico “Ratso” Rizzo is a grimy and crippled conman who is sleazy and dishonest but a hell of a lot smarter than Joe.

Together they manage to survive with little money at the bottom rung of society’s ladder in a city that doesn’t care. Each has his own dream: Joe wants make a living whoring himself to rich, lonely women while Rico wants to move to Florida to …hang out? I don’t know. The goals of the main characters in this movie are vague and rather fantastical, which is one of the points of the whole thing.

And… shit. I realize that I just basically gave a plot synopsis when I said I wouldn’t. Oh well. I lied. I deliberately lied to you. Get over it. Moving on.

"My God, I'm in Black and White.  How did that happen?"

Yes, their goals are rather far-fetched and flimsy. Joe’s whole dream is to be a prostitute – what the hell? Who *chooses* a life like that? “Well, let’s see – looking at all of my job skills and taking into consideration where I am in my life right now and where I want to be, I think I’ll pursue a career in whoring.” Although I guess he does say at various points in the film that “loving” is all he’s ever been good at so…? Rico’s dream is purely hedonistic and lazy: hang out in the Florida sunshine all day and not work. In the end Rico refuses to see a doctor about the ailment afflicting him through the whole picture and dies on the bus on the way down to Florida – his stubborn pursuit of his shallow dream is what kills him. Joe in contrast gives up his goal of “hustling” while stuffing his cowboy outfit in the garbage during a rest stop in Florida and looks to get an honest job; he lives to the end of the movie. So maybe there’s a lesson here about pursuing goals here, eh? Don’t stubbornly pursue hollow dreams. It’ll kill you.

I remember Nana telling me that what she liked the most about Midnight Cowboy was the friendship between the two leads. “Some people see Dustin Hoffman as just exploiting Jon Voight but I saw him as his friend who was trying to help him.” Well, yes and no, Nana. Rico does con Joe in the beginning and uses his talents for his own ends, but Joe needs him for his skills just as much. It is a symbiotic relationship, and one that turns into genuine friendship.

I know it sounds funny, but the relationship between these two characters actually reminds me of the relationship between the two leads from The Producers (made the previous year, in fact). In that movie, Zero Mostel’s washed up Broadway producer character convinces Gene Wilder’s timid accountant character to launch a scheme: produce a sure flop of a musical to make a shitload of money (since then there would be no profits from the sales to give back to the backers. Just watch the movie to see what I mean, it’s hilarious). In the end, Gene Wilder gives a speech about how his relationship with Mostel’s conman has given him actual confidence and his first true friend. The end of Midnight Cowboy kind of reminded me of this – Joe ends up a better person because of his relationship with Rico (although at a horrible price). So I guess you can really say that Midnight Cowboy is the serious version of The Producers.

"I'm telling you, Springtime For Hitler just might work!"

Yes, I just went there.

Well, I’m going to stop now before I ramble to much more. Watching this movie clued me into what kind of person my Nana was. The fact that her favorite movie ever was about the close friendship between two people and the fact that she saw good in that friendship that others would dismiss as exploitative shows me that she was at heart an optimistic woman who saw good in most people.

I’m sorry I wasn’t that coherent. I guess I’ve been sort of knocked off my stride. This probably isn’t the best tribute I could give to my Nana, but oh well. It’s what I have on my mind at the moment and that’s what’s going down   Next time I will hopefully be in a better state of mind and do something a little more upbeat.

Pictured: Something Not Upbeat.

Airing Out More Dirty Laundry

That's right, I'm publishing more of my shitty college history class essays from the deep dark times of... eight years ago?  Anyways, today's my birthday and I'm too lazy to do a real article (too much cake to eat - mmmmm, cake), so enjoy these two craptacular essays from History 393.  Both were supposed to address how successful two movies that we picked were at depicting American foreign relations.  I picked Patton and M*A*S*H because, hey, both were from 1970, made by the same studio (20th Century Fox) and dealt with the same subject (war).  Why not?

 <><><><><><><><><><>

An Analysis of the Failure of M*A*S*H as a Foreign Relations Film

Robert Altman’s comedy film M*A*S*H (based on the novel by Richard Hooker) portrays three Army surgeons defying authority and goofing off in a Korean War army field hospital. The film received mostly positive reviews when it was released in early 1970. The movie was intended as a criticism of the then-current Vietnam War, however it has little to no value to students of American foreign relations.

Initial reviews for M*A*S*H were generally good and enthusiastic. One exception though was Roger Greenspun’s New York Times review which accused the film as “the first major American movie openly to ridicule belief in God—not phony belief; real belief.” However the reviewer does credit the movie with being humorous. The International Film Guide praises M*A*S*H for the performance of its actors but states that the movie portrays war as a “boy’s night out” and criticizes the shenanigans of the main characters. In great contrast Newsweek reviewer Joseph Morgenstern applauds, “As you sit watching M*A*S*H you can only be swept along and occasionally under by its glorious madness.” He praises M*A*S*H in almost every way, remarking on the acting, direction, realism of subject matter and more importantly the main message of the movie: the “lunacy of war.”

M*A*S*H was released at the same time that the United States was fighting its protracted and ravaging war in Vietnam. One of things that made M*A*S*H popular was that besides being a funny comedy, it also reflected popular opinion about the war in Vietnam at the time, and that most Americans were tired of war in general. The same issue of the New York Times that carries the movie review of M*A*S*H also has a story about the question of the use of biological and chemical “toxins” in warfare, the question being whether America should use these weapons before or after it is directly attacked (presumably by the Soviet Union). Interestingly enough, the other big topic besides Vietnam in the copy of Newsweek that reviews M*A*S*H is pollution, with the front cover devoted to it. By the early 1970s Americans were becoming aware of the damage that heavy industry and automobiles were doing to the environment. One advertisement in that same Newsweek is for a car with better gas mileage!

Later film historians have not dwelt on M*A*S*H. It is mentioned only in passing in texts dealing with history in film. Therefore an analysis of M*A*S*H reveals that it is not very important to the study of American foreign relations for the simple reason that it does not deal much with American foreign relations. The movie does not study the reasons for the Korean War or American diplomacy with the Koreans and/or Chinese. The only aspect of foreign relations the film does study is the effect war (foreign relations taken to one extreme) has on the men who serve in it. That effect, according to the movie is to cope in any way possible. For the surgeons at the 4077th MASH that means playing practical jokes, indulging in numerous acts of extramarital sex and getting into trouble with the Army establishment at every turn. Doctors “Hawkeye” Pierce, “Duke” Forrest and “Trapper” John McIntyre have no respect for the Army; they just want to get their jobs done and go home.

M*A*S*H takes place during the Korean War but more resembles Vietnam War era America. One noticeable clue that this is so is that the main characters’ hair is cut in early seventies style. The main point film is to be to be a denouncement of the Vietnam War, so the only time the film draws attention to the fact that it takes place in Korea is in the very beginning with a scroller caption. Otherwise the movie could be set in Vietnam, the focus of its anti-war message. That message is blatantly displayed without any subtle hinting in its gruesome operating room scenes. These scenes convey the results of war in all detail, with blood spurting from the wounds of dying people.

Another main point of M*A*S*H is to ridicule of the military, especially those in that establishment who take themselves and it too seriously. Chief Nurse Major “Hot-Lips” Houlihan annoys them with her stuffy adherence to army protocol and inability to understand their “strange” behavior, so they set out to humiliate and punish her. Those who take religion too seriously are criticized also. Major Frank Burns is pictured as a religious nut, praying in his bunk and trying to teach the local Korean houseboy to read the Bible. Hawkeye and the Duke poke fun at him and effectively call him a child. This scene may be the basis for the New York Times review of the film to call it “atheist.” However, the point being made is not that Hawkeye and Duke are atheist, it is just that they are not religious. Religious fanaticism is seen in M*A*S*H as being for the simple minded (even the Catholic chaplain at the 4077th is not as religiously fervent as Frank Burns).

The interaction between the main characters and native Koreans is kept to a minimum. Most of the action takes place inside the hospital. Only on rare occasions does the director take the audience to another location. Near the end of the movie Trapper John and Hawkeye travel to Tokyo to work on a congressman’s son. While there they spot a group of Japanese and maliciously mimic their way of speaking. This shows not only a bit of bigotry on their part but the attitudes of Americans in Asian countries (that they can make fun of the natives as they wish).

Ultimately M*A*S*H fails to be a valuable resource for those studying American foreign relations. Its main focus is denouncing warfare and ridiculing the military establishment. This makes it a good anti-Vietnam movie (or anti-war in general). However, M*A*S*H is best viewed in the end as a comedy film.

An Analysis of the Success of Patton as a Foreign Relations Film

General George S. Patton was one of the more colorful (and controversial) Generals of World War II. In his 1970 film Patton (subtitled “A Salute to a Rebel”) director Franklin J. Schaffner attempts to portray Patton and his complex personality. The film was a success for 20th Century Fox when it was released, in part because of the ambiguous nature of the message of the film. In addition to being a good biographical picture, Patton is also a good resource for students of American foreign relations.

Patton is a very confusing picture. It can either be viewed as an antiwar film (showing upper-level military officers as brutal and psychotic) or as a pro-war film (showing Patton’s successes in North Africa and France). Many reviewers of the time were of the opinion that the movie was of the latter type. Even while praising the performance of George C. Scott in the title role and the cinematography, New York Times critic Vincent Canby maintains that the makers of Patton are sympathetic to the main character. Similarly, Newsweek reviewer Joseph Morgenstern proclaims Patton as “the muddled glorification of a madman.” Many moviegoers and film analysts did not understand the films subtitle and asked what Patton was a rebel against. This is a valid question, as General Patton, being in command of many Army Divisions was a symbol of authority and the establishment itself.

Later film historians have treated Patton for the most part as the initial reviewers did in 1970. In his book Guts & Glory : the Making of the American Military Image in Film Lawrence H. Suid illustrates how the making of the film itself is instrumental to the view that it could be pro-war. He points out that the battle scenes are filmed on very wide and far shots of beautiful landscapes, thus failing to show combat on a more personal level. However, Suid also states that a movie viewer could possibly see this as an antiwar film. It’s all about the preconceptions they hold when they enter the theater: “Some went to see a major antiwar film, others to learn how war should really be fought.”

When Patton was released in early 1970 (surprisingly enough at the same time as the comedy film M*A*S*H, and by the same film studio) the United States was still involved in the war in Vietnam (the invasion of Cambodia was only months away). President Richard Nixon, who had been elected in 1968 on a platform of promising to end the war was trying to implement his policy of “Vietnamization.” This policy called for the lessening of US military activity in Vietnam and for the South Vietnamese forces to take greater and greater responsibility for the defense of their country. This would mean gradual US troop withdraws while Americans instructed tactics and gave supplies to ARVN units. The February 5th issue of the New York Times (the same issue containing the Patton movie review) has amongst its articles one which deals with the support (or lack thereof) of members of Congress for Nixon’s plan of Vietnamization. Other problems facing the nation at this time were pollution and America’s Youth. The front page of the Newsweek reviewing Patton poses the question of what should be done about the young people in the country’s High Schools. The front page article contained therein details the rising drug problem and juvenile delinquency associated with it. This problem faces America even today; it is interesting to note how little has changed since 1970.

Patton is not only a valuable insight into the workings of a (possibly insane) military mind and the military culture surrounding it but of foreign relations as well. The obvious subject of foreign relations in Patton is war itself, which is a very negative aspect of foreign relations that arises when all other more peaceful options have been exhausted. But the less obvious subject is the war Generals themselves. When one advances far enough in rank in the Army Officer Corps, their job becomes one not only of strategy and combat but of politics and (surprisingly enough) diplomacy. The Generals in this film are depicted true to life as bickering and self-centered; British Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery and General Patton are shown to argue all the time about how certain operations are to be conducted and so on. Only the diplomatic skill of Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower is able to keep them all in line and productive to the war effort. Interestingly enough, Patton is shown in Schaffner’s film to have diplomatic skill himself: after the infamous “slapping incident” in which he slaps a shell-shocked soldier for “cowardice,” Patton is ordered to apologize to that soldier and his entire unit. He does so with dignity and grace. The General is also shown engaging in relations with foreign dignitaries and rulers. He is portrayed speaking excellent French in an address praising French allies, accepting honors from the ruler of Morocco while watching a parade of Royal Guards in his honor, and orating at a gathering of British ladies in the English town where he is staying. However, Patton’s diplomatic shortcomings are revealed as well: his stated eagerness to attack the Russians after the fall of Germany and his public views about the Nazi Party (he remarks that it is like any other party, including the Republicans and Democrats).

It is interesting to note that in 1970 the same year saw the release of two films by the same studio but with seemingly different views on war. M*A*S*H is a blatantly anti-war comedy while Patton is an ambiguously pro-war film (even the makers of the film professed confusion over the subject). Even with all of its ambiguities about its subject matter, Patton stands as a good resource for a student of foreign relations. One important message of Patton, as stated near the end of the move is that Generals cannot simply be soldiers; they must be peacekeepers and politicians as well.

<><><><><><><><><><>

I love how in my essay on Patton I talk about the "still current" problem of America's Youth.  Panic!  Panic!  Okay, okay, it was about DRUGS IN SCHOOL but still.  Also, I forgot to say in my M*A*S*H paper how misogynistic that movie is.  You notice how in that movie all of the nurses exist for sexual conquest and the only way that Hotlips is redeemed from her stuffy ways by the end is through the power of Duke's penis?   I mean, it's still a funny movie, but damn.  Sign of the times, eh?

(As we all know, there is absolutely *no* misogyny in movies nowadays)


Well, there you go... more examples of my spectacular writing from my college days (ahh, college.  I miss college).  

At least I can take solace in the fact that my writing has improved since then, right?




...right?