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?

Easter Ham

Today is Easter Sunday, and when I think Easter, I naturally think of Charlton Heston.  Besides his Religious Epics of the 1950s and his right-wing gun-nut political activism for the NRA in the 1990s Heston is probably best known for his Science Fiction films of the 1960s and 70s (and Khartoum - how could I forget Khartoum?).  So today, to commemorate a holiday about bunnies and candy (and something about some guy named Yeshua ben Yosef, I'm not sure though) I’m going to tackle a trio of dystopian films starring one of the greatest chewers of scenery ever and give you the

Charlton Heston Triple Sci-Fi Movie Extravaganza

Let’s go in chronological order, shall we?

And let’s dispense with the spoiler alert straight off because just about everyone knows the endings and surprise twists to these films.

"Yeah, kid, I thought he was great in El Cid too."

Planet of the Apes (1968) – A team of astronauts in hibernation crash on a distant planet hundreds of years after traveling through the galaxy near the speed of light.  The three surviving travelers explore the world they’ve arrived on and discover that on this planet intelligent apes rule while mute, savage humans are treated like despised animals.  After being separated from his companions and captured Taylor –  the leader of the group – now has to find a way to convince his simian captors that he is not only intelligent but also not worthy of extermination.

Where's Rod?

This movie is the best of the lot, and no wonder… it was co-written by Rod Serling, the genius writer behind The Twilight Zone.  In fact, this movie sometimes feels like an extended episode of that show and could be considered the first Twilight Zone movie (there was an actual TZ movie made in ’83 but I haven’t seen it).  The twist ending, of course, is pure Serling.  So is the dialogue.  So is the overall message and theme of the whole thing, which ties into the ending.

The United States Government at work.

And it’s the ending that makes this thing truly gripping and downright different, too.  The shocking revelation that Taylor was really on Earth the whole time completely flips the movie’s moral conflict upside down.   Dr. Zaius – the film’s main antagonist and source of anti-human vitriol – is *right*.  Man really is a savage, violent beast.  Look at the final result of what humanity did to wipe itself out at the end of the movie.  But at the same time the apes are not much better; in fact they are almost like (gasp) humans with all of the same prejudices, societal stratification and the corrupt suppression of truth in the name of order.  Yes, humans really are as bad as Dr. Zaius says they are – but is that a good  justification for the way they are treated?

The direction by Franklin Schaffner is superb.  The music score by Jerry Goldsmith is both awesome and revolutionary.  The special effects and ape makeup are great and mostly convincing.  And yes, the acting by Heston can go over the top, but it doesn’t happen that often and when it does it’s an asset to the movie.  Planet of the Apes is a science fiction classic, and is easily the best film of the three reviewed here.

Yeah, this is how I play too.  It's the only way I can win.

The Omega Man (1971) – Robert Neville is the last living man on Earth.  However, he is not alone.  A plague has wiped out most of humanity and turned the remaining few survivors into insane, nocturnal, zombie-like killers.  These infected mutants, calling themselves The Family continually try to kill Neville as he is the last reminder of the world that existed before the catastrophe.  But the “last man alive” is about to discover something that may give humanity –and himself – hope and the means to go on living in a hell of a world.

Hmm, Pasty skin, facial sores... so kinda like me as a teenager.

 From the best of the lot we go to the worst.  That doesn’t make this a horrible movie though, just a painfully mediocre one and definitely the least of Heston’s sci-fi efforts.  The moral conflict this time *tries* to be complex with Neville being given some flawed attributes and Matthias (the leader of The Family) being portrayed as not completely evil, but in the end we know who we’re supposed to root for.  The story has plotholes.  Characters do really stupid things for almost no reason at all.  

We all know the sistahs can't resist Chuck Heston.

The romance between Neville and Lisa is sudden and not developed that well – remember what I said about Charlton Heston and leading ladies (although to be fair Heston and Rosalind Cash have a lot more chemistry than Heston and Sophia Loren or… that chick what’shername… from Ben-Hur)?   I mean, I know that they’re two of the last people on Earth and that they have to start breeding, but I think I would give it a little more time between “get up against the wall and spread ‘em or I’ll blow your head off” and “I want to have your babies right now.”  And we’re never given a reason as to what the last woman on Earth finds attractive in Charlton Heston, except for the fact that he is Charlton Heston. 

I think this may be where his obsession with guns started.

The direction is tepid.  The music score is also pretty bland, which is a shame considering that it’s by Ron Grainer who gave us the themes for Doctor Who and The Prisoner, for crying out loud.  In addition The Omega Man is horribly dated – which is something I forgot to mention about the last film, by the way:  because of the setting and the fact that most of the actors in it are wearing ape masks, Planet of the Apes doesn’t date itself too badly (except for the “don’t trust anyone over 30” line).  The Omega Man is obviously a product of the early Seventies, which isn’t in itself a bad thing but the film throws it in your face all the time.  In all fairness though the movie is pretty cool for the first third when it’s just Heston trying to survive in a deserted downtown LA against undead plague zombies.  You can just tune out though once the love interest and the kiddies come in.

"Says here my library books are overdue.  Fine: $500,000."

Soylent Green (1973) – In a future where overpopulation overwhelms the globe and starvation is a very real threat the Soylent Corporation supplies half of the world’s food supply in the form of small, nutritious wafers called Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow.  Robert Thorn is a police detective in New York City in the year 2022.  Along with his partner Sol Roth he investigates the murder of a Soylent Corporation bigwig, which leads to government cover-ups, further assassination attempts and a shocking discovery about Soylent’s newest food product, Soylent Green.

Okay, so is this New York or LA?

Mmmm, Soylent Green....

This movie is infamous for its ending (“Soylent Green is PEOPLE!”) but its impact should be that it shows how horrible a world in which the few haves have so much and the many have-nots have so little really would be – that it would result in such a reprehensible method of feeding a massive population.  And that is the heart of all of the problems in the world, according to Soylent Green, and the film’s main message – the evils of overpopulation.  And we see this problem in the world today, although not quite to the level of this dystopian yarn (yet).  With populations of over one billion each it will be interesting to see how China and India deal with this issue.  China of course has instituted the One Child Policy, but they still have the question of how to feed all of their people (perhaps with… PEOPLE?).  India as far as I know has no method or plan for controlling their population.  Interestingly enough the United States does not have a hideous overpopulation problem right now and probably won’t (I hope) by 2022.  You never know, though… China and India could send us some of their surplus….

Why limit yourself to one woman?  This is the 70s, man.

Soylent Green falls square between the two preceding movies in the Heston Trifecta, being more serious, moving and intelligent than The Omega Man but less intelligent and more dated than Planet of the Apes.  In fact, it comes close to that film in terms of quality except for two things: the first is that it is more dated (apparently personal computers and cellphones no longer exist in 2022) and also that, once again we have a clunky romantic subplot forced into a movie that doesn’t need it.  The worst thing about it is that it’s even worse than the one for Omega Man… at least in that movie the love scenes served some purpose for the overall story.  Here they are completely superfluous.  And don't tell me it has something to do with feminism because that angle isn't developed at all.  Thorn has sex with glorified prostitute, Thorn leaves glorified prostitute.  What, did Heston have it in all of his contracts by the 70s that he have at least one nude scene in every movie with a woman at least half his age?

Where the film truly shines is in both its environmentalist and political social commentary (yes, try to wrap your head around that one – Charlton Heston in a socially progressive liberal movie) and in the interaction between Heston and Edward G. Robinson, who plays Roth.  It’s a pretty well-known fact that this was Robinson’s last film – he died soon after it was completed.  This makes all of their scenes together very poignant, and that’s even before learning that only Heston knew at the time about his colleague’s terminal cancer.  Therefore the tears shed in Roth’s death scene are real and just about moved me to tears.  Hearing two men profess their love for each other can be a beautiful thing.  Richard Fleischer’s direction is good but not awe inspiring, making Soylent Green a minor science fiction classic and an interesting product of a decade that gave us a lot of dystopian environmentalist warnings in celluloid form.

Well there’s your Charlton Heston Super Special.  I hope you liked it.

And you thought I would do The Ten Commandments or Ben-Hur just because today is Easter and I talked about Charlton Heston.

Sigh.  Okay.  I’ll give you a religious Charlton Heston movie image so we can go out on a pious note.

Charlton Heston died for your sins.