Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts

Friday, December 9, 2016

Two RIP's

I've got two wonderful innovators to add to the GNABB cemetery.

RIP John Glenn, 1921-2016


I know it’s a cliché, but do they make men like this anymore? I mean seriously. John Glenn was such of a different era, a different America. An America that was full of hope, that looked to the future, that was rising so fast that it broke the bonds of gravity and the earth. True, America wasn’t so rosy for many people during the Cold War era. Segregation still existed. I’m not downplaying that at all. But John Glenn and his fellow astronauts represented the best of what we were then. Duty, brains, work ethic, dreamer but with the technical know-how to actually reach those impossible dreams as the rest of the world watched slack-jawed. (I know the Soviets kept up and actually led for a little while, but that didn't last).

There was something extra special about the Mercury astronauts to me. Even more than the Apollo missions, as great as they were, these seven astronauts (and Glenn was the last of them, so they are all a memory now) were true pioneers. Talk about calm under pressure, John Glenn was the most celebrated of them all. It takes a special kind of man to sit on top of a missile that has a decent chance of blowing up at ignition. The re-entry drama and Glenn’s cool response during his history making first American to orbit the earth mission is the stuff of legend. He showed that no matter how technically advanced we think we are, sometimes it still takes the human instincts and decision-making of a pilot to get the ship down.

I know a big part of my romanticizing the Mercury program comes from one of my favorite movies of all time, The Right Stuff. Glenn was played pitch perfectly by the great Ed Harris. Maybe I need to pop that in tonight, and bask in a bygone age when the sky wasn’t the limit. John Glenn and the other six Mercury astronauts showed us that we could dare to go beyond the sky. Our moon landing, our eventual trip to Mars, even our eventual eventual colonizing and moving off the earth once we have destroyed it beyond repair…the foundation of all of that was John Glenn…and Alan Sheppard, Gus Grissom, Gordon Cooper, Wally Shirra, Deke Slayton and Scott Carpenter.

So not only RIP John Glenn. I can now say RIP The Mercury Seven. And thank you all for showing us what we can be and accomplish.

And...

RIP Greg Lake, 1947-2016


Man, 2016 has been a deadly year for music. As well-known and respected as Greg Lake was, I always felt that he could have done more. He sang and played bass on the groundbreaking King Crimson debut In the Court of the Crimson King (and sang on the follow-up), but then left the band to form Emerson, Lake and Palmer. As a massive Crimson fan, I have always felt that was a lost opportunity. It would have been fantastic to get two or three more records with Lake and Robert Fripp working together under the Crimson banner before moving on.

I could never get into ELP very much. I do love me some prog rock, but ELP has aged terribly. My favorite ELP tunes are the more down to earth folky Greg Lake numbers like “Lucky Man” and “Still You Turn Me On.”

Regardless of his career choices, the man was hugely talented. Great and expressive singer, virtuoso on the electric bass, and a good guitarist too. RIP Greg Lake.

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Dez Reviews 'Star Wars: The Adventures of Han and Chewie,' er, I mean, 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens'


Well, here it is. So how good is it? Does it occupy the same rarified air that the original Trilogy does (or, let's face it, really just 'A New Hope' and "Empire Strikes Back')? Does it bring back the wonder once again? Does it start to heal the, in the words of a recent review I read, PTSD inflicted by George Lucas upon Star Wars fans with his infernal Prequels?

Yes. To all of the above. One thing that I quickly was reminded of as I watched this new chapter in the Star Wars saga, was just how bad the Prequels were. My God, how we wanted to love them. How we yearned to love them. But they are, quite simply, cold and unloveable. As cold as the overstuffed digital effects that George Lucas has made his religion. Side note: get a copy of the great documentary 'The People vs. George Lucas,' which chronicles the love/hate relationship Star Wars fanatics have with The Creator (Lucas). But the Prequels did provide a service, in a sense. They brought expectations back down to earth, they freed director J.J. Abrams and future directors of impossible standards to meet. Because whatever they do, even if it is just filming Han Solo sitting on the toilet reading a magazine for an hour, it would still be better than 'Phantom Menace.'

I will keep this review spoiler free until the end, at which point I will warn you, dear reader, with a SPOILER ALERT so you can stop reading there if you are one of the 5 people left in this country who have not seen this movie.

First the negatives. As many reviews have already pointed out, Abrams' reverence for the original Trilogy is a little too prevalent. He recreates, in a way, many of the key elements of 1977's 'A New Hope,' with his own cantina scene, a new Death Star, another trench run, a new Darth Vader-like character with his own new Tarkin-like foil, a new heroic trio of two boys and a girl. Then he stretches things with another Oedipal plot. Domnhall Gleeson's General Hux is not nearly as menacing or cool as Grand Moff Tarkin was (who he was clearly designed to model). Peter Cushing, who played Tarkin in 1977, was a unique and interesting actor, and Gleeson, at least here, is not. I do like how Hux and new generation Vader obsessive Kylo Ren are competing for power within the new First Order. That provides for some more interesting dynamic than the Tarkin/Vader-on-a-leash dynamic of 1977 did.

BELOW: Unfortunately, General Hux...
...is no Grand Moff Tarkin.

My only other criticism is something that has been present in every Star Wars film. For a movie that spans galaxies, it's a small universe after all. Many things in this film (as with the others) happen due to very fortuitous circumstances. The new Death Star is literally embedded in and is the size of an entire planet. Yet the characters seem to run into each other at the right times. Han Solo and Chewbacca have been searching for their Millenium Falcon for presumably years, and they happen to come across Rey and Finn in the Falcon when they need it. It seems pretty lucky that Rey happens to be in Maz Kanata's cantina, and Kanata just happens to have Luke Skywalker's lightsaber in her basement storage. But you know, go through any of the Star Wars films and they often depend on these coincidental meetings. You just sort of accept this and enjoy the film.

But the positives are huge. Let's just say that I did not really want to rush out and see any of the Prequels a second time after I saw them. When this was over, I was already thinking about watching it again. Abrams has brought back a light touch, humor, interesting characters, and good dialogue...all of which was missing from the Prequels. This movie, above anything else, was FUN. Gen. Hux aside, his new stable of characters are all interesting. I am looking forward to continuing the adventure with Poe Dameron, Rey, Finn, Kylo Ren, etc. in the films to come. Abrams masterfully brought in the old characters and integrated these new ones. And it was natural. The new and the old never felt out of place in each others' company. That was a feat.

It would have been so easy to make Kylo Ren a Darth Vader clone (he certainly does physically). But while Kylo Ren may be obsessed with Vader, he is not Vader. The key scene for me, the one where I decided "oh, this guy is interesting in his own right," was when some underling delivered the usual "they got away" news to Ren. Vader would have Force-choked the poor bastard and then promoted someone else. Ren takes his lightsaber and throws a tantrum, destroying the console before him, then takes a breath and steadies himself, turns to the messenger and asks "anything else?" He is not in control of his emotions or powers, he is a live wire and unpredictable. That makes him more dangerous in some ways. It would have been so easy and lazy to make him some generic baddie that you see in so many superhero movies. Abrams doesn't do that.

ABOVE: Kylo Ren has an unhealthy Darth Vader obsession

Abrams is the ultimate Star Wars fanboy. That can be a negative, as is discussed above in that Abrams doesn't take more risks with the franchise than he could have. But, he also knows what every Star Wars fan wants. And that is more Han f*ckin' Solo and more Chew-f*ckin-bacca. And he delivers. Han and Chewie are major characters in this film. And anyone of my generation who doesn't get a lump in their throat, or at least get some goosebumps, when Han and Chewie step aboard the Millenium Falcon once again...I don't want to know you. You are not of my species. Harrison Ford is more grizzled, but his Han Solo is still the rogue he always was, albeit a bit more wise and weary. How Solo and Chewie work with the new Rey and especially Finn is just fantastic. About as smooth of a passing of the torch as I have ever seen on film. As a subset of this point, Abrams also makes more use of Chewie as his own character, not just as a sidekick of Han Solo. That was welcome as well.

ABOVE: HELL YEAH

The real favor Abrams has done for us is creating a new set of heroes to take us into the future. Daisy Ridley with her portrayal of the resourceful scavenger/orphan Rey who is strong with The Force makes her an instant star, and deservedly so. Oscar Isaac's cocky X-Wing fighter pilot Poe Dameron is great as well, and someone who I wish got more screen time. I am sure he will in future films. But the real secret weapon here is John Boyega's soulful stormtrooper with a conscience, Finn. It is through Finn where much of the humor comes. As he breaks Poe out of the First Order's prison ship...Finn: "just stay calm." Poe: "I am calm." Finn: "I'm talking to myself." These three characters are more than capable of taking this franchise into the next trilogy and beyond. And, as has often been commented upon, a more diverse future. The three major characters for the future: a white female strong with The Force, and a black man and a hispanic man.

ABOVE: John Boyega as Finn (seen here having a heart to heart with Han Solo) has more heart, spirit and character than all of the characters George Lucas created in the Prequel Trilogy combined.

Bottom line: while not a perfect film, it is as much as we could expect and hope for. A fun, rollicking ride that is reverential of Star Wars history but is also taking it into the future. A future that I can't wait to see.

**** out of *****

Just for funsies, where does 'The Force Awakens' fall within the franchise as far as greatness? I'd put them in this order:

The Empire Strikes Back *****
A New Hope *****
The Force Awakens ****
Return of the Jedi ***1/2
Revenge of the Sith ***
Attack of the Clones **
Phantom Menace *

SPOILER ALERT...read no further if you have not seen the film and wish to be surprised...SPOILER ALERT


I am giving you more space so you don't see the next sentence inadvertently.

OK? Are you ready?

Ready?

On the death of Han Solo. It was appropriate and gives the film necessary gravitas. The scene could have been done a little better, and the whole son of Solo/Solo dynamic mirrors too neatly Vader/Luke, but it completes the handing of the franchise over to a new generation. Interesting to note that Ford wanted Solo killed in 'Return of the Jedi,' but Lucas refused to do it. He gets his wish here. I love that Chewie, though, survives and joins the new characters seemingly permanently. It will be cool to see Chewie in future films. Hard to believe that Han had never shot Chewie's crossbow laser, though. All those years?

And I love what Abrams has done with Luke Skywalker. The MIA Luke in all the previews and promos...genius. Perfect marketing and build-up. And like Spielberg and holding back the shark in 'Jaws,' the fact that we don't even see Luke until the last minute of the film is great set-up for the next one. Yet like the shark, Luke is at the center of the plot and a presence throughout the film. And Abrams has built up enough questions about Luke that we really want to see what happens two years from now.

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Dez Reviews 'Spectre' (2015)

With the release of the 24th James Bond film in what has become the longest running franchise in movie history, there is plenty of lore and tradition for fans to savor. In fact, so many aspects of the Bond films have become ingrained in our collective film consciousness (such as Roger Ebert's favorite, the Talking Villain, in which the egomanaical villain has Bond completely at his mercy and all he needs to do is kill him, but he instead reveals his entire plan of world domination, Bond escapes, and then foils the nefarious plot). Sam Mendes's second Bond feature gives true fans of the series plenty of subtle nostalgia. For the true Bond aficianados, references to previous Bond films are everywhere 'Spectre,' some clever and some not so much. Just going over it in my head right now, I saw specific references that I could identify to about a dozen earlier Bond films. The problem here is that the Craig era has successfully opened the Bond formula up a bit, so to see this slide back into formula is a little disappointing.

Daniel Craig's Bond era has (with the exception of 'Quantum of Solace') been a success. Part of that success has been a return to a grittier Bond with plenty of angst. What is interesting about 'Spectre' is how traditional it is. There is still grit and angst, but Mendes pays tribute to previous Bond films throughout, and even allows a little humor back into the franchise. (Just a little, we aren't talking Roger Moore slapstick here). Out of the four Craig Bond films, this one feels the most like Bond, with the familiar rhythms and plot. That is part of the charm and part of the problem.

They were going to have trouble regardless following up the hugely successful 'Skyfall'. Javier Bardem's Silva was so flamboyant and fresh, how do you top that? SPOILER ALERT: Go back to the villain of all Bond villains, Ernst Stavro Blofeld (complete with white cat). A Bond film is only as good as its villain. Christoph Waltz's Blofeld certainly oozes menace, although here (as in every Bond film featuring Blofeld), his motivations and ultimate endgame never really makes complete sense. But Blofeld here does not pop like Silva did. Another problem here is the lengths the plot goes to try and connect the previous three Craig films to this one, making it all one big foiled Blofeld plot. And then the somewhat ridiculous personal connection created between Bond and Blofeld. Hint to Bond filmmakers: the more mysterious and shadowy Blofeld is, usually the better. There was too much sharing here, turning Blofeld's obsession with Bond into a mere family squabble. Blofeld has died many times in Bond films, at least here they don't kill him off. They merely arrest him.

And I thought I would enjoy Ralph Fiennes as M more than I did. I kind of missed Judi Dench.

It is nice to see Craig loosening up a bit with the character. In the previous films he has been so serious that he was at times in danger of being one dimensional. In assessing the Craig era thus far (and I would guess he will do one more before hanging up is Walther PPK, since he has publicly expressed fatigue with the character and his contract has one more film on it), I still think 'Casino Royale' was his best one. This is definitely better than 'Quantum of Solace.' I did not think 'Skyfall' was as great as many others did, and I actually like this one more than many critics do. It has a melancholy to it that I like, where Bond's past is catching up with him. The title 'Spectre' of course refers to Blofeld's terrorist organization, but the title also can reference the spectors of Bond's past weighing heavily upon him. And it is beautiful to look at, really liked the filming of the opening Mexico City sequence. I would put it at the same level as 'Skyfall' for me personally, but I also see where most people prefer 'Skyfall' to it. Between 'Skyfall' and 'Spectre,' we are certainly learning more about Bond's background and life than we ever did before. Don't know if that is a good thing or not.

*** out of *****

Monday, July 27, 2015

Dez Reviews the Book ‘Goldeneye, Where Bond Was Born: Ian Fleming’s Jamaica,’ by Matthew Parker, 2015


Even the casual James Bond fan knows at least some things about Bond’s creator, author Ian Fleming. They at least know that some of Bond’s exotic and thrilling exploits have roots in Fleming’s own experiences. Goldeneye was Fleming’s home and property in Jamaica, where after he purchased the land and had his vacation home built in 1946, he religiously spent two months of the year (from about mid-January to mid-March) in Jamaica. Bond fans also know that every Fleming Bond story was written in Jamaica during those two months each year between 1952 (when ‘Casino Royale’ was written) until Fleming’s death in 1964.

So in a way this book makes a lot of sense. Jamaica and Goldeneye clearly are a big part of James Bond. It is safe to say that had Fleming not found Jamaica, James Bond would never have been. What Matthew Parker has accomplished here is impressive. Instead of a straightforward Fleming biography, his book is a biography of only two months a year of Fleming’s life in Jamaica. But it is much more. It is part biography. part Jamaican history, part travelogue, part rumination on the twilight of the British Empire, part salacious gossip, and part analysis of the creation and writing of the James Bond novels (although we don’t even get to the first Bond novel until about 125 pages in, that is fine because the other topics of this book are so well done).

None of this would work, of course, unless Ian Fleming himself weren’t so damn interesting. And fortunately, he was a pretty fascinating, if not likeable, character. He comes across here, and I have read this elsewhere as well, as an endlessly interesting friend and partner in having good times, but a horrible person to try to be closer to (say as a wife, son, etc.) He simply would not let people get too close, almost pathological about his solitude and need for freedom and space. He was also the perfect figure to use to look at the uncomfortable ending of an Empire, both as a figure clawing and scratching while being dragged into the sunset but also one who sees the reality of what is happening with a somewhat sardonic British humor. And that insecurity, of the once top dog on the block having to step aside for the Americans and Russians, permeates the Bond novels as well.

“All history is sex and violence.” – Ian Fleming

That is one reason the Bond novels resonated so much in Britain. In the wake of humiliations like the Suez Crisis, Bond was an escape for Brits to see themselves as still powerful. When in reality, they no longer were. More than anything else, the Bond novels are strong colonial/Imperial nostalgia, as well as a way to vent at the loss of strength and vitality (or Empire). Parker says “Even the thickest-skinned nostalgist could no longer deny [Britain’s] second-class status. But this would make the escapism of Fleming’s stories, in which, behind the scenes, Britain in the figure of super-agent 007 still bestrides the globe, more popular than ever. The world of Bond was rapidly becoming a place where the nation could congregate around a vision that denied Britain’s disappointing new reality.” And “ “Bond expresses [Britain’s] complicated relationship with [its] past, and [its] empire – at once a little bit proud, a little bit ashamed, and forever aware that [its] ‘greatest days’ are behind [it].”

Take the following remarkable passage from the Bond novel ‘You Only Live Twice,’ where in this dressing down of Bond by Japanese agent Tiger Tanaka, Fleming takes the opportunity to go through a cathartic dose of reality worthy of any monk’s self-flagellation:

Tanaka: “You have not only lost a great Empire, you have seemed almost anxious to throw it away with both hands…when you apparently sought to arrest this slide into impotence at Suez, you succeeded only in stage-managing one of the most pitiful bungles in the history of the world, if not the worst. Further, your governments have shown themselves successively incapable of ruling and have handed over effective control of the country to trade unions, who appear to be dedicated to the principle of doing less and less work for more and more money. The feather-bedding, this shirking of an honest day’s work, is sapping at ever-increasing speed the moral fiber of the British, a quality the world once so admired. In its place we now see a vacuous, aimless horde…whining at the weather and the declining fortunes of the country, and wallowing nostalgically in gossip about the doings of the Royal Family.”

Wow. Through Tanaka, Fleming is clearly venting and editorializing on the current state of Britain. He does that often through his books.

And who has taken Britain’s place? Fleming grudgingly admits it is the United States. While acknowledging the deep friendship between the U.S. and UK, there is still a startling anti-Americanism that shines through in the Bond books. It is interesting to look at Bond’s relationship with his CIA counterpart, Felix Leiter. Leiter is rather hilariously played by an array of actors throughout the Bond films (he was even black, along with most everyone else, in 'Live and Let Die'). “[Leiter’s] close and friendly relationship with Bond represents an optimistic, or even fantastic, model for Britain’s relationship with the United States. Leiter’s role is to supply Bond with technical support, hardware and muscle, as well as money. Bond – and by implication Britain – provides the leadership, intelligence and daring,” states Parker.

But Fleming is also often spiteful and jealous of America. In a private letter he discussed America’s “total unpreparedness to rule the world that is now theirs.” Other than Leiter, almost all of the Americans that Bond encounters in the novels are “surly, uncooperative and jealous of [Bond’s] success and panache.” In a travelogue book he wrote, ‘Thrilling Cities,’ Fleming describes beating the “syndicates” of Las Vegas, and having to “wash the filth of the United States currency off my hands.” Vegas is “ghastly,” New York is obsessed with the “hysterical pursuit of money,” and Chicago is “grim.”

ABOVE: Fleming's paradise, Goldeneye, where all of the Bond stories were written. Interesting fact: after Fleming's death Bob Marley seriously considered purchasing Goldeneye, but deciding that it was too "posh" and wouldn't jibe with his revolution image, he passed.

One of the more interesting aspects of Fleming that Parker discusses is his views on race, ethnicity and nationality. First of all, it is important to remember both the times in which he lived and the fact that he was a Brit from the upper middle crust living in a colonial possession. Or, context. But anyone who has read his Bond novel ‘Live and Let Die’ cannot escape the racist tone throughout. Through Bond’s eyes, Fleming describes blacks as “easy prey to sickness and fear” due to “weak nerves.” Their “organs of sight and hearing are keener than ours,” feeding into the racist clichés of making blacks closer to the animal kingdom than whites. The black henchmen of Mr. Big are “clumsy black apes.” While in Harlem, Bond reflects that the smell of “negro bodies” is “feral.” Harlem is a “jungle.” And so on.

But Parker makes an interesting point. “It is also important to note that Fleming – and Bond – looked down on pretty much everyone who was not British and perceived people of all colours in terms of negative stereotypes of race and nationality.” Parker quotes from several Bond books: in ‘Moonraker,’ Germans have “the usual German chip on the shoulder.” The Japanese in ‘You Only Live Twice’ have “an unquenchable thirst for the bizarre, the cruel and the terrible.” The Italians in ‘Diamonds Are Forever’: “bums with monogrammed shirts who spend the day eating spaghetti and meatballs and squirting scent over themselves.” The Afrikaners in DAF: “a bastard race, sly, stupid and ill-bred.” The Chinese in ‘Dr. No’ are “hysterical.” As Parker says, “No villain in the Bond novels is ever British. Even when they are British citizens…they turn out to be of foreign racial origin.” In a letter to his wife discussing America, Fleming once simply said “all foreigners are pestilential.”

That being said, for his time and station, Fleming did have a better view and relationship with the local Jamaicans than many of his compatriots. Like the Bond of the novels, Fleming “loves the spontaneity, the physicality and…sexy exoticism of it all. His affection is genuine, then, but based on what we would now see as racist clichés.” All of Fleming’s relationships with native Jamaicans were with tradespeople and servants of some sort, but the evidence shows that they genuinely liked Fleming, at least when compared to the other Brits on the island. Fleming’s relationship with most of the native Jamaicans he knew were of the “captain/first mate” sort. Where there is respect and even room for debate, but in the end the captain is in charge. Jamaicans who worked for Fleming called him “Commander” (from his rank in the navy), and he apparently relished the title.

A perfect model is the character of Quarrel, the Jamaican sidekick Bond has in several of the novels. “So here we have Fleming’s ideal colonial relationship. There is no challenge to Bond’s superiority – rank, as on a ship, is taken as read; Quarrel is unmistakably ‘staff.’ But with mutual respect established and power relations solidified by history and custom, there is no need for coercion. Quarrel will ‘follow Bond unquestioningly.’” Quarrel will even instruct Bond in certain skills, like spearfishing. But in the end, Bond sets the agenda and Quarrel will make every effort to help Bond succeed.

One question many people have with any sort of interest in Fleming or Bond, is how much of Bond is really also Fleming? Fleming did have some dashing adventures during World War II. One of the keys, argues Parker, lies in Bond’s birth at Goldeneye in Jamaica. Fleming was more at home in the tropics than back in England. He came alive there. The book wonderfully captures the decadent last days of partying by the British elites as the sun sets on the British Empire. There is a shocking lack of morality amongst these people. Marriage vows are not to be taken seriously. Fleming, like Bond, was a serial womanizer. When he got married, that changed very little. Fleming wrote of Bond in ‘Casino Royale’: “the lengthy approaches to a seduction bored him almost as much as the subsequent mess of disentanglement.” The same could have been said of Fleming.

ABOVE: Ian Fleming and Sean Connery in Jamaica during the filming of the first Bond film, 'Dr. No' (1962). Fleming was not impressed with Connery originally, thinking him too brutish. Fleming changed his mind after having dinner one evening with Connery and watching the female patrons watch Connery. Connery later said of Fleming: “I know he was not that happy with me as [Bond]. He called me, or told somebody, that I was an over-developed stuntman…But when I did eventually meet him he was very interesting, erudite and a snob – a real snob. But his company was very good for a limited time.”

ABOVE: Fleming has a drink with Ursula Andress, the gorgeous actress who portrayed Honeychile Ryder in 'Dr. No.' Not surprisingly, Fleming was reported to have been smitten.

In case you don't understand why Fleming was smitten, try this one:

Fleming was not your typical English stuffed shirt. He came alive in Jamaica, and loved physical danger. He was an obsessive snorkler off his private beach at Goldeneye, and thrilled in swimming with sharks and barracuda. He explored every inch of the island, the seedy parts as well as high society. He despised social gatherings of the British elite, preferring the saucier company of his good friend, playwright Noel Coward. As Parker says, “Jamaica seemed to Fleming the perfect mix of British old-fashioned imperial influence and law and the dangerous and sensual, of reassuring conservatism and the exciting exotic: in effect, the same curious combination that would make the Bond novels so appealing and successful.” When asked about his formula, Fleming once stated “What I endeavor to aim at is a certain disciplined exoticism.”

Writing of Bond, Fleming could also be talking about himself. Bond is often described as cold, cynical and ruthless, but also always trying to control emotions and passions boiling just under the surface. “Like all harsh men, cold men, he was easily tipped over into sentiment.” Bond is a hero for the new, “increasingly classless, jet-set age.”

Parker addresses Fleming’s uncomfortable self-awareness that he was producing what we would today call pop culture for the masses, as opposed to great literature. Fleming often gives a knowing wink within the novels themselves. There is a fascinating and often told anecdote of Fleming coming home one evening to one of his wife’s many high society dinner parties of English artistes, and as he was sneaking through the back so as not to have to socialize, he overhears the guests mockingly reading passages from one of his Bond novels. His wife often dismissed the books as “Ian’s pornography.” These books never were high art. Then again, today we probably don’t know the names of most of those dinner guests, do we?

Like his character Bond, Fleming lived fast and had sort of a death wish. He smoked heavily, drank even more heavily, and ignored years of doctor advice to slow down. Parker points out that in the last several Bond novels, Fleming has Bond suffer this deterioration as well. In the last few books, Bond struggles more physically to accomplish his daring feats. Bond is often winded and reflects that he didn’t used to feel this way. Bond also smokes all the time and drinks recklessly. In ‘Thunderball,’ Bond is even ordered by M to go detox at a clinic. (Although this is more a spa where he beds the attractive nurse). In fact, in the Bond universe, “abstinence is the sure sign of villainy.” When Bond is thought dead in ‘You Only Live Twice,’ his secretary suggests the epitaph “He didn’t waste his days trying to prolong them.” Appropriate for Ian Fleming as well, dead at the age of 56.

If you have an interest in Bond, British Imperialist twilight, Jamaica, or any combination thereof, then **** out of *****.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

A Very Late Review of 'Mad Max: Fury Road,' 2015


Due to the fact that I have a five and a two year old, I don't really set foot into movie theaters much these days other than to watch Minions or Elsa. But I was finally able to go catch the new (well, couple months old now) Mad Max film. We can get one thing out of the way right now: this movie kicks more ass than almost anything else you will go see. I do admit that I am a huge fan of the original 80's trilogy featuring a pre-crazy Mel Gibson, but as I told my friend last night who accompanied me, you don't really have to see the other movies to understand a Mad Max movie. That does not diminish the films, they are just primal and straightforward: they are about survival and suriviving while keeping your humanity. And I'm a big fan of post-apocalyptic cinema.

Did I mention that this movie kicks ass? I am sure most of you know by now from reviews, both professional and from friends, that it is one big adrenaline soaked chase. While that might be a slight oversimplification, it is only slight. What is remarkable about what George Miller has done is that he keeps it interesting throughout. 'Mad Max 2,' aka 'The Road Warrior' in the U.S., remains one of the greatest action films ever made. In part because the stunts are so kinetic and breathtaking. The same goes for this new film. In a day of ever increasing, mind numbing CGI-fests, Miller keeps the digital effects to a minimum. This stuff is the real thing, and it shows. Miller and his crew really did build these ridiculous three story bohemoth automobiles, tie a dude to the third story, drive insane speeds through the desert, and tell him to play guitar while flames shoot out of his axe...


The action and mayhem is difficult to top. Few modern movies do, and George Miller don't need no stinkin' CGI to do it. Just give him some vehicles and an open road, and he will top the action of any superhero snoozefest.

A word about Tom Hardy, who takes over the role of Max from Mel Gibson. Gibson is so linked to that role (it is what broke him through to an international audience and first made him a star), it might be difficult to accept another actor. Hardy is fantastic, and has a little of the crazy himself. Mel and Hardy supposedly met early in the filming and Mel gave him his blessing to take the Max Rokatansky character into the new century. Like Gibson's Max, Hardy's is a man of very few words. So much of what he conveys is both through brutal action but even more importantly, his face. The resignation, tension, then determination, fury, sympathy, humanity...it is all there with no wasted words.

But Max and Hardy are really beside the point here. Charleze Theron is absolutely stunning. Hands down her Imperator Furiosa is the greatest female action character I have ever seen. And I'll tell you why. I find it sad (and irritating) that so many films, when trying to portray a female action hero, simply make her masculine and think that is enough. It is always the same vibe of "oh look, she can do five flips in the air too and kick you unconscious or fire automatic weapons and make quips and stare you down." (Thank you 'Matrix' films for decreeing that all action heroes must also be CGI-enabled acrobats). Now make no mistake, her Furiosa can kick your or my ass. Easily. She and Max engage in a brutal fight that is more or less a draw when they first meet. And fighting Max is like fighting a caged animal in its cage. Miller could have simply stopped where almost every other director would. Just make her another bad-ass, but she happens to have breasts.


But Miller and Theron never stop there. Theron creates a character of strength and action, yet retains a vulnerability and uniquely female understanding of suffering in this world. Like with Hardy's performance, Theron does not need nor use profuse dialogue. It is mostly through her eyes and action that we come to understand who her character is and you cannot keep your eyes off of her. I will be furious if Theron does not recieve a Oscar nomination for her Furiosa. Max, as we all know from way back, is a "shell of a man" who is singularly focused on survival. He kind of has to be, as he starts the film a prisoner who is strapped to a car and connected to an IV and is being used as a blood bank for his cancer-ridden captor. In fact, that is his name for awhile, "Blood Bag." Below...


So the Theron character has to offer the heart and soul of the film and dare to hope for a future. It is Theron's Furiosa that provides the plot, or why everyone is racing across the desert and killing eachother. She has rescued a handful of other women who were being used as "breeders" for the evil Imperator Joe. That is a large factor in the strength of her character. She is running from and fighting against one of the most basic, ancient and horrible crimes, sexual slavery, that is based inherently upon the differences between the sexes. This wouldn't work if they just made a masculine hero who happens to be female. And of course it is through Furiosa that Max finds his own humanity once again.

So this movie works on this level, and it also works as a fantastic and intense action flick. And did I mention that it kicks ass?

**** out of *****

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Faith?

I recently became Lutheran. I mean officially, my family joined a Lutheran church. This is the first church that I have joined in my life, and I'm a little over 40. I wasn't raised very religious. I can't recall my father ever discussing religion in any way (unless directly asked by me), and my mother was Catholic in her younger days but left the Church after a divorce and has only recently returned to the faith. Like many people who join a church later in life (or in my mother's case, return to it), she has dived in wholeheartedly. Which is nice, it seems to make her happy. My mother tried to give me a little religion when I was growing up, she would take me to various Protestant churches at different times. We attended a Baptist church in Nashville for awhile. The main thing I remember is black and white women crying a lot. Crying with joy? I don't know. I remember feeling guilty that I had no desire to cry.

I've always been very interested in religion, though. I've had a strong desire to be religious, but something in my head just hasn't let it happen. Like I told the Lutheran pastor, religion has to get me in the head first, not the heart. Unless you convince my head, my heart really won't follow. I envy those people who can throw themselves into it heart and soul, making it an emotional experience. He was cool with that, seemed to understand my position. That is why I have been agnostic for much of my life. Not atheist, but agnostic leaning slightly more towards belief than non-belief. And honestly, that may be where I am intellectually still. In some ways, agnosticism seems the only logical choice. I find atheists to be as foolish in their certainty as some devout religious people seem to be foolish in theirs. I've got some friends that are atheist and they have that sneering, condescending attitude towards religious faith that I find to be ignorant. How can you presume to think that human understanding can eventually encompass/grasp the cosmos and all there is.

I guess as far as I have gotten is Deism, or the clockmaker theory. A belief in a creative, higher Power (call it God), but a distant force that is not involved in our day to day lives, one who does not care whether I score this next touchdown or not. And one who did not "let" the Holocaust happen. One who created the world and set it in motion with what we call natural laws (both scientific and political a la John Locke) and wound it up like a clock and lets it unwind as it will. We have the free will to determine our destiny. I'm in good company, Franklin and Jefferson were Deist. Deism was born of Enlightenment thinking, and I like that. But I'm open to more and open to Christianity if I can accept it logically.

By the way, one of the best books I have ever read is a religions survey book by Huston Smith called The World's Religions. First published in 1958 and revised several times since, it is the best overview I have ever come across of the five major world religions. The chapter on Judaism is especially strong, and I really gained an appreciation for the genius of the faith. Read it, all of you.

Why Lutheran? Why now? Because of my five year old daughter. She is a vibrant, sharp, stubborn, rebellious, curious little girl. I say that with pride and trepidation, because she has great potential to be a leader and successful, but could also go in other directions. Anyway, she was at a day care/Preschool that just was not working out. Getting into trouble, and the turnover of teachers was almost constant. And this was one of the more expensive ones in our city with a great reputation. I can't imagine how bad the crappy ones are. We finally had enough and decided she needed a new start somewhere else. (I could write a whole other post about this day care). This big Lutheran church close to us has a school with a stellar reputation (preschool through 8th grade) and so we enrolled her there. What an immediate difference. Hardly any reports of misbehavior at all and a huge change in her.

Part of it is the structure and staff. Unlike the revolving door of young girls teaching at the former day care, here her teachers have been there an average of 10 years or more. But honestly a big part of the difference for her was the Christ-centered curriculum. She has really bought into this whole Jesus thing. (Well, she is five, so believes mostly what people tell her. I could convince her that unicorns rule the solar system if I wanted to). But her behavior has changed in many ways. It just clicks with her that there is a deeper foundation to morality and right living than "we just need to be nice to our friends." Why? would be her next question. With a biblical foundation, the "why" is much easier to explain and she buys it.

So, we were impressed with the effect on our child. (Now our younger daughter is there as well). We decided to go ahead and see what this community was really like, so we started attending some services. I immediately connected with the head pastor and his sermons. He is fantastic. So we started talking about joining the church proper. My wife was raised with some moderate and inconsistent religion like I was. Although, I think she is more agnostic than I am at this point. We attended the class required to join the church. I am unbaptized (as are my children), and we were told that was necessary. We'll do that this summer. My wife has been baptized. At the class we were given a complimentary copy of Luther's Catechism, which I read cover to cover with its commentaries. I like it quite a bit and could come to believe its message, I think.

Honestly, as a family we have different motivations for joining the church. Part of it is cynical. The school is an expensive private school, and church members get a discount. To be honest, that may be my wife's primary motivation. It is a strong one for me too. But we also value the community aspect. It is a large church, and we have attended some of their functions and met some great people. So there is the social/community aspect as well. We also love the effect the place has on our daughter. She talks about God quite a bit, and will ask me great, probing questions. Like "Daddy, why did God make skunks?" Good question. What purpose do they really serve? I gave her some vague Circle of Life crap explanation. But really, why are they here? But I have also more genuine, spiritual motivation to do this. Or at least open curiosity. And that is where it often starts, right? We'll see.

Finally, I don't know if you saw this Pew Research Poll conducted that was in the news a couple of months ago about the changing (and declining) religious landscape of America. It is here. Fascinating. Being somewhat contrarian, the results of this remarkable study make me want to be more religious, not less.

Since I have more time over the summer, I have volunteered to work at the Church's Vacation Bible School this week. There are about 1500 kids of all ages attending this extravaganza, and it is not all Bible stuff. A lot of it is summer camp. I got assigned to help with Bible stories. At first I was disappointed. I would rather be outside playing soccer or something. But it has been a great week. One, I am working under a remarkable woman who is in her 60's and has a fantastic view on life. She has taught Bible stories for 30 years, and knows this stuff cold. We get kindergarteners primarily. I told her I can take the lead if she needs Alexander Hamilton's financial plans explained at the AP level, but she is in charge as far as Bible stories to 5 or 6 years olds go. Just tell me what to do. It's been great, though.

Today I will be playing a soldier (Namaan?) So I will get the 5 and 6 year olds to stand at attention and march around the room. Showing them soldiering, you see. I think I will be very strict and really show them what boot camp is like. Get in their face like Louis Gossett Jr. in "An Officer and a Gentleman" or something. Make them do 50 push-ups. Appropriate for 5 or 6 year olds? My daughter is in one of the groups who comes through, and it does warm my heart seeing her get excited and bursting with pride that her Daddy is leading class. Don't know how she will feel if she is in 11th grade and I happen to be her AP U.S. History teacher, though. But I can enjoy this while it lasts.

BELOW: This will be me showing the 5 year olds how to be a soldier

Friday, June 12, 2015

RIP Sir Christopher Lee, 1922-2015


Imposing figure, impossibly cool and cunning. Count Dracula. Count Dooku. Saruman. Francisco Scaramanga. Lord Summerisle. If I were a film producer between the 1950's and 2015, and I wanted to cast an unforgettable villain (and depending on the age requirements of the character), the first words out of my mouth would have been: "get me Christopher Lee." Along with partner in horror Peter Cushing, Lee helped to usher in a new generation of horror film with Hammer Horror films between the late 50's and mid-70's. He re-introduced classic horror characters to a new generation, playing both Count Dracula and Frankenstein's monster in exploitation color, sex and violence, more fitting for the times. He hardly has any lines and limited screen time in 1958's 'Dracula,' but he needed neither to make his impact.

Lee starred in hundreds of films, but he is on record stating that he thinks his best was the moody British horror film, 'The Wicker Man' (1973), playing cult leader Lord Summerisle. His presence could lift even the most B-movie level material, of which he appeared in many but always maintained a bemused attitude towards. He appeared in one of the worst Bond films ('The Man With the Golden Gun'), yet still played one of the few villains in the entire series that was Bond's true equal in deadly skill (as the million dollar assassin, Scaramanga). It is sad that such a great actor and character were wasted on that film, imagine what they could have done if it had been one of the better Bond films. Modern filmgoers recognize Lee for his performances in the 'Star Wars' prequels and the 'Lord of the Rings' films. As a true renaissance man, he even recorded some heavy metal albums in recent years, recieving a Hammer Metal Golden Gods award in 2010 for his album, Charlemagne: By the Sword and the Cross!

ABOVE: Christopher Lee, metal god?

He played villainous and atrocious characters, but you always assumed the man himself was anything but. And you would be correct. At 6'5", he literally towered over those around him. He did a lot of work for charity, and his World War II service is pretty fascinating as well. He served in Finland, then in the RAF, then conducted subtantial intelligence work throughout Africa. After that he served in Italy, and finally worked hunting down Nazi war criminals before retiring from the military and turning to an acting career.

Below is a rogue's gallery of Lee's most memorable roles...

ABOVE: Bringing Dracula to the sex, drugs and rock and roll generation

ABOVE: As assassin Francisco Scaramanga in the Bond film, 'The Man With the Golden Gun.' Is it really believable that Roger Moore kicked Christopher Lee's ass? No.

ABOVE: As the insane cult leader Lord Summerisle in the British cult horror classic, 'The Wicker Man.' Lee felt this was his best film from the hundreds that he starred in.

ABOVE: In the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy as Saruman, a role originally offered to Sean Connery

ABOVE: Lee as the evil Jedi Count Dooku in two of the 'Star Wars' prequels. As was often the case, Lee was above the material.

RIP Sir Christopher Lee.

Saturday, March 7, 2015

RIP Mr. Spock, 2230-2387?

We recently lost one of the true giants of science, space exploration, interstellar diplomacy and pithy observations of human behavior. The logic to counterbalance Bones McCoy's passions, he was the yin for Bones' yang, helping to make Kirk a more complete Captain. But he was much more. As a half human, half Vulcan, Mr. Spock was the ultimate outsider who made himself essential to those around him. By not fitting in with either of his cultures, he was able to stand outside of them and understand them better than they sometimes understood themselves. Spock refused to deny his human side and become the fully logical Vulcan, but he was able to suppress his emotions when it was crucial to the Enterprise's survival as Kirk spoke in dramatic pauses. Yet he shed a tear for V'Ger.

Spock was born to Vulcan diplomat Sarek and human school teacher Amanda Grayson. Spock blazed new trails early, being the first Vulcan to join Starfleet. This decision did not sit well with his father, however, and relations were strained between father and son for many years to follow. Spock first served under Captain Christopher Pike (along with his future captain, James Tiberius Kirk). By 2265, Spock had risen to the the rank of Lieutenant Commander, first officer and science officer on the U.S.S. Enterprise under Kirk for a five year mission. After the mission's completion, during which he saved Kirk and the Enterprise crew's collective ass many times, he returned to Vulcan to purge all emotions, but the presence of V'Ger spurred Spock to return to service on the Enterprise.

Perhaps most impressive of his many feats was sacrificing his life in order to repair plasma conduits (despite Scotty's hysterical objections), allowing the Enterprise to escape the detonation of the Genesis Device by the evil but sexy Ricardo Montalban. Just to screw with him, Spock chose Bones of all people to transfer his katra through one hell of a mind-meld. But no worries, because Spock actually CAME BACK TO LIFE due to regeneration on the new Genesis planet (it also may be related to the fact that some earthling named Leonard Nimoy was offered lots of money and a chance to direct Star Trek III and IV. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with Spock's sudden regeneration or not. Perhaps it was just coincidence.)

Anyway, Spock's later accomplishments were more in the field of diplomacy, where he negotiated a peace accord with the Klingons, and later attempted to make peace between the Vulcans and the Romulans. Mr. Spock was also a master three dimensional chess player, as well as an accomplished musician.

Live long and prosper, Mr. Spock. Live long and prosper.

ABOVE: Earth nation Canada has apparently honored Mr. Spock by placing him on their five pound note

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Shame and Apocalypse

Two interesting Op-Eds at CNN.com. The first one is Jake Tapper discussing how disappointed he was that there was no high level U.S. official at the momentous 1.5 million person march in Paris after the recent terrorist attacks. Tapper says: "I say this as an American - not as a journalist, not as a representative of CNN - but as an American: I was ashamed." I try and try to give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt, but damn they are so stupid sometimes. Talk about opportunity to be seen as a world leader handed to you on a silver platter. Jon Stewart on the Daily Show also went after the administration. Tapper and Stewart aren't exactly right wing talk radio. As Stewart incredulously said when mentioning that Eric Holder was actually in Paris that day for a meeting but couldn't make it to the march..."what the f*ck?!" The White House made some lame excuse that security concerns would detract from the event. Uh-huh. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn't have security concerns? British PM David Cameron? German president Angela Merkel? Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority? The King of Jordan? All were there. Even Russia sent their equivalent of Secretary of State, Foreign Minister Lavrov. Ashamed is right. Obama, Biden, Kerry, Holder...somebody!? Either cowards or political fools or something else. You think John Kerry would be more at risk than the prime minister of Israel? Netanyahu not only boldly marched, but then gave a speech afterward at Paris' largest synagogue. January of 2017 cannot get here soon enough as far as repairing our global leadership goes.

And it is not just the administration. Perhaps the Republican leadership could have shown what they are supposedly made of (not to mention scoring easy points on Obama). Obama may be too cowardly to show (or not care), but maybe our bold congressional leaders could show some cajones. Boehner? McConnell? Nope. How about some presidential hopefuls for 2016? What kind of strong image would that project, Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush marching in Paris with world leaders. I guess it didn't occur to them. How much do they pay their campaign advisors again? The march was on Sunday. Chris Christie, Scott Walker and Paul Ryan couldn't make it to Paris either. No, instead they were at the Cowboys-Packers game. Jesus.

The other article is about just how screwed we are environmentally. Want to be be scared? Read this. I generally lean conservative or libertarian on most things, but the environment has always been an issue where I tend to agree with my liberal friends. I can't think of an issue more important than the survival of the human race. Seriously, read the article. Yes, I am a conservative/libertarian, but I also believe in science. And whatever outlier scientists those on the right can get to dismiss our impending environmental apocalypse, they are far outweighed by the vast majority of scientific consensus. I don't even see why this should be a political or partisan issue at all. I do know that those on the left have squandered their credibility over the decades by being Chicken Little. They have made it easy for some kooks on the Right to prove them wrong on this exact prediction or that specific prediction. But you know, the sky really is falling.

As much as I love post-apocalyptic cinema, I don't want my kids living in a Mad Max world.

Oh, speaking of, have you seen the trailer for the new Mad Max movie coming out this summer? I love this stuff! Can't wait. Here it is, be sure to watch it full screen...

Friday, December 19, 2014

Boos and Applause

Boo...Spineless Sony and the theater chains (and the malls who put the pressure on the theaters) who do not negotiate with terrorists, instead they simply obey the commands of terrorists and pull "The Interview" from release.

Applause...Alamo Drafthouse theater in Dallas, Plaza Atlanta Theater in Atlanta and Capitol Theater in Cleveland. After not being able to screen "The Interview" as planned due to Sony's spineless retreat, those theaters planned to screen "Team America: World Police" instead (recall the comedy from the creators of "South Park" which lampooned Kim Jong Un's father, Kim Jong Il). Alamo Drafthouse had tweeted: "For the record, we were still going to show ["The Interview"]...But now we'll be showing "Team America" in its place...because AMERICA, F YEAH." On top of that, Alamo Drafthouse was going to hold the initial screenings of "Team America" for free.

Boo...Paramount Pictures, who then spinelessly pulled "Team America: World Police" from release, so these theaters could not screen that film either. Tweets Plaza Atlanta theater: "Team America World Police pulled from all theaters as per Paramount Pictures."

So f*** Sony, Paramount, AMC, Carmike Cinema, Cinemark, Cineplex, Regal and Southern Theaters. Why is it that these smaller, independent theater companies have the stones to ignore threats and stand up for free expression, while these bigger companies do not? Drafthouse would be just as open to lawsuit as Regal or Sony if something happened at a theater, yet Drafthouse and other smaller theater companies still have principles. The ironic thing of course, is now everyone wants to see "The Interview." It actually got some pretty horrible reviews. If it had been released like any other film, it would have faded from memory quickly.

As many have already suggested, since Sony has sunk the money into the film anyway and is not going to screen it at theaters, why not release online? Make it free for download. Get some hackers of our own and ping the damn thing back into North Korea. Mitt Romney suggested that Sony release the film for free online, ask for $5 donations, and then donate it all to the ebola fight. There is so much that Sony could have done to turn this around, and yet they won't. As one Senator tweeted, I would rather decide for myself what movies to see, not have North Korea make that decision for me.

Good opinion piece on CNN.com from Jeff Yang, Hollywood's Complete Moral Surrender.

ABOVE: From now on, whenever possible, I will be having my cinema experiences at Alamo Drafthouse. They have locations here in San Antonio, and I know they are in Houston, Austin and Dallas as well. Regardless of this recent incident, they are a great company. Comfortable seating, they also serve dinner and alcohol. In addition to screening bigger films, they also usually have a good slate of indie films.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Wasted Talent, or RIP Robin Williams, 1951-2014

I was recently thinking about a possible post regarding talented people whose work I, for the most part, despise. Despise more than the work of untalented people. Untalented people can't help it, they do what they can. But it is the person who actually has gifts but then wastes them on crap that really gets my blood up. My case study was going to be Billy Joel, but the suicide of Robin Williams changed my focus.

It may be hard to recall, especially if you are young, just how talented Robin Williams was. Go back to the late 70's, into the 80's. As a fast thinking, fast talking stand up comic, his rabbit holes could be works of art. He could improv most anyone else into dust.

But you must look ultimately to his filmography to judge his legacy. That is how most people know him. How underwhelming much of that filmography is. Even though his range was truly impressive (he trained at Julliard), there is crap in every genre he worked in. Low rent comedies like The Survivors and Best of Times. Bad kids movies abound, like Hook and Flubber and Toys. His serious roles are also of inconsistent quality. Often built on sappy sentiment and cheap emotional ploys, films like Dead Poet's Society definitely have their fanbase but that fanbase is easily mainipulated emotionally. It gets worse with What Dreams May Come. Of course, there is the Marianas Trench of sappy films, Patch Adams, which was absolutely criminal in its badness.

ABOVE: The Bearded Movies. Often when Williams sported a beard, you knew it was a serious role. Good Will Hunting and Awakenings are the prime examples.

But let's stop speaking ill of the man's work. It wasn't all bad. Mrs. Doubtfire, while not sophisticated comedy by any means, had real heart and real laughs too, while remaining a family friendly film. He brought incredible life to the genie in Aladdin. Same with the wartime DJ in Good Morning, Vietnam. My favorite role of his was very much against type. He played the psychopathic killer opposite Al Pacino's troubled cop in Insomnia. Mrs. Doubtfire vs. Michael Corleone doesn't sound like much of a fight, but Williams surprised all by being a formidable adversary to Pacino. Most impressively, he did it without using his manic, bombastic persona, which most would consider the most potent weapon in his arsenal. It was all reserve and holding back. In fact, that is what made him so creepy. He did something similar in One Hour Photo. Why didn't he do more of these type of roles? I don't know. He was very, very good at them and had a real gift in that genre. Perhaps in light of his personal troubles, these troubled dark characters hit too close to home? I don't know.

ABOVE: Pacino and Williams face off in the excellent thriller, Insomnia

At any rate, it is a sad end to an iconic career. By all accounts, he was a generous man who was much loved by colleagues and friends and family. He was key in organizing the charitable Comic Relief that raised so much money and awareness to battle homelessness. By the numbers, his career was incredibly successful. I just think that artistically, it could have been so much more. RIP Robin Williams.

Monday, August 4, 2014

The Indianapolis Speech: Anatomy of a Scene

First a quick history lesson. In July of 1945 the U.S.S. Indianapolis delivered uranium and other parts to the island of Tinian in the Pacific for the atomic bomb that would eventually be dropped on Hiroshima. The ship successfully delivered its cargo, made a quick stop at Guam, and then headed towards Leyte in the Philippines. The Indianapolis never reached its destination, sinking quickly after being torpedoed by a Japanese submarine. About 300 men went down with the ship, while 880 went into the water. They were not rescued for three and a half days, with most of the men swimming with or without life jackets (very few lifeboats), holding on to any debris they could. Out of the 880 who went into the water, only about 320 ultimately survived. The incident is famous in part because it featured the most shark attacks on humans in recorded history for a single event. Most of the men actually died from exposure, drinking salt water and drowning, with many of the bodies being dragged off by sharks. But quite a few of the living were also attacked.

The reason it took three and a half days to find the survivors is because the Indianapolis was never reported missing. This was primarily due to a series of gross acts of negligence on the part of various naval personnel. The person in charge of making sure she arrived at Leyte did not make any report that she did not actually arrive. The Indianapolis sent distress signals, but one was ignored by a drunk captain, one was never reported up the chain of command and one was thought to be a Japanese trap. They were only found by a random American patrol plane, whose pilot, with great risk to himself and his plane, rescued about 50 men himself (strapping some men to the wings) and then radioed for help.

ABOVE: The U.S.S. Indianapolis

Anyway, the sinking of the Indianapolis is central to a key scene in the film Jaws. In what for many is the most memorable scene in the entire film, a scene that features no action, Robert Shaw's Quint relates the mesmerizing tale of his survival on the Indianapolis to Roy Scheider's Brody and Richard Dreyfuss' Hooper. Here is the scene. Even if you've seen the film, it is worth watching the clip. Shaw gives an acting clinic on subtlety and storytelling.



Now, there are a few historical details that he gets wrong. Like the date. Notice he says "June the 29th," when the ship sank on July 30. Also, there were, in fact, distress signals sent. But the makers of Jaws can be forgiven for that oversight. Jaws was made in 1974 (released in '75), and the Indianapolis distress signals became known later after military files were declassified. Before that, the story was that no signals had been sent due to the top secret nature of the mission.

There is quite a bit of dispute over who wrote this crucial speech. It is crucial in that it explains Quint's obsession with killing sharks, it gives the Quint character much needed depth (before this, he is mostly a salty bully), and provides the calm before the final climactic battle.

One of the reason there is dispute is due to the way Jaws was made. This was only Steven Spielberg's second feature film. He wasn't yet STEVEN SPIELBERG, he was just a 27 year old, still largely untested director. Jaws was made collaboratively and filmed largely on location in Martha's Vineyard. Spielberg rented a house and it was almost like a frat house. He lived there along with various production members and actors coming and going. Shaw would often show up full of booze. Spielberg would host dinners with many of the production and actors, always tossing around ideas.

Peter Benchley, author of the book, wrote the first draft of the script. Screenwriter Howard Sackler wrote a draft. Then Carl Gottlieb came in and rewrote a lot of it. (By the way, Gottlieb's The Jaws Log is a must read for anyone interested in filmmaking, whether you are a fan of this particular film or not. It is generally regarded as the best "making of" book ever written.)

But many things in Jaws came from suggestions or improvisations. Roy Scheider's famous "we're gonna need a bigger boat" line, for instance, was improvised on the spot by Scheider himself. The very funny scene where Quint and Hooper try and one up each other by crushing the beer can and coffee cup was the joint idea of Spielberg, Gottlieb and Dreyfuss over drinks.

Gottlieb swears that the Indianapolis speech was written by Robert Shaw himself. Shaw was also a noted playwright and writer, so he certainly was capable of good writing (his assessment of the Jaws novel, by the way: "a piece of sh*t"). The scene is not in the novel at all, and Gottlieb states that writer Sackler first introduced the scene into the Jaws script. But then Gottlieb and Spielberg himself worked extensively on it, and still were not satisfied. Spielberg called in his friend, writer and directer John Milius (writer of Apocalypse Now) to help with some ideas. (Gottlieb admits that the scene where Quint and Hooper compare scars - that was Milius). But after all of these versions were tossed around, it was Shaw who took them all and then wrote the actual speech that was shot. Apparently when they rehearsed it, he was drunk and couldn't really get through it and went into some embarassing admissions about his personal life. But once the camera was rolling he nailed it, and that is what you see onscreen. Gottlieb says of Shaw: "Shaw's genius as an actor of the old school is evident; he could work drunk or sober, and still be brilliant."

John Milius has a different recollection about who wrote the crucial scene. Milius:
"I wrote that thing and they gave it to [Shaw] when he was drunk. Could barely walk, he was really drunk...I was writing that [scene] until nine in the morning, I called in, that was their time and I was writing it over the phone. They went out that afternoon and shot it...Robert Shaw had just been caught f*cking the nanny, and he's sitting there, he's really drunk. They're trying to get him on the boat. He falls half off, and they're really 'how are we going to do this?' He's sleeping, reading the script and sleeping. They finally got him to start rehearsing it, and he hated Richard Dreyfuss. He sort of takes a swat at him, and he starts saying 'you ever see a shark's eye? It rolls up, it's a dead eye. Like your wife, when she tells you about the nanny.' And he's talking like, 'what happens when you get put in the water all alone, after f*cking the nanny?'...He gets [Spielberg and crew] so strung out on his personal life...then, when they turned on the cameras, he was perfect."

Gottlieb, while not denying Shaw's personal troubles, still vehemently denies that Milius wrote the meat of the speech. Gottlieb: "Who do you believe - the guy who was there and tells you someone else wrote the speech, or a guy who wasn't there and claims he did?" The only thing they do seem to agree on was that Robert Shaw was drunk.

My guess is that it was a collaborative effort, but with Shaw indeed pulling it all together and putting it in his/Quint's vernacular. While it does have a Milius-like clipped quality and focuses on military history, a Milius specialty, it just seems so personal to Shaw. Gottlieb claims that the night before filming Shaw came to Spielberg's rented place and read it to Spielberg, Gottlieb, Dreyfuss and producer Richard Zanuck almost word for word what ended up onscreen.

Interesting tidbit. Spielberg turned down Universal's offer to direct the sequel, and said he would only do it if the sequel were a prequel, about Quint's time on the Indianapolis. Universal said no. Now that would have been interesting.

Finally, the speech is such a brilliant piece of film writing, it is worth reading on the printed page. Or the glowing computer screen.

"Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into our side, Chief. We were comin' back from the island of Tinian to Leyte...just delivered the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb. Eleven hundred men went into the water. Vessel went down in twelve minutes. Didn't see the first shark for about half an hour. Tiger. 13 footer. You know how you know that when you're in the water, Chief? You tell by looking from the dorsal to the tail. What we didn't know, was our bomb mission had been so secret, no distress signal had been sent. They didn't even list us overdue for a week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin', so we formed ourselves into tight groups.

You know, it was kinda like old squares in the battle like you see in the calendar named 'The Battle of Waterloo' and the idea was: shark comes to the nearest man, that man he starts poundin' and hollerin' and screamin' and sometimes the shark go away...sometimes he wouldn't go away. Sometimes that shark, he looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. And you know, the thing about a shark...he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be livin'...until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then...ah then, you hear that terrible high pitched screamin'. The ocean turns red, and despite all the poundin' and the hollerin', they all come in and they...rip you to pieces.

You know by the end of that first dawn, lost a hundred men. I don't know how many sharks, maybe a thousand. I don't know how many men, they averaged six an hour. On Thursday morning, Chief, I bumped into a friend of mine, Herbie Robinson from Cleveland. Baseball player. Boatswain's mate. I thought he was asleep. I reached over to wake him up. Bobbed up and down in the water just like a kinda top. Upended. Well, he'd been bitten in half below the waist.

Noon, the fifth day, Mr. Hooper, a Lockheed Ventura saw us. He swung in low and he saw us...He was a young pilot, a lot younger than Mr. Hooper here. Anyway, he saw us and he come in low and three hours later a big fat PBY cruiser comes down and starts to pick us up. You know that was the time I was most frightened...waitin' for my turn. I'll never put on a life jacket again. So, eleven hundred men went into the water; 316 men come out and the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 1945. Anyway, we delivered the bomb."

Thanks to Carl Gottlieb's The Jaws Log and Patrick Jankiewicz's A Jaws Companion for the quotes and much of the info.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Hooper is Drunk and Useless

This guy had some some time on his hands, but this is really, really funny. The more familiar you are with the film 'Jaws,' the funnier these are, of course. Robert Panico put these together using only audio and visual elements from 'Jaws.' They are recut and re-edited together to create, shall we say, some alternate storylines. I laughed quite a bit, hope you will too. The first one here is what happens when Hooper drinks too much of Quint's apricot brandy. I had to watch it several to times to figure out the ingredients of the chum at the end. Great stuff.



Here are some more that he did. 'Nobody Listens to Quint's Tale' is particularly well done.

Hooper's Boating Massacre:


Nobody Listen's To Quint's Tale:


Hooper as Shart Bait:


Orca Maintenance Mayhem:


Nobody Cares About Quint:

Friday, July 25, 2014

'Jaws' Art

I was recently looking online for memorabilia from my favorite film and the namesake of this blog, 'Jaws'. I came across an art show that occurred last year in L.A. that featured artwork inspired by the film. Below are some of my favorites from that show...

Casey Callender

Erin Gallagher

Dan Mumford

Nana

P.J. McQuade

Matthew Woodson

Craig Drake