Change Your Image
thomaspkanell
Reviews
Gone with the Wind (1939)
Detestable Depiction of Romance and of "Genteel" Civilization
As I write this review (in 2017) we have violence in Charlottesville, Virginia by white supremacists, a church group killed in Charleston, South Carolina by a gunman enamored of the Confederate flag (2015.) And over the last eighty years, we have "Gone With The Wind" as a kind of statement of a nostalgia for the "good old days" when slaves catered to the whim of white people, where white cousins married each other, where mistresses slapped their servants around, where people didn't marry for love, but for power, money, social standing and lust. Talk about depressing!
As if the institution of slavery weren't vile enough, we actually see the effect of slavery on the slave owners themselves who aren't able to have an honest romance with each other because they can't respect humanity enough to treat all people equally as "endowed by their Creator" with "inalienable rights of life, liberty and happiness." If the basis of Southern society were based on the denial of these rights, is it any wonder that the pursuit of happiness was forever out of reach for these people? If people can't love or respect those who labor honestly and serve them well, how can they possibly love themselves or each other?
Scarlett is a spoiled young woman, always scheming in the ways of love, who never grows up. Rhett sees the futility of war with the North, but yet he enlists with the Confederates after Atlanta falls because he can't keep himself from supporting a losing cause and because of his warped sense of "honor." The movie-goer is subjected to many rounds of deviousness, deception and tragedy, just as the Southerners deceived themselves about their own supposed virtue even while subjugating and enslaving of a whole class of people.
Men are always depicted as "genteel," women as "belles," slaves as "simple and accommodating," the North as "oppressive and ruthless." The North and South are depicted as two separate countries, two separate civilizations. It's an affront to Lincoln's vision that the United States was one country which should remain united and held together as such.
The only character who shows any depth is Melanie, Ashley's wife, who is long-suffering and sacrificing, but her frailty and meekness overshadow her goodness.
It is unsettling that in 1939 and even today that this movie is considered one of the greatest ever made. To me, it's detestable! It's a national tragedy that slavery should ever have existed, but this movie is also a tragic in that it invokes a nostalgia for a civilization that should forever be relegated to the dust-bin of history. Just three years before this movie was released, Jesse Owens won four gold medals at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, and yet in his home country he was a second-class citizen. It would be another eight years that Jackie Robinson would become Rookie of the Year in Major League Baseball. The black actress, Hattie McDaniel, who won the Academy Award for "Best Supporting Actress" in this movie was forbidden by Georgia authorities to attend her own movie's premiere in Atlanta! Let us not forget that 1939 was also the year that Hitler sought to create his own racist society by killing millions of innocent Jews, Slavs and other undesirables in WW2. When you have people praising this movie so glibly and glossing over the prevailing ideas of racism even today, one wonders to where our sense of moral outrage has disappeared.
Greatest film ever made? I just don't see it. It made me angry, nauseous and offended. I couldn't find any redemption for the film from a purely romantic point of view either. Everyone deceives each other, nobody is honest and for this reason, tragedy abounds. I think the film says more about American racism than it does about theatrical art. And this racism is not a theoretical racism incidental to the story line, but it's about the prevalent racism that had allowed the original institution to exist, this particular movie to be made and our present racial strife to perpetuate.
Under Suspicion (2000)
**SPOILER ** Very Unsatisfying Ending -- Analysis ** SPOILER **
I watched this movie and I was totally befuddled by the ending. What is the relationship between Hackman's character and Belucci's? They knew each other when Chantal was very young and then they married later, but at a later point they stop conjugal relations and have no children. Even when they no longer conjugate, however, Chantal still allows her husband to kiss her and zip up her dress and to appear in public together; maybe it's not much, but it seems to contraindicate that Chantal "sets up" her husband.
During the interrogation, Chantal spits in disgust at her husband's admissions that he likes young women. Again, this indicates that it is a spontaneous reaction to the her husband's admissions and it is not a premeditated set-up of her husband.
Apparently, Chantal stops sleeping with her husband when she finds him spending intimate (but not physical) time with her niece. Maybe she despises his attraction to young girls and she won't compete for her husband's affections.
If Chantal has a problem with her husband's behavior, it could indicate that she might possibly be a murderess who wants to eliminate her competition because of jealousy and anger. This is the only reason I see for Hackman's character to confess to a murder he didn't commit -- to save his wife from prosecution. He never "cracks" prior to this!
When the real murderer is caught, Chantal realizes how much her husband really loves her that he was willing to take the fall for her. When she contemplates suicide, it might be on account of the pain she caused him, but she decides it is better to respond to his love.
Hackman's character leaves the police station as a free man, but avoids his wife. Why would he avoid her? It is true she allowed police to search the house, but with the mountain of circumstantial evidence against him, it seemed necessary and reasonable to do this. On the other hand, she didn't back up her husband when he needed it most, (although a search warrant would have rendered her decision moot.)
Maybe both characters are flawed, Hackman's with his obsession for young girls and being unfaithful (caused by his wife's rejection of him physically?), and Chantal with her jealousy and rejection of her husband. If so, this movie seems to depict how difficult it is for two people to stay the course and to love each other without reservation (especially when there is a 25-30 year difference in ages between the wedded!)
The only thing I can think of is that Chantal's husband realized that a woman who would shun her husband while being married isn't really in love with her husband, no matter how much she is loved first. Maybe Chantal is getting older and her husband no longer finds her attractive? Maybe the original marriage was based on the age difference and after he made the ultimate sacrifice for his wife, he found out she wasn't really worth it?
The ending seems to evoke despair over the possibility of love's triumph, even while one makes the ultimate sacrifice for it?
Lastly, I thought Thomas Jane's character was called "Opie," not "O.B." referring to Andy Griffith's TV son in Mayberry, as a sort of snide reference to the detective's unsophisticated, clumsy, yokel kind of way of doing his job.
The Contender (2000)
Sorry, No "Virtue" To This Film
When I began watching this movie, I didn't have any preconceptions about it, but I did notice that I was in contempt of every character in the movie for the first three-quarters of its running. It's because, as other viewers have pointed out, the characters aren't very human -- they're caricatures of political types -- swearing, sneering, power-grubbing, manipulative, sneaky, conniving and back-stabbing. Jeff Bridges plays a president who seems more concerned about what food he can order from the pantry than about running a country! Joan Allen is the VP nominee who is poised to take a drink from her glass of water at every opportunity while going through her deposition at the Senate Subcommittee. Everyone is digging up dirt on someone else, all the while enjoying the perks of power. Everyone talks about serving "the American people," but, really, it's not them whom they are concerned about, but rather their own ambition, their own little cutthroat worlds where the "people" aren't relevant but are mere patsies to be controlled, influenced and manipulated.
I was waiting for some redeeming virtue to the film, but "virtue" is a very hard thing to find in movie! It seems the only real virtue seems to be in not revealing one's private life to the public on principle. It doesn't matter if you're an atheist, support abortion or break up the marriage of your best friend -- it's resistance to reveal intimate details of your life "on principle" that counts the most! I honestly had a hard time trying to understand how this might qualify someone to be worthy of being within a heartbeat of the Presidency, but the film makes a point to say it's possible to be both "guilty yet not responsible" for the offenses one commits. (A Washington paradigm?)
Another moral pivot point of the movie is what constitutes "political greatness." Indeed, the movie begins with just such a speculation, and it ends with the President giving a speech contrasting "greatness with pettiness." However, the sad irony is this: there is no character in this movie which is really "great." Everybody -- without exception - - is unheroic, selfish and petty. Add to this lack of human character development with a political message which fails to address the values common to all mankind, but which rather seeks to promote mere petty party ideology, and one finds that one has been hoodwinked into thinking that something "great" has happened in this movie. It has not.
Tribes (1970)
Triumph of Individualism over Conformity
I've read all of the reviews for this movie, and I'm not convinced that any of them address its major theme: the triumph of individuality over conformity (although the Storyline alludes to this.)
Entering into the Marines, everyone is reduced to the status of "maggots." Everyone's hair is shorn. Everyone is reminded that they do not have their mothers' apron strings to clutch. Everyone is questioned as to the propriety of their sexual orientation, whether they are really men or something less than men. Everyone is reduced to their naked bodies standing in the showers, with their bars of soap, toothbrushes and towels. Everyone has the same buzz cut, the same cots, the same clothes, and their behavior scrutinized and reinforced from morning until evening, and again the following day. All of this is done to ensure conformity, obedience and willingness to fight in the name of country.
In the midst of this overt dehumanization, Adrian stands out, not as a rebellious spirit, but as a sensitive and intelligent thinking man. In one scene, Adrian asks his DI, "Sir, do we dig ditches in order to build up our morale and sense of pride?" To which the drill sergeant replies, "You do not need to know why I ask you to do anything. Simply the fact that I ask it should be sufficient for you to comply." That type of reply, it should be noted, is not persuasive to the sensitive man who can think for himself, as it appeals only to a spirit of authority, not reason.
Notwithstanding, Adrian excels in all of his activities as a Marine. He can run faster, fight better, endure more pain and suffering than anyone else in his outfit, and moreover he demonstrates a peace and strength that comes from his own spiritual convictions. He also helps those who are weaker than he is and he shows himself wiser than the men who are trying to instruct him.
And yet, despite the fact that he outwardly shows himself more than capable of everything the Marines throw at him, the senior drill instructor notices that Adrian's serene and peaceable spirit remains unbroken and undiminished. This observation becomes a sadistic blood-lust to the senior instructor, to break the man down and to destroy Adrian's sense of individuality at all costs, even to the point of having him repeat basic training all over again until he conforms to the Marine ideal of the "unthinking obedient killing machine."
At the end of the movie, Adrian has to decide to which "tribe" he will give his ultimate allegiance. His immediate drill instructor tries to give him his best advice, but of course, he has to do so while remaining loyal to the Corp himself. In the end, who is more loyal to his ideals, Adrian or his instructor?
I found this movie to be a favorite of mine, embodying the "hero" (or "antihero") theme of retaining one's essential identity in the midst of outside demoralizing and dehumanizing influences. In my opinion, the movie is as instructive and inspiring as it is entertaining!
Heart: The Road Home (1995)
Powerful Intimate Soulful
This is an intimate concert given by the Wilson sisters in their home town of Seattle. Many (if not all) of their hits are sung with excellent sound and acoustics. (It almost seems as though they are singing in your living room!) Camera angles are excellent with good shots of the musicians when performing their solos. Ann Wilson's singing is powerful and soulful, and Nancy Wilson's guitar work is truly impressive. (I thought that many of Heart's guitar licks were performed by the dudes in the band, but Nancy is the real virtuoso here.) Memorable performances include "Sylvan Song" and "Love Alive." Also included is an acoustic version of "Barracuda." For Heart fans, this music is impeccable, flawless and a resounding confirmation of their own niche in popular rock.
When Nietzsche Wept (2007)
Nietzsche's Humanity and Brilliance Shine
I watched this movie immediately after taking a course on the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. I was interested in seeing how Nietzsche's philosophy was depicted, and how the man was portrayed. I was not disappointed, as I thought the movie was very fair and accurately showed Nietzsche's philosophical mindset.
Nietzsche actually has been called one of history's greatest psychologists because of his insight into "the will to power." This is contrasted with psychoanalysis' and Freud's "pleasure principle." The movie shows a very interesting depiction of the early years of the development of psychoanalysis, when Breuer and Freud first start dealing with the hysteria of Anna O., using catharsis as a healing mechanism for mental illness. Nietzsche's own loneliness and emotional-physical pain demonstrate his human side. Nevertheless, Nietzsche, in spite of his precarious mental health, helps the good Dr. Breuer to realize his own values of living life on this good earth through sharing his own brilliant philosophy. Although usually antagonistic to one another, the protagonists representing philosophy and psychology meet to produce a very profound and poignant friendship in the end.
The movie weaves together different musical themes from that era, such as the scene with Nietzsche's conducting Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries," [1870] and the movie's beginning with Strauss's "Blue Danube." [1866] Since the movie is set sometime in the year 1882, the music is very appropriate.
This movie brings "ideas" to life. Some people might prefer an action or adventure movie, or prefer actors to speak with an English accent, but I think they are missing the point! This movie is not intended to entertain as much as it is intended to teach! The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche gets high marks for showing us that we should be passionate about this life! The one reviewer who remarked that he thought his life had changed in watching this movie is exactly why this movie was made in the first place!
I was impressed with Armand Assante's acting a very difficult role. Ben Cross does a fine job in acting as the 19th century man. The women's characters are not at all that well developed, it is true, and even Lou Salome's character seems rather one-dimensional. Perhaps this could be seen as a metaphor for the state of women at that time. All in all, however, I was edified for having watched a very satisfying portrayal of the ideas and the humanity of one of mankind's greatest geniuses.