This Isn't Usual, It's History!

[SPOILER WARNING]: So spoke the speaker of the house in a key scene in Speilberg's Oscar nominated biopic of Abraham Lincoln.  It's January 1865 and The US House of Representatives is voting on the 13th Amendment to the constitution - to abolish Slavery - and with the voting close, he demands a vote.  A Congressman points out that it isn't usual for the Speaker to vote, although conceding it is allowed.  The speaker defends his right with the words, "this isn't usual, it's history."  When asked how he will vote, he replies, "Yes... of course!"
It's a very powerful narrative of what must be one of the most significant and momentous legislative acts of all time.  Not just the liberation of millions of slaves in the South, but also ensuring the freedom  of many millions more not yet born; as Lincoln says in the film, in a surely Oscar-winning performance by Daniel Day-Lewis.

Although two and a half hours long, and quite dry in places as it discusses almost exclusively the passage of this single Bill, this splendid piece of work is quite easy to sit through and does not seem such an onerous investment of time.  Therein perhaps lies its true achievement: to dramatize an episode of history that while enormous, is really just detailed legislative negotiations and their context without much relief.

The content chosen for this biopic of Lincoln's life, versus perhaps the traditional formula of linear chronological narrative, is a near-perfect, as Kennedy would have said, "Portrait of Courage".  Not only courage but also leadership and strength; and therefore the viewer can learn so much more from these 150 minutes than merely a history lesson from the American Civil War. 

Without wishing to spoil it for those that have not yet seen it, the perfect storm that the movie portrays - the confluence of events from hell, in fact - is the horns of a severe moral dilemma that sees Lincoln forced to chose between Freedom and Peace.  The naturally expedient option of Peace, suddenly tangible with a finally exhausted Confederacy, might see the opportunity to abolish slavery recede, perhaps forever.  Ironic, since this is what the war was supposed to be about.  (Early in the film, asked if abolition was desirable, a citizen replies that of course it was because that would end the war.  However, the same (white) citizen admitted that were the war to end first, abolition would not be desirable at all.)

Moreover, abolition was set to make any peace negotiation - and the implied Confederate surrender - that much harder to secure because re-joining a Federal Union where Slavery had been abolished was considered a threat to the South's very economic existence, and therefore unconscionable.

Furthermore, were knowledge of a peace deal in the offing to go public, the vote on abolition was certain to be delayed as peace for a war-weary nation was a far more urgent priority.  But with a new Congress about to take its seats after the 1864 election, the delicate numbers required to stack up the two-thirds majority required for an amendment to the constitution would be even more challenging a month or more later.  But alongside the great importance and moral obligation of Abolition, Lincoln like everyone desperately yearned for Peace at the earliest possible hour.

So how to achieve peace AND Abolition?  (I won't spoil anymore and urge you to see the film to find out if you haven't already.)

Lincoln's skillful leadership as he guides his nation through this critical moment is breathtaking and truly inspirational.  That the character Daniel Day-Lewis tenderly portrays wears the burden with such grace, humour and patience provides yet more inspiration.  It occurs to me that this movie, like Zero Dark Thirty, was something Barack Obama - abolition's greatest beneficiary to date - might have wished quicker through Hollywood's Machinery in time to assist his re-election campaign.  (He has quite loudly modeled himself on Lincoln, for one announcing his election campaign from the same state legislature their respective careers share. )

Admittedly not directly comparable, Obama's Healthcare effort no doubt took some inspiration from Lincoln's example.  Not quite as pivotal as the end of Slavery, Obamacare nevertheless will be seen - once it is up and running - as a turning point in US social history and it's passing seemed just as impossible.  Many great leaders before him had tried and failed to achieve the same and it's tremendous sapping of Obama's unprecedented political capital after the 2008 election was surely painful.

It is sad though when you think that some 150 years later, Mr Obama is still striving - probably in vain - for those same ideals that Lincoln fought for, and of which Emancipation was only a first step.  True equality under the law is still an aspiration in American - as in any - society.  Universal suffrage remained a struggle for African Americans, as for women, in America for far too long a time, and equality of opportunity remains only a dream.  Globally, the principles of fairness Lincoln espoused are as elusive as ever and he would be dismayed at the survival of municipal corruption and the ubiquity political cowardice in government today.

To see Lincoln as a history lesson is certainly a good reason to see it once; but it is perhaps also - despite its length - worth a second viewing for its lesson in leadership, courage and human character also.  Not the greatest entertainment ever, and perhaps for that reason not a huge Oscar winner; but Speilberg's Lincoln is a quiet masterpiece nevertheless, if only for its poignant and faithful telling of the story in question.

Pondering the Timelessness of the Silver Screen...

It happens only a few times in your life when the really HUGE stars die.  I remember James Stewart going, Robert Mitchum, Audrey Hepburn, Rod Steiger.  I was standing opposite the CNN office on Sunset Boulevard the moment  the news broke on their ticker that Paul Newman had died.  I think Liz Taylor’s death was as important, but in a way less sad perhaps.  The difference is obvious, Paul Newman died in dignity.  Taylor did not.

But does it matter?  I will in coming weeks indulge in my own Liz Taylor wake I imagine.  I can’t do "top ten type" lists of films but Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf and A Place In the Sun are all films I own, rate and treasure – mainly because of her performances. (Respectively, Paul Newman, Richard Burton and Montgomery Cliff do quite well too!)

But the other night I was watching Platoon. I got to thinking about Charlie Sheen’s legacy.  (Let’s not forget the importance of Wall Street).  In recent weeks obviously only the most hermitic would have missed the meltdown in Sheen’s dignity.  I was in the US as it transpired and saw it in the most stark detail, including that bizarre Piers Morgan interview and those macabre U-Stream broadcasts.  Quite startling, but – I thought – the 21st century equivalent of what Taylor went through in the 80s and 90s?

A colleague and I joked about the irony of the inevitable return of Charlie sheen. I said King Leah, he said Macbeth. He said 'funny how we both went to Shakespeare’- but isn’t *that* it – the more they *live* the more they can act?  As long as Charlie Sheen survives, and that’s no certainty, what he has been through could make him a great actor.

Watching Platoon, I thought of his father.  The opening of Apocalypse Now – the 1970s equivalent of Platoon – is the actual meltdown and subsequent heart attack of Charlie’s father, Martin Sheen.  The man recovers and shoots one of the great performances of all time and between them the two Sheen men document the Vietnam War for posterity quite comprehensively.  As I watched his son’s meltdown on prime time TV the other week, coincidentally I was watching his father’s complete performance in The West Wing

Liz Taylor for many years was a joke.  Be it the exhausting and alcoholic multiple-marriages with Richard Burton or the kooky friendship with Michael Jackson, her latter years were far from noble.  But as I write now, I care not.  Those three films I mentioned above are among the finest ever made, and her performances in them are genuinely legendary.  The entrails of her existence are irrelevant in comparison, except that they are symptoms of a personality and character that could create that wonder and art I enjoy so much.

Rest in Peace Liz Taylor, you deserve to.  Do great things again Charlie Sheen, you probably deserve to.

[CAVEAT: Note I am not suggesting the talents of these two people are even in the same league. I am merely drawing comparisons.]

Facing Ali

"You even dream about beating me, you better wake up and apologise!"


Easily one of the greatest, most moving and inspiring movies I've ever seen is "When we were Kings", the almost unbelievable story of the so-called "Rumble in the Jungle".  The story itself is quite astounding, and i say unbelievable because you just can't believe it isn't scripted.  You just can't believe that even if it is based on real life events, it hasn't been given that Hollywood gloss, that lick of unreal veneer that story-telling gives events that both elevates them and cheapens them at the same time.  Well it hasn't, and neither has "Facing Ali".

The story of Ali's entire boxing career is told through the sometimes cloudy recollections of those that fought him, "Facing Ali" is no "when we were Kings".  The latter is a film that is commensurate with Ali's stature. It is to sports documentaries what Ali was to boxing.  It won an Oscar to prove it.  It is the rightful testament to Ali's legacy.  But "Facing Ali" deserves to be an uber-extra to that film, sitting alongside it as a worthy supporting feature in a truly memorable double-bill.  Whether you care about boxing or not, the things these two films say about their times and about humanity in general are relevant to everyone.

The film begins with Sir Henry Cooper, and moves through the various opponents Ali faced - either as Muhammed Ali or as Cassius Clay, his "slave name".  Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Leon Spinks, Larry Holmes and many others you probably don't remember whether you were alive at the time or not.  It not only charts the background of each of their encounters with him, but the times in which they were set and the circumstances that brought each fighter to these moments; moments which for all of them together clearly form among the most profound experiences of their lives.  Naturally, each boxer's chapter features footage of their historic bout, with all the drama and violence that entailed.

As Cooper says right at the outset, there never were any middle class boxers; no one would take a beating like that unless they had to.  For almost all of them, a heavyweight boxing career either proved an alternative to a life of crime, or a distraction from one.  Many did time, many knew those who had done time.  Many learnt to fight either on the streets or in prison; many used boxing as a way to drag themselves out of the gutter.  A gutter society seemingly forced them into.  Many had terrible lives cursed by either drugs, murder, suicide or broken homes - to say nothing of the brutal social inequities suffered by the African American, a community to which almost all of these men belong. 

Each of their stories are moving in their own right, none are without the colour of at times the most miserable misfortune.  But they are set against the backdrop of the awesome story that is Muhammed Ali, a story that still continues today.  Despite the things he might have said of each of them in the poetic sledging that preceded each fight (for instance he said of one opponent, "he too ugly to be the champion of the world. The champ should be pretty like me!".) they all speak of him at the end with tears in their eyes, with deeply sincere words of profound respect and gratitude; so much so that it will in turn bring tears to your eyes. 

What is so great about the man?  It would be impossible to sum up in a few short words, especially by someone who hasn't even met him.  His campaigning for the rights of the African American at a time when those others brave enough to do so were shot down in their prime?  The stand he took against the Vietnam War at a time that meant most of America cursed his name as a traitor?  His very public conversion to Islam at a time when it was almost even more unacceptable to middle America than it is today?  His bravery and courage to many times fight boxers much younger and/or more formidable than himself, and win?  Or is it his struggle against Parkinson's Disease which he continues to wage to this day? 

It's difficult to say what it is that is so enduring about Muhammed Ali, but that he is a living legend seems so universally agreed.  Perhaps it is that very altitude of stardom that he has reached by way of the many great feats he achieved - including three world championships - he serves to restore some hope and faith in what humanity can be.  Moreover, his demise was so sad, and his latter years are so tragic, it reminds us that even the greatest are still mortal.  No one - no matter how majestic - can transcend that mortality.

If you love boxing or completely loathe it,  you won't find a more awe inspiring story than that of Muhammed Ali, and these two films together I feel do that story complete and utter justice.

If you are going to San Francisco...

Some friends asked me to combine my passion for movies and San Francisco to help them prepare properly for a forthcoming once-in-a-lifetime holiday there.  I got carried away and decided to make it a blog post.  So here it is...

Have you noticed how whenever San Francisco is in a movie it almost becomes a character in it.  Like only a few other cities, LA, Paris and New York, the streets of San Francisco always features in movies that are shot there like the director fell for the place and is seeking to do more than just film a story there.  I once heard that Hitchcock specifically wanted to do this with Vertigo but it seems the case across the board.  It is not surprising.  It is the city that most feels like a friend to me.

The absolute best movie to watch about San Francisco, the totally quintessential viewing of this simply super city is of course Bullitt.  This movie does more for the undulating contours of the place than a map in terms of giving you a feel for the landscape of the town.  That car chase is perhaps some of the most excillerating 20 minutes in car chase history.  Every other car chase seeks to build on it or reference it in some way.  Moreover, those 70s sounds can play in your mind as you cruise the streets here. 

(In fact, I knew some people who payed their own tribute to that scene, drunk late at night offering taxi drivers to get up some speed and do the big hills around Russian Hill just as Steve McQueen did; offering double the fare if the driver "got air" and triple to lose a hub cap!)

One movie that seeks to echo that chase more than any other is of course "The Rock" which brings me to the very first MUST DO adventure: Alcatraz.  You can get to know this outstanding landmark and history magical mystery tour in movie alone: The Rock with Sean Connery and Nic Cage, Escape from Alcatraz with Clint Eastwood, or Birdman of Alcatraz with Burt Lancaster.  but the visit itself will stay with you forever, long after the scenes of the movies have faded.  Allow the best part of the day for it, book in advance and give it your best mood or you will regret not making the most of this thrilling yarn. 

Affer your trip to Alcatraz, one great place to have a drink is the bar at the Hyatt Regency.  OK, so there are better places to go for a drink, but when I popped in here recently I suddenly realized it is the setting for several scenes in the Mel Brooks comedy High Anxiety which is shot all over San Fran.  It's classic Brooks slapstick mostly at the expense of Hitchcok thrillers, most of all Vertigo with James Stewart.  Now this film is definitely one to watch before visiting, and inspired a great trip that I made on my first visit: The Californian Legion of Honor art gallery.  It's a very brief scene where Stewart stalks his obsession to a gallery for the afternoon.  But the setting for it is a beautiful building, nestled in a park right on the coast and allowing a short walk to see the Golden Gate bridge, is a must do I think...and also contains a most memorable collection of Rodin sculptures.

There's lots of movies about San Francisco that touch different parts of the town, including Zodiac with Robert Downey Jnr, which spends a lot of time around City Hall.  Towering Inferno - with Steve Mcqueen, Paul Newman and a hat full of others - offers several amazing sky scapes of the financial district and the Bay, especially from the helicopter flight right at the start.  Not only do a host of Hollywood stars feature in this film but numerous buildings including the Hyatt (again), the Bank of America Building and The St Francis Hotel.  

 Also, Guess who's coming to Dinner - with Sidney Poitier, Spencer Tracy and Catherine Hepburn - is set against the backdrop of the Bay at sunset.  One excursion made by the Ms Hepburn and Spencer Tracey in GWCTD takes them to Mel's Drive-in on Lombard.  Coincidentally, the Mission Street restaurant of the same name is the place where American Graffitti is shot.  (Now the latter does not belong in this post because it's not actually meant to be in San Francisco - is just Sometown, USA.  But is of tremendous Movie significance because it saw not only the early directorial development of George Lucas but also a first major acting role for that other great Director - Ron Howard.)

If all of that isn't enough, an imminent trip to San Francisco is a great excuse to watch Dirty Harry with Clint Eastwood again; while Trekkies will know that Star Trek IV is all about San Francisco, with the Golden Gate Bridge starring regularly.  A film called Tales from the City is also all over San Fran, but I've never seen it so can't comment.

I figure that should be plenty to get anyone so well acquainted with this city that arriving for the first time is like meeting an old friend!

UPDATE: I did learn from a recent trip that Bodega Bay where The Birds was shot is only about 90 mins'drive north from San Francisco.  I always thought it was further north than that.

Up in the Air

I usually run a mile from the kind of George Clooney-staring Romantic adventure that this looked suspiciously like but luckily I gave it a few minutes and found that it is in fact a pretty refreshing story. "Up in the Air" is a bit kooky, but in a good way. But there's a fascinating sub-plot I wish I'd understood when I watched it.

The plot is a simple one.  Clooney plays a man deliberately bereft of belongings or relationships who flies about the US - obsessed with loyalty points – firing people for a living.  As you can imagine, in the current environment this keeps him pretty busy.  (Trailer.)

But for once the extras – in both senses of the word – are as important as the main attraction (I guess also in both senses of the word for ladies).  They feature the kind of  short interviews with the director - Jason Reitman, of "Juno" and "Thank you for smoking" - and some of the actors which are usually  meaningless and completely unrevealing.  But in this instance, it focuses on two aspects of the film.  The first and less important is that all the airport scenes were shot not in the studio, but in...the airports!  I didn’t immediately register what the chief challenge of this would be until they explained – there are constant announcements!  So the number of takes they had to do were usually many-multiples.  I should watch it again to see how this improves the scenes or demeans them as the protagonists must have been really quite jaded with the dialogue by the umpteenth time!

However, the yet more interesting thing is that, in order to convey the true pain, humiliation and shock of being fired, instead of attempting to imagine lines himself, the Reitman invited recently fired people from real life to deliver their own recollections on screen.  So what you see – and again I didn’t realise as I watched but did suspect – is real people talking about really getting fired in language they either did or would have liked to have used at the time.  They were taken mainly from the Detroit area which as you probably appreciate with the complete implosion of the US car industry provided a great deal of material.

They describeit as a movie of its time, examining present day dislocation in two ways.  First, the dislocation brought by sudden termination at a time of 10 per cent unemployment and in some case too late in life to easily re-train.  But also the kind of dislocation brought to many people so dedicated to their work that they are constantly up in the air, with no time for real relationships and dependent only on the internet and phone network for any friednly human interaction. 

So... worth a watch, very thought provoking.

Making A True "True Grit" took grit.

I have for a long time maintained the view that great songs and movies should be "listed" like famous or important buildings are.  If you plan to remake or cover them in any way, you should have to submit your plans and ideas to a committee of the establishment for review.  If they don't make the cut, project off.  This process would have stopped cultural attrocities like the remake of The Italian Job, or William Shatner's cover of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". <Calm down and focus>.

But when I heard The Cohen Brothers were re-making True Grit with Jeff Bridges playing Rooster Cogburn - the role made so famous by John Wayne - I was at once nervous and excited.  While I felt sure they would do a fabulous job (almost without exception everything they touch turns to gold - with the possible exception of "Oh Brother, where are thou?") I was worried, it is a pretty bold project to take on.  Afterall, the 1969 True Grit is one of the all time masterpieces of the Western genre.  Furthermore, had it not been such a success in the first place, the story of a 14 year old girl and two strange men many times her age wondering about in the wilderness is a kind of kooky plotline perhaps unsuitable for today's atmosphere of child-vulnerabilty.  

So I almost counted the days until this project arrived at my door; but simaltaneously worried that the greatest movie-making partnership in recent history had over-stretched itself.

Well, it hasn't, they haven't.  In short - and at pains not to ruin it for anyone - they have, I believe, stayed very close to Charles Portis' book.  Mr Bridges is at least as good as John Wayne - which is some achievement, as Wayne made that role very much his.  Matt Damon gives far more deoth to the Texas Ranger character than Glen Campbell ever did and Hailee Steinfeld brings a reality and credulity to the Mattie Ross role that her predecessor just never got close to.

It's beautifully made as you would expect from those that brought you "Fargo" - with extra oversight by Steven Speilberg as Executive Producer.  The soundtrack reminds me of the Ken Burns documentaries on The Civil War and The West, which brings a very evocative mood to the piece.  The atmosphere they create in the opening phase - far more carefully conveyed than the original as well - sets you far deeper into the times of the post-Civil War American West than its 1960s counterpart.  

There are very few plot departures from the first iteration.  Notably, the Texas Ranger, LeBoueff, is absent at two of the key moments in the story where he is ever Wayne-side in the original.  But overal, this film feels like a loving tribute.  It hasn't really improved on, it has reprised with new production techniques; new actors have re-evaluated and re-interpreted the characters some; and the storyline has been revisited - but it's surprising how similar the two films remain.  Amusingly Lucky Ned Pepper is played by namesake Barry Pepper who also brings new style to the role but also echoes the outstanding work of Robert Duvall in '69.

So, this is a great example of how a re-make can add value, not threaten to replace and even regenerate the original.  Well done Mr and Mr Cohen - tremendous grit!

UPDATE (14/2): A good friend of mine tried to leave this as a comment but the technology failed him.  But I felt it was worth including as it goes to a point I meant to make myself, and would have done - far less effectively though - had I not forgotten!

"But what stood out most for me was the language. This might be expected from a coen bros film, but, apparently, was mostly taken from the book.  From Screen Junkies:

"The dialogue, the formality of it and the floweriness of it is just from the book,” Ethan Coen said at a press conference for the film.  Supporting cast member Barry Pepper (as Lucky Ned Pepper), weighed in on the unique language.  “It was more like doing American Shakespeare,” Pepper said. “There’s almost like an iambic pentameter. There’s a musicality and a rhythm to the dialogue. It’s about trying to hit certain notes, maybe an irreverent falloff at the end of a line. It’s such a gift to be able to give some sort of lateral idea to an actor like, ‘Oh, I didn’t hear the musicality of the line like that.’ Just the scene blossoms, completely changes and becomes darkly humorous or odd or quirky or wonderful, bizarre.

The language in the book is based on Portis’s research of the period, so it’s probably more accurate than the westerns we usually see at the movies. Pepper had another theory: “It’s so authentic in my mind because most people were probably pretty illiterate back then”. “They were maybe schooled on the King James bible and that really infused the way they spoke. I think a lot of westerns missed that.” Ethan Coen agreed. “I’m sure Barry’s right,” he said. “You feel even more strongly reading the novel, the frame of reference for her character (as the narrator) is the King James bible."

Leaves of Grass

"The balance needed for a happy life is illusory "

So occasionally you see a film blind, with absolutely no information, opinion or judgement.  It is rare, because almost always someone has led you to believe it is good or bad.  Or you've read a review, or seen it on television, or heard it on the radion.  You've usually formed a perception of a film.  Well, I managed to watch this having never heard of it and having only the blurb on the jacket to go by. I loved it.  You rarely get such a surprise in life as this when it comes to movies.

"Leaves of Grass" stars someone I think is quickly become the new John hurt.  John Hurt is such a good choice of script, you know that if he decided to do it, it's going to be good.  Ed Norton is the same.  Everything he is in is remarkable -  Kingdom of Heaven The Illusionist, American History X, Fight Club and 25th Hour - and this is no exception. I knew I was going to enjoy it from the opening scene (kookily with Danny De Vito's daughter!). 

Well leaves of grass is another one of those for me.  A quite marvelous movie that could have been written and directed by my favorite movie makers - the Cohen Brothers.  But wasn't.  Was actually written and directed by Tim Blake Nelson, one of the co-stars. It's about philosophy, crime, drugs, happiness, romance and it's all set amusingly in Oklahoma. 

I fell for Kerri Russell's character almost as fast as Mr Norton's did, and the cameos from Susan Sarandon and Richard Dreyfuss - two of my favourite actors - are fabulous. 

To get a movie to hit all the buttons is rare, but this one does it.  It's funny, but has danger.  It is romantic, but is dark in places.  It is thought provoking, and makes you consider - as the jacket says: "what does it truly mean to be happy?". But most of ll it has really enjoyable characters that you wish you could meet and visit.  Watch this film, and watch it soon! 

"when death is, we are not; when we are, death is not. It is therefore irrational to fear death."

Invictus

"I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul. "

Invictus, by William Ernest Henley 

I was always a bit confused by "Invictus".  If anyone would make a movie about South African sport, you'd feel sure it would be about their far more impressive World Cup win in France in 2007, with a much more racially mixed side, and away from home.  Or of course the football world cup last year,  much more inclusive sport and a far bigger stage. 

I was confused because the springbok side of 1995 was almost entirely all white, except for Chester Williams, which seemed to me to represent everything about the past rather than the future.

In fact there's a scene of something I actually remember watching back in 1995, before the Springboks play France in the pouring rain; a group of black women with brooms are sent out to sweep the pitch of water, seemed to demonstrate how little had changed.  Which struck me as ironic when I perceived the whole competition to be a showcase for the "new" South Africa.

(I must say I was also very surprised to see Clint Eastwood - or any Amercian for that matter - make a movie about Rugby Union!)  So it took me a long time to get around to seeing this movie, but I'm very glad I did.

I hadn't realised the film is about the moment Mandela went out the day of the Final in the "Bokke" shirt, the very shirt that would have been proudly worn by his oppressors.  This is what united the nation.  It demonstrated and symbolised how he was able to show forgiveness, and that at once brought black South Africa behind the team they had always cheered against; and brought white South Africa behind their new - until only recently unthinkable - black President.

There are a couple of scenes that really make the movie.  When the Sprinboks are asked by Mandela to train in a series of black townships, and because of Chester - the one black player - bring the children behind them who otherwise would be playing Soccer and failing to relate to the game that was always seen as "white".  Its very moving to see the players teaching them how to play.

There is also the mechanism where the white secret police are assigned to the President's black security detail, and the developing warmth - from frosty mutual-hostility - that develops between them through the support of the national rugby team.  But the small black boy who attempts to eavesdrop on the world cup final over the white policemen's radio - at first  shunned but gradually accepted and by the end embraced enthusiastically. 

It is actually a cracking yarn.

Irony is, the victory is at the expense of New Zealand, which I understand to be the country where, in 1981, a Springbok tour ran into severe anti- aparteid grief, driving home hard the message that the racist state had become a pariah state.   

What the film doesn't discuss however is the fact that most of the world believes that the South Africans either poisoned the Kiwis, or kept them up all night by driving hooting cars around their hotel all night...or both!  

K-19: The widowmaker

Great movie, great cast (Harrison Ford and Liam Neesen) and a great yarn; as anything that *actually* happened often is.  Not because the plot is so much thicker or more tense, but because your suspension of disbelief is absolute and your imagination runs riot - "what was it *actually* like?" as opposed to oh that wouldnt happen!

About the first soviet nuclear sub sent to perform a missile test to let president Kennedy know that mutually assured destruction was a reality.  Just a year before Cuba. 

Operating on a shoe string though, the under-ready, under- resourced, under equipped sub runs into problems and it all goes very pear shaped indeed.  Lets face it: nuclear reactor + nuclear weapons + sub-marine + cold war = great potential for very, very pear shaped indeed.

(Kookily, I am guessing but, the film would have been made, or at least scoped, during the sinking of the K-141 Kursk in August 2000.)

It opens with these chilling facts that even for me today seem staggering.  Yet I grew up in this stark political and military scenario.  'The soviets had enough missiles to destroy the world two times over,' said the opening copy, 'the Americans ten times over. Yet they kept making them.  War was inevitable.  It was just a question of when and who first.'  That was 1961.

By 1983 - by which time Reagan was in the White House talking about the evil empire - I was only just beginning to gain political consciousness and understanding the reality of impending death any minute now, I imagine both nations could destroy the world hundreds of times over.  My father - then in the RAF - was involved in exercises in Scandanavia where opposing sides would fly million dollar jets up and down the border teasing each other, provoking each other, tempting each other.

So many people wanted war.  It is so lucky it was avoided.  (Gives us hope !)  But how much money was wasted?  And were either really wrong?  Both were flawed; both views had virtues.  There's a scene where the party Commisar lectured the crew of the sub with images of American life in the early 1960s, the cars, the appliances etc. Then the civil rights riots and the poverty.  America is still like that.  Free for the middle class, the successful, the affluent.  Not so free for the disadvantaged, the African Americans, the poor, etc. 

Meanwhile at least communism was in theory aligned to protect the poor, to ensure wealth was distributed more equally, to cater for the society instead of the individual.  I am sure were it not forced to invest so much money in protecting itself from an aggressive capitalist alliance, it might have achieved more - for humanty's benefit.  However, I am not that naive of course:  'more equal for some than for others' as in Animal Farm?

And in those 45 years, how much money was wasted in the arms race.  Where would the world be today if both sides had just focussed on their own social inequities instead of trying to reduce the other side to its knees.  Perhaps the problems of each side would have been solved if only the two sides could have pursued a live-and-let-live policy.

I know. Silly.

Interestingly - and without going into detail - faced with the choice, the crew of the K-19 chose saving the world over saving their country.  If only we were all more inclusive.

The Shape of Things to Come?

The other night I watched an old film I hadn't seen since I was a kid.  Then it seemed a bizarre, far fetched, even nightmarish sci-fi flick.  The other night it seemed a far more frightening picture of a world more than possible in the coming years.  Likely even.


Soylent Green came out in 1973, set in 2022. The opening credits (watch it here) chart mankind's decent into oblivion from the late 19th century to the modern distopia they predict.  It seemed so poignant and relevant, I wondered if anyone had considered a remake.  Not surprisingly, apparently IMDB do have a remake scheduled for 2012 and I'm really not surprised because it's incredibly prophetic and pertinent to today's crisis.  The film stars Charlton Heston, not five years after Planet of the Apes which (for the time) evokes a much more common apocalyptic future: a nuclear one.  The concept of global warming and over population were less the clear and present dangers they are today, with the focus much more on the nuclear threat.  However, the reality of scarcity did hit home only a few months after the film was released in May 1973: the oil crisis. So the bubble of limitless and copious luxury dreamed up in the 1950s and 60s had only just begun to look vulnerable for most people.  That the planet would become over-crowded, over-exploited and over-heated was only a worry for a few scientists until then.

So its 2022.  The climate is out of control and new York is home to 40 million people, 20 million of them are unemployed.  Heston - a policeman - has to climb over untold sleeping hoards in his stairwell to get to his tiny 1 room flat.  Amid a global food shortage, people are rationed synthetic food supposedly manufactured from oceanic plankton by a company called Soylent.  The latest miracle food is Soylent Green.  (I'll leave the plot there so not to spoil it for anyone who's not seen it.  The 2012 version will pick up where this leaves off.)

There is a scene (you can watch it here) where Sol (played by Edward G Robinson in his last movie - he dies 12 days after shooting ends) and Thorn (Charlton Heston) take enormous delight in eating a feast of beef and salad with bourbon to wash it down.  The much older Sol says he hasn't eaten like that in years; Thorn says he's never eaten like that.  (We still do eat like that but for how much longer?) In another scene (you can watch it here) in a  voluntary euthanasia clinic plays beautiful images to Beethovens 6th of a natural world we recognize and Sol can remember fondly but Thorn says he cannot even imagine.  At one point, the female lead (who's requirement to prostitute herself to tenants of a luxury flat earns her the nickname "furniture") fantasises about going to the country, which is of course forbidden so the precious farming land can be protected.   

It's a dark movie (and not all that good to be honest) but its so much darker today when the bleak picture it paints seems almost inevitable than nearly 40 years ago when it was merely another imaginative science fiction romp. The shape of things to come, maybe.

Or is it?

Interestingly, the only real reference to technology is right at the beginning when the aforementioned "furniture" is bought a computer game as a present.  It's a very large Asteroids video game.  This suddenly reminded me of the incredible advances that have been achieved in only the last 12 years and I very quickly became quite hopeful about what can done in the next 12, (although it must be said the last 12 years have also seen absolutely no movement in combatting climate change).

Another sci-fi flick I watch recently was Moon, and although it mainly focusses on a very dark message about cloning, the plot does include a unique solution to Earth's energy shortage - Helium 3 which is farmed on the Moon.  So maybe it won't all be so bad and humanity can save itself as it always has done before.  After all, the Mutually Assured Destruction the Planet of the Apes foretold seems a thing of the past now, doesn't it? 

Well it gave me hope anyway!