A new year is nigh, and hope competes with trepidation at what lies in store. The election year has already encroached on our holiday season and is set to pounce the moment we recover from New Year's Day and acknowledge 2008. It's an exciting contest that promises to address the abject failure of the current administration, but right now I don't really care who wins as long as we get a Democrat in the White House. It's also important to make gains in Congress so that something positive can finally be accomplished.
This year I hope to finish work on my new book of short stories and get it ready for publication. At least I should be able to make major progress towards that goal. I'd also like to improve my website, and sell the one book I do have out. Another resolution I have is to take things slower, a la the slow food movement. Our lives today have become so hectic that it's hard to have time to really enjoy the benefits that all our technology is supposed to afford.
I'm going to continue to read lots of books, see many movies and worthwhile television programs, and attempt to maintain a semblance of balance between them. I'm also going to try to listen to more music this year, as I've been neglecting it in favor of the aforementioned. Eating more vegetables and getting more sleep would also be nice. I'm looking at this as just another year, but one that could be monumental if more people start believing in a bright common future that includes all of us.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Friday, November 30, 2007
Eerie Relevance
I recently saw Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb again for the first time in many years, and though it was even funnier than I remembered, it was also scarier. The situation it lampoons is more likely to occur now than it was at the time (1963). In the movie it's a crazy general that precipitates the ultimate destruction; but now, in the real world, we have the president and vice president of the United States apparently looking to initiate World War III, in the guise of trying to prevent it. I think we'd be better off with Peter Sellers' version of the leader of the free world. As it is, Vice President Dick Cheney has always reminded me more of Dr. Strangelove himself (also played by Sellers); the misguided mastermind of the doomsday scenario. President Bush appears bent on creating a lasting legacy no matter the cost, and is perhaps best represented by Slim Pickens' gung ho character with the cowboy hat.
At the beginning of the movie there is a disclaimer by the United States Army that the events depicted are not possible due to safeguards that are in place. Unfortunately, our own government is not immune from creating the conditions under which MAD (mutually assured destruction) was so feared during the Cold War. All of the hysterics aimed at Iran (for instance) are just inciting the very events they pretend to address. If we are really so concerned about whether Iran is building nuclear power plants, then we should be offering them alternative energy options instead, like solar, wind and geothermal. So far no one in our government has even suggested this, even as a bluff. Until we are willing to provide a sane example, we will be failing to lead the international community as we so seem to desire.
Stanley Kubrick was famous for maintaining complete artistic control over every aspect of his films, and his entire catalog is worth seeing just to study the unique perspective on the human condition he was so adept at portraying. In this new century, it's sad that Dr. Strangelove, though it may be Kubrick's most accessible film, should be more relevant than 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film that tried to provide a glimpse of the future. It is, however, a tribute to his genius that he was so far (40+ years) ahead of his time in terms of both technique and creative vision. I can't recommend this film highly enough, and hope that we will all have many more years on this planet in which to view it.
At the beginning of the movie there is a disclaimer by the United States Army that the events depicted are not possible due to safeguards that are in place. Unfortunately, our own government is not immune from creating the conditions under which MAD (mutually assured destruction) was so feared during the Cold War. All of the hysterics aimed at Iran (for instance) are just inciting the very events they pretend to address. If we are really so concerned about whether Iran is building nuclear power plants, then we should be offering them alternative energy options instead, like solar, wind and geothermal. So far no one in our government has even suggested this, even as a bluff. Until we are willing to provide a sane example, we will be failing to lead the international community as we so seem to desire.
Stanley Kubrick was famous for maintaining complete artistic control over every aspect of his films, and his entire catalog is worth seeing just to study the unique perspective on the human condition he was so adept at portraying. In this new century, it's sad that Dr. Strangelove, though it may be Kubrick's most accessible film, should be more relevant than 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film that tried to provide a glimpse of the future. It is, however, a tribute to his genius that he was so far (40+ years) ahead of his time in terms of both technique and creative vision. I can't recommend this film highly enough, and hope that we will all have many more years on this planet in which to view it.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Modicum of Justice
The court case I was on for five weeks as a juror is finally over. I'm allowed to talk about it, but the case is still so sensitive to the parties involved that I will refrain from giving a lot of details. Rather, I'll just highlight some of the key events.
At the beginning there were five defendants and four lawyers, not counting the plaintiff and his lawyer; but after a couple days two of the parties settled out of court, leaving three defendants with two lawyers (one of the lawyers represented two individuals). I immediately recognized the case as one I had read about in the newspaper, and thought this would disqualify me from serving. However, since it was straight reportage instead of an editorial, I was allowed to remain.
It was a construction defect case that pitted the developer's contractor versus the subcontractors (framers and siders). It involved high-end townhomes way up in the hills that had been plagued with water intrusion problems (both flooding and mildew). We were able to take a field trip to the scene on a chartered tour bus, and that was perhaps the most fun of the entire trial. It rained that morning for the first time in weeks though (figures), and just one walk on the grass around one of the buildings caused me to get soaked all the way through my socks.
The whole area was a water magnet, and it doesn't surprise me that there were moisture issues on the property. However, there were adjacent lots (one of which was originally part of the same project) that, at least outwardly, didn't seem to share the same hazards. One problem was that the buildings in question were built on a slope with the worst damage towards the bottom. After this excursion, we had lunch, and still had a full afternoon of testimony to listen to.
On one of the subsequent mornings an expert for the plaintiff answered questions on the stand, and then after a break, was dressed down to his construction clothes. He proceeded to install a window into a frame right there in the courtroom! First he installed it the way it was done on the site and then he built another display showing how he believed it should be done. He got back on the witness stand and answered more questions, including a blistering cross-examination that made him out to be an idiot, though earlier he had appeared completely credible.
Similar situations occurred with the defense witnesses, where the plaintiff's lawyer would annihilate seemingly reasonable testimony. It was left to us to decide who to believe and, in my opinion, it's one of the flaws of the system that no independent experts testified, only those chosen by the lawyers representing their clients. There were several long afternoons of PowerPoint demonstrations conducted by both sides, involving photographs of the alleged damage. More displays were produced and 4 binders were filled with the salient points (mostly contracts and photographs), eventually reaching an astronomical 378 exhibits.
There were some amusing moments, such as when the plaintiff's lawyer was unable to locate a photograph among the 200 or so in evidence. One of the opposing lawyers was grinning (as were we), but he was in the same position a little later when he futilely searched for a document among the mountains of papers in front of him. Also, the plaintiff's lawyer objected one morning to one of the defense assistants cross-examining a witness, because she happened to be wearing nearly the exact same outfit as her; they made quite a pair sitting next to each other at the lawyers' table (objection overruled). And, during one of the slide shows, a laptop cord accidentally knocked over a cup of water and the lawyers were sent scrambling for paper towels. "Water intrusion!" one of them exclaimed.
I made 77 pages of notes, completely filling a provided notebook, while some fellow jurors had 2 or 3 notebooks full (these were helpful during deliberations). There were many interruptions (several a day) where one of the lawyers would insist on approaching the bench, and occasionally they had to retire to the judge's chambers. I tried to keep track of how many times each event occurred, but lost count after awhile. We were getting quite used to all of this when the defense unexpectedly rested one day after a break, when a particular photograph wasn't allowed into evidence because of insufficient documentation.
The closing arguments were quite dramatic, with one the defense lawyers actually throwing things around (bolts and small window frames) to illustrate the waste that would ensue if all the work had to be redone at the site. It took us a day and a half to reach our verdict, and we believe an equitable solution was reached, though nobody got everything they wanted. I feel sorry for the homeowners who still have to muddle through 18 months of reconstruction.
I learned a lot and know more about the construction business than I ever thought I wanted to, not to mention the remarkable opportunity to study the courts first hand. It's an experience I wouldn't trade for anything in the world, though I hope to never have to repeat it. I'm sure everyone involved in the case would agree.
At the beginning there were five defendants and four lawyers, not counting the plaintiff and his lawyer; but after a couple days two of the parties settled out of court, leaving three defendants with two lawyers (one of the lawyers represented two individuals). I immediately recognized the case as one I had read about in the newspaper, and thought this would disqualify me from serving. However, since it was straight reportage instead of an editorial, I was allowed to remain.
It was a construction defect case that pitted the developer's contractor versus the subcontractors (framers and siders). It involved high-end townhomes way up in the hills that had been plagued with water intrusion problems (both flooding and mildew). We were able to take a field trip to the scene on a chartered tour bus, and that was perhaps the most fun of the entire trial. It rained that morning for the first time in weeks though (figures), and just one walk on the grass around one of the buildings caused me to get soaked all the way through my socks.
The whole area was a water magnet, and it doesn't surprise me that there were moisture issues on the property. However, there were adjacent lots (one of which was originally part of the same project) that, at least outwardly, didn't seem to share the same hazards. One problem was that the buildings in question were built on a slope with the worst damage towards the bottom. After this excursion, we had lunch, and still had a full afternoon of testimony to listen to.
On one of the subsequent mornings an expert for the plaintiff answered questions on the stand, and then after a break, was dressed down to his construction clothes. He proceeded to install a window into a frame right there in the courtroom! First he installed it the way it was done on the site and then he built another display showing how he believed it should be done. He got back on the witness stand and answered more questions, including a blistering cross-examination that made him out to be an idiot, though earlier he had appeared completely credible.
Similar situations occurred with the defense witnesses, where the plaintiff's lawyer would annihilate seemingly reasonable testimony. It was left to us to decide who to believe and, in my opinion, it's one of the flaws of the system that no independent experts testified, only those chosen by the lawyers representing their clients. There were several long afternoons of PowerPoint demonstrations conducted by both sides, involving photographs of the alleged damage. More displays were produced and 4 binders were filled with the salient points (mostly contracts and photographs), eventually reaching an astronomical 378 exhibits.
There were some amusing moments, such as when the plaintiff's lawyer was unable to locate a photograph among the 200 or so in evidence. One of the opposing lawyers was grinning (as were we), but he was in the same position a little later when he futilely searched for a document among the mountains of papers in front of him. Also, the plaintiff's lawyer objected one morning to one of the defense assistants cross-examining a witness, because she happened to be wearing nearly the exact same outfit as her; they made quite a pair sitting next to each other at the lawyers' table (objection overruled). And, during one of the slide shows, a laptop cord accidentally knocked over a cup of water and the lawyers were sent scrambling for paper towels. "Water intrusion!" one of them exclaimed.
I made 77 pages of notes, completely filling a provided notebook, while some fellow jurors had 2 or 3 notebooks full (these were helpful during deliberations). There were many interruptions (several a day) where one of the lawyers would insist on approaching the bench, and occasionally they had to retire to the judge's chambers. I tried to keep track of how many times each event occurred, but lost count after awhile. We were getting quite used to all of this when the defense unexpectedly rested one day after a break, when a particular photograph wasn't allowed into evidence because of insufficient documentation.
The closing arguments were quite dramatic, with one the defense lawyers actually throwing things around (bolts and small window frames) to illustrate the waste that would ensue if all the work had to be redone at the site. It took us a day and a half to reach our verdict, and we believe an equitable solution was reached, though nobody got everything they wanted. I feel sorry for the homeowners who still have to muddle through 18 months of reconstruction.
I learned a lot and know more about the construction business than I ever thought I wanted to, not to mention the remarkable opportunity to study the courts first hand. It's an experience I wouldn't trade for anything in the world, though I hope to never have to repeat it. I'm sure everyone involved in the case would agree.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Sequestered Days
It's been an interesting month of jury duty as I become used to having the courthouse as my more-than-symbolic second job. I've felt disconnected from the outside world, and the news seems distant and ineffectual. In a way, it's just like before only now I'm completely focused on surviving the ordeal of facing the courtroom nearly every weekday. The case is tedious yet fascinating as it lurches towards its inevitable, though unknown, conclusion.
Once it's over, I will be afforded a fresh perspective on life and its multifaceted levels, but for now I'm yearning for a return to normalcy. I'm trying to take the disruption in stride and apply it to mounting experience, and feel certain it will be worthwhile in the long run. There have been several almost fun events, like a field trip on a chartered bus and witnessing the construction right before our eyes of display models that illustrate the points the attorneys are trying to make.
I have a front row seat and it's better than reality TV (of course, almost anything is). I appreciate courtroom dramas in movies and television more now, with Perry Mason at the top of my list. It's amazing how many trial scenes pop up when I least expect it. For instance, I just saw the famous (though I hadn't heard of it) court scene in a BBC production of Charles Dickens' The Pickwick Papers. It's either very cosmic that I'm seeing this right now, or I'm just noticing these things more.
I'm learning all I can from the real-life proceedings, with the hope that perhaps my future will benefit from exposure to this other world. The courthouse is a microcosm of every layer of society from the common criminal to the most upstanding citizen. From poor to wealthy, we're all scrunched in here together like animals in a cage. Well, maybe not quite that bad. At least if we stay on the right side of the law, we get to leave at the end of the day with our lives intact.
Once it's over, I will be afforded a fresh perspective on life and its multifaceted levels, but for now I'm yearning for a return to normalcy. I'm trying to take the disruption in stride and apply it to mounting experience, and feel certain it will be worthwhile in the long run. There have been several almost fun events, like a field trip on a chartered bus and witnessing the construction right before our eyes of display models that illustrate the points the attorneys are trying to make.
I have a front row seat and it's better than reality TV (of course, almost anything is). I appreciate courtroom dramas in movies and television more now, with Perry Mason at the top of my list. It's amazing how many trial scenes pop up when I least expect it. For instance, I just saw the famous (though I hadn't heard of it) court scene in a BBC production of Charles Dickens' The Pickwick Papers. It's either very cosmic that I'm seeing this right now, or I'm just noticing these things more.
I'm learning all I can from the real-life proceedings, with the hope that perhaps my future will benefit from exposure to this other world. The courthouse is a microcosm of every layer of society from the common criminal to the most upstanding citizen. From poor to wealthy, we're all scrunched in here together like animals in a cage. Well, maybe not quite that bad. At least if we stay on the right side of the law, we get to leave at the end of the day with our lives intact.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Vacation Summons
I was midway through a week's vacation when I received another jury summons. It's the fourth time I've been called, and I wasn't particularly thrilled with the prospect; especially since they wanted me for four weeks or more this time. That's a big commitment to expect of someone, no matter how interested they might be. It can be a stunning disruption of our already complicated lives (not to mention work schedules). The people that don't want to hear my whining are usually those who have never done it before and would like an opportunity to serve. I'm all for giving them a chance.
Once a person's first jury duty is complete, they should be able to sign a waiver signalling whether they would like to do it again, along with the option of changing their mind later. That way others could be brought into the pool and those that wanted to could stay on the list if they felt so inclined. Maybe there could be a requirement that actually serving on a jury, instead of merely getting dismissed, would constitute fulfillment of your obligation.
It is true, however, that even though I never want to go through the process at first, I invariably find it fascinating once it gets going. The experience can be invaluable, and I do believe that having a jury of your peers is a superior way to argue a case. If you are a defendant, this ensures that you have the likelihood of a fair trial. I've been on cases where I wasn't so sure about the wisdom of this (humans can often be biased no matter how hard they try not to be), but overall I think the random juror system surpasses all alternatives.
There is a bit of a dilemma when it comes to long cases that burden all parties involved, but the only remedy is acceptance and perseverance. I have to admit that although I would probably readily sign a paper excusing me from all subsequent jury duty, by doing so I might be depriving myself of future opportunities to witness sometimes incredible courtroom dramas first-hand. A deeper understanding of the inner workings of the court can be obtained this way that can't be achieved otherwise. In light of this I plan to embrace the situation, and attempt to find justice, elusive as it may be.
Once a person's first jury duty is complete, they should be able to sign a waiver signalling whether they would like to do it again, along with the option of changing their mind later. That way others could be brought into the pool and those that wanted to could stay on the list if they felt so inclined. Maybe there could be a requirement that actually serving on a jury, instead of merely getting dismissed, would constitute fulfillment of your obligation.
It is true, however, that even though I never want to go through the process at first, I invariably find it fascinating once it gets going. The experience can be invaluable, and I do believe that having a jury of your peers is a superior way to argue a case. If you are a defendant, this ensures that you have the likelihood of a fair trial. I've been on cases where I wasn't so sure about the wisdom of this (humans can often be biased no matter how hard they try not to be), but overall I think the random juror system surpasses all alternatives.
There is a bit of a dilemma when it comes to long cases that burden all parties involved, but the only remedy is acceptance and perseverance. I have to admit that although I would probably readily sign a paper excusing me from all subsequent jury duty, by doing so I might be depriving myself of future opportunities to witness sometimes incredible courtroom dramas first-hand. A deeper understanding of the inner workings of the court can be obtained this way that can't be achieved otherwise. In light of this I plan to embrace the situation, and attempt to find justice, elusive as it may be.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Garbo Lives
My favorite actress is Greta Garbo and I've recently viewed all of her available films on DVD. She began her career in her native Sweden, with The Saga of Gosta Berling (1924) being her first major role. It marked both the culmination and the end of the Swedish golden age of cinema. The director, Mauritz Stiller, and Garbo were wooed by Hollywood and were enticed to come to America in 1926. Stiller's career stalled because his exacting techniques were ill-suited to American sensibilities, while Garbo's took off and she became one of Hollywood's greatest stars.
Torrent, currently unreleased, is her first American film and it established her as someone to watch. Stiller didn't direct, but still had a hand in production. Her second, The Temptress (1926), is the earliest of her MGM films to be enshrined on DVD. Originally Stiller directed, at Garbo's insistence, but he was soon replaced after creative clashes with the studio, and the film was finished by Fred Niblo. It's a wild ride, done with exceptional taste, and is a stunning example of Garbo's luminous ability to convey the deepest emotion with just a glance or gesture. She could do it with her eyes, without even moving.
Flesh and the Devil (1926) was next and it was the first to pair her with John Gilbert, an actor she was also romantically involved with offscreen. Their romance was so well publicised that it was eventually doomed by its own inevitability. The film itself was a huge hit at the time and solidified both their careers. Next was Love (also with Gilbert), a silent version of Anna Karenina that is currently unavailable. The Divine Woman (1928) followed, and only nine minutes survive, but they are worth seeing. The Mysterious Woman (1928) was her first undercover spy movie; it's a tour-de-force. The rest of her silent films, A Woman of Affairs, Wild Orchids, The Single Standard, and The Kiss are all presently out of print.
Her first talkie, Anna Christie (1930), was much anticipated and is notable for the world getting to hear her speak onscreen for the first time. Garbo Talks! was the cry. The studio was a bit nervous about how audiences would react to her thick accent; but instead she was astounding, and blew away the naysayers. In fact, she turned out to be one of the few to make a successful transition to sound. "Gimme a visky and don't be stingy, baby" was her first line. A German version was shot at the same time and released a year later. Romance, Inspiration, and Susan Lennox (Her Fall and Rise) are currently unavailable.
Mata Hari (1931) was the first to fully capture the mystique of Garbo, and her persona catapults the film. Also, the costumes were elaborate and set the tone for the rest of her career. Grand Hotel (1932) is one of her most renowned films and exemplifies her image as the inexplicable recluse. She is sublime as the moody Russian ballerina, Grusinskaya, who doesn't appear for the first 20 minutes of the film; typical for Garbo, as her entrance, or the camera finding her, are used for the utmost dramatic affect. "I want to be alone" is her most famous line, and perhaps unfairly contributed to the public's image of her after her retirement. It's an excellent film that holds up well today, with an all-star cast including John Barrymore, Lionel Barrymore, and Joan Crawford in a star-making role.
As You Desire Me is unavailable, but her next film, Queen Christina (1933), is among her very best. She is reunited with John Gilbert (at her insistence), in his last performance; he was one of the actors that had a hard time adjusting to the sound era. It's a wonderful pairing, and the resultant film is one of the classic historical dramas of all time. The Painted Veil is out of print, but her second attempt at Anna Karenina (1935), this time as a talkie, followed and is a spectacular rendition of the story. To my mind she is Anna Karenina. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast was unable to rise to her level, a common malady.
Camille (1936) is one of her finest roles, and the film represents the peak of her career. Based on the novel by Alexander Dumas, everything clicked in this exquisite romance for the ages. Conquest followed and is unavailable. Ninotchka (1939), however, is her last hurrah. Garbo Laughs! was the tag, and it's true. The outfits weren't as dazzling this time, as it's a more modern story than usual for her; and for once she plays against type, as a non-tragic figure. It was her first comedy and it works on many levels, and stands as her last great film. Ernst Lubitsch directed, and he wanted to do another with her in the same vein, but the studio had other ideas. They wanted to push their luck even further by having her play a character completely unlike anything she had done before.
Two-Faced Woman was roundly panned by the critics and was released two weeks before Pearl Harbor. Over the last half decade, she had become more of a draw in Europe than America, especially with her series of costume dramas, but the European audience was shrinking due to the encroaching war. When the U.S. entered World War 2, she went to Louis B. Mayer's office at MGM and asked to be let out of her contract, offering to return after the war. Alas, it was never to be. At least she was able to recognize what her strengths were, and avoided the sad decline that shadowed many actors of her time.
Garbo epitomized the grandeur of Hollywood's golden age, harkening to a mythical utopia that was becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. It was 1941, and she retired at age 36 after approximately 25 films. She lived another 48 years, not in seclusion as is commonly believed, but living a quiet life, gardening, shopping, and visiting with friends. Often there would be Garbo sightings on the streets of Manhattan, but her avoidance of photographers became legendary. Sadly, she had a reputation for being reclusive only because she wanted to be out of the spotlight.
Greta Garbo remains one the greatest actresses of her era or any other. She dominated every film she was in, and this was both natural, and perhaps a drawback to her desire to make a great film in and of itself. Some of what she attained was artistry for its own sake, transforming even simple melodrama into timelessness. All of her films deserve to be preserved for her presence alone, and a handful represent a pinnacle of achievement in filmmaking. She is more than an icon, and her legacy will live forever as each succeeding generation discovers her inimitable charm and mysterious, unfathomable beauty.
Links:
http://imdb.com/name/nm0001256/
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~lenin/garbo.html
http://www.classicmovies.org/articles/aa091700a.htm
http://home.hiwaay.net/~oliver/garbo.html
Torrent, currently unreleased, is her first American film and it established her as someone to watch. Stiller didn't direct, but still had a hand in production. Her second, The Temptress (1926), is the earliest of her MGM films to be enshrined on DVD. Originally Stiller directed, at Garbo's insistence, but he was soon replaced after creative clashes with the studio, and the film was finished by Fred Niblo. It's a wild ride, done with exceptional taste, and is a stunning example of Garbo's luminous ability to convey the deepest emotion with just a glance or gesture. She could do it with her eyes, without even moving.
Flesh and the Devil (1926) was next and it was the first to pair her with John Gilbert, an actor she was also romantically involved with offscreen. Their romance was so well publicised that it was eventually doomed by its own inevitability. The film itself was a huge hit at the time and solidified both their careers. Next was Love (also with Gilbert), a silent version of Anna Karenina that is currently unavailable. The Divine Woman (1928) followed, and only nine minutes survive, but they are worth seeing. The Mysterious Woman (1928) was her first undercover spy movie; it's a tour-de-force. The rest of her silent films, A Woman of Affairs, Wild Orchids, The Single Standard, and The Kiss are all presently out of print.
Her first talkie, Anna Christie (1930), was much anticipated and is notable for the world getting to hear her speak onscreen for the first time. Garbo Talks! was the cry. The studio was a bit nervous about how audiences would react to her thick accent; but instead she was astounding, and blew away the naysayers. In fact, she turned out to be one of the few to make a successful transition to sound. "Gimme a visky and don't be stingy, baby" was her first line. A German version was shot at the same time and released a year later. Romance, Inspiration, and Susan Lennox (Her Fall and Rise) are currently unavailable.
Mata Hari (1931) was the first to fully capture the mystique of Garbo, and her persona catapults the film. Also, the costumes were elaborate and set the tone for the rest of her career. Grand Hotel (1932) is one of her most renowned films and exemplifies her image as the inexplicable recluse. She is sublime as the moody Russian ballerina, Grusinskaya, who doesn't appear for the first 20 minutes of the film; typical for Garbo, as her entrance, or the camera finding her, are used for the utmost dramatic affect. "I want to be alone" is her most famous line, and perhaps unfairly contributed to the public's image of her after her retirement. It's an excellent film that holds up well today, with an all-star cast including John Barrymore, Lionel Barrymore, and Joan Crawford in a star-making role.
As You Desire Me is unavailable, but her next film, Queen Christina (1933), is among her very best. She is reunited with John Gilbert (at her insistence), in his last performance; he was one of the actors that had a hard time adjusting to the sound era. It's a wonderful pairing, and the resultant film is one of the classic historical dramas of all time. The Painted Veil is out of print, but her second attempt at Anna Karenina (1935), this time as a talkie, followed and is a spectacular rendition of the story. To my mind she is Anna Karenina. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast was unable to rise to her level, a common malady.
Camille (1936) is one of her finest roles, and the film represents the peak of her career. Based on the novel by Alexander Dumas, everything clicked in this exquisite romance for the ages. Conquest followed and is unavailable. Ninotchka (1939), however, is her last hurrah. Garbo Laughs! was the tag, and it's true. The outfits weren't as dazzling this time, as it's a more modern story than usual for her; and for once she plays against type, as a non-tragic figure. It was her first comedy and it works on many levels, and stands as her last great film. Ernst Lubitsch directed, and he wanted to do another with her in the same vein, but the studio had other ideas. They wanted to push their luck even further by having her play a character completely unlike anything she had done before.
Two-Faced Woman was roundly panned by the critics and was released two weeks before Pearl Harbor. Over the last half decade, she had become more of a draw in Europe than America, especially with her series of costume dramas, but the European audience was shrinking due to the encroaching war. When the U.S. entered World War 2, she went to Louis B. Mayer's office at MGM and asked to be let out of her contract, offering to return after the war. Alas, it was never to be. At least she was able to recognize what her strengths were, and avoided the sad decline that shadowed many actors of her time.
Garbo epitomized the grandeur of Hollywood's golden age, harkening to a mythical utopia that was becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. It was 1941, and she retired at age 36 after approximately 25 films. She lived another 48 years, not in seclusion as is commonly believed, but living a quiet life, gardening, shopping, and visiting with friends. Often there would be Garbo sightings on the streets of Manhattan, but her avoidance of photographers became legendary. Sadly, she had a reputation for being reclusive only because she wanted to be out of the spotlight.
Greta Garbo remains one the greatest actresses of her era or any other. She dominated every film she was in, and this was both natural, and perhaps a drawback to her desire to make a great film in and of itself. Some of what she attained was artistry for its own sake, transforming even simple melodrama into timelessness. All of her films deserve to be preserved for her presence alone, and a handful represent a pinnacle of achievement in filmmaking. She is more than an icon, and her legacy will live forever as each succeeding generation discovers her inimitable charm and mysterious, unfathomable beauty.
Links:
http://imdb.com/name/nm0001256/
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~lenin/garbo.html
http://www.classicmovies.org/articles/aa091700a.htm
http://home.hiwaay.net/~oliver/garbo.html
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Mr. Bond
My latest project has been to view all of the James Bond films in order and evaluate them both as entertainment and as cultural documents. There are few film franchises that can boast the sheer number of people who have followed the entire series for so many years, and the way the Bond films have permeated our society. Virtually everyone knows what you are talking about when you refer to something as Bond-like. I had only seen several of the movies over the years, but since each one is based on the same dynamic formula, I felt that I had a good grasp of the basic concept to begin with.
Since most of the leads and many of the guest stars in The Avengers television series had appeared in various Bond films, I began by looking up which ones they were in and realized that I could own all 20 films in the new James Bond deluxe DVD set. This includes everything except the latest release, Casino Royale, which I purchased separately, thus acquiring all 21 official Bond films to date. There are a couple unofficial releases that I may get around to eventually, but I wanted to study the main series in its entirety first. Since the new Casino Royale is something of a prequel, being Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel, I decided to start with that and then go back to the beginning of the movie sequence.
I was generally impressed with the new film and agree with most critics that it has revitalized the franchise. For a story originally set in the Cold War of the mid 1950s, it was remarkably updated to include modern computer technology and cell phones. It was perhaps a bit long (the longest yet at 144 minutes), but I would be hard pressed to identify where it could be cut; each scene seems necessary to the plot. It begins before Bond had achieved 00 status and extends to his first case as 007. All in all, it's an excellent entry in the oeuvre, and portends well for the future. Daniel Craig is a fine James Bond, and adds a grittiness that was perhaps lacking in some of the more recent incarnations.
The original screen Bond, of course, was the inimitable Sean Connery. Many believe his performances has never been equalled, and indeed, the first five films starring him are the most consistent in the series. Starting with Dr. No in 1962, the tone was set with thrilling action, breathtaking scenery, exotic locales, outrageous stunts, cutting-edge gadgets, and beautiful women. It was the beginning of the 1960s and there was a new flamboyance that the film benefited from. The first Bond Girl was Ursula Andress and she is still one of the best. Her opening appearance out of the sea is one of the most famous and imitated shots of the series.
The success of the first film allowed the producers to purchase the rights to all the other James Bond novels by Ian Fleming, in turn increasing the popularity of the books themselves. President Kennedy was seen reading From Russia with Love on an airplane, and when asked, said it was one of his favorite novels. This helped catapult sales of all of Ian Fleming's books in the U.S. and launch the phenomenon worldwide. All of a sudden a secret agent craze swept through the entertainment industry that lasted most of the sixties and continues in many ways to this day.
From Russia with Love was soon filmed, and it remains one of the best in the cycle. The Cold War allusions were softened slightly for diplomatic reasons, but the metaphors speak for themselves. The criminal organization SPECTRE is introduced here and remains a force in several more of the films. One of the charms of this film is that Bond still lives by his wits most of the time rather than relying on extravagant gadgets. This would soon change for good or ill. Making his debut is Desmond Llewelyn as Q (Quartermaster), the man responsible for the technical innovations the series became famous for.
The third film, Goldfinger, is an utter classic that set the tone for the rest of the series with its high-end gadgetry and over-the-top stunt work. Q's part was now a regular feature and technology would play a major role from now on. Honor Blackman, having just left The Avengers, stars as Pussy Galore, one the most well-known Bond Girls of all time. She was able to use some of the Judo moves she learned while doing the television show; maybe that's why she was such a perfect choice for the role.
After this is Thunderball, a pull-out-all-the-stops extravaganza that perhaps seems overlong due to the extended underwater sequences. The underwater cinematography was state-of-the-art at the time, though, and it is understandable that it was featured so prominently. By this time, each film was designed to outdo the previous ones in sheer opulence and even length. Starting here, most of the films would extend to at least two hours or longer.
Next is a personal favorite, You Only Live Twice, set in Japan. It features an incredible extinct volcano hide-out for SPECTRE that provides one of the best climaxes in the series so far, and that's no mean feat. Sean Connery announced his retirement from James Bond during production, so maybe that contributed to the sense of extra pizazz at the end.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service followed, with a new Bond, George Lazenby. It also starred Diana Rigg (another Avengers alumnus) as the first realistic Bond Girl. This film remains one of my favorites, though it is an anomaly in the series. Lazenby burned his bridges during production and was not asked to return, though he does a credible job.
Sean Connery was talked into doing one more after the search for a new Bond stalled. He returned in Diamonds Are Forever, and while good, it's perhaps not up to par with the first five classics. Still, in the pantheon of those to come over the next forty years, it holds its own admirably.
Roger Moore was chosen as a more permanent replacement. His first outing, Live and Let Die, is a spectacular tour-de-force that unfortunately appears dated perhaps more than many of the others. The blaxploitation theme is so early seventies, and Moore appears too white-bread in comparison. This hurts his debut slightly, though it's not of extreme consequence; in a way, the datedness adds to the fun of watching it so many years later. There is also a Voodoo subplot that adds to the proceedings and a memorable crocodile sequence. This was the first James Bond film I ever saw, and so it remains a prototype for me. It was fun seeing Jane Seymour as a Bond Girl, in one of her first major roles. I also particularly like the title song by Paul McCartney and the George Martin score.
The Man With The Golden Gun finds Moore becoming more comfortable with the part, and features Christopher Lee as one of the best villains in the series. This film remains a personal favorite of mine from the Moore era, one reason being the energy crisis background and its focus in solar power as the solution. It also stands as the last one with Harry Salzman as co-producer. Since the beginning, Albert R. Broccoli and Salzman had overseen production; now Broccoli remained as sole producer. The Spy Who Loved Me followed, with the idea being introduced that East and West could work together, reflecting current events at the time. This entry was the furthest departure from Ian Fleming's original story in the canon, with essentially only the title being used.
Moonraker continues the finger-on-the-pulse nature of the series with a film about the space race, and was an attempt to compete with the new Star Wars and Star Trek movies that came out around that time. It also marked the final appearance of Bernard Lee, who had been there from the beginning as M, Bond's boss at MI6 (British Secret Service). The next few films featured a Minister of Defense and a Chief of Staff as replacements. For Your Eyes Only is another personal favorite and represents a return to basics. It is perhaps the last consistently great Roger Moore James Bond film.
Octopussy followed, and though it contained some excellent sequences, most notably the scenes filmed in India, it would mark the beginning of the inevitable downward slide that was only hinted at before. At this point, the scripts became more predictable, even cartoonish at times, though never completely losing touch with the original premise. Part of the problem was that they had run out of Ian Fleming novels, and most of the stories from here on in had to be written by someone else. This coincided with Moore slowly becoming too old for the part.
A View To A Kill is the final one for Moore, and is usually considered the worst of the entire series; though with that as the consensus, I found it much better than expected. In fact, the fine extended appearance of The Avengers' Patrick MacNee helps this entry reach into the more than acceptable range. The film also marked the last portrayal by Lois Maxwell of Moneypenny (M's secretary), a recurring character since the first film.
Timothy Dalton accepted the role of Bond for two films, The Living Daylights, and Licence to Kill. Both of these are exceptional and present a character perhaps closer to Fleming's vision than any others. Dalton was originally signed to appear in one more film, but production delays forced him to give up the part. He never really regretted it, but it did keep him from being considered one of the main actors to play Bond. Besides Sean Connery and Roger Moore, this role was filled by his successor, Pierce Brosnan.
The first film with Pierce Brosnan as Bond was Goldeneye, and though good, it was perhaps flat compared to its predecessors. It did introduce Judi Dench as M, a part she is still playing. Also, taking over as producer after many years as production assistant, was Barbara Broccoli, Albert's daughter. She and her step-brother, Michael G. Wilson (also a long-time assistant), would co-produce the series from now on. Brosnan found his footing with Tomorrow Never Dies, a personal favorite. Achieving world domination through media manipulation is a prescient theme that holds up well today. It was nice to see Teri Hatcher as a Bond Girl; also Michelle Yeoh gave a notable performance.
The World Is Not Enough came next, and here the scripts were starting to lose their originality again. Though still entertaining, the series was starting to show its age. Also marked was the final appearance of LLewelyn as Q; he is shown grooming his replacement played by John Cleese. Die Another Day was another valiant effort, but it was clearly time to reassess. Halle Barrie was hot as the new Bond Girl, but she wasn't enough to rescue the film from mediocrity. It wasn't awful by any means and had many fine moments, but the character of James Bond needed freshening for the new century, and it would be four years before returning with a vengeance.
The future for the Bond franchise now appears bright on the strength of Casino Royale and the new one due next year so far known as "Bond 22." Considering the record of the last 40+ years, I'm optimistic that the series can continue almost forever, and look forward to the endless possibilities inherent in the most successful formula of our time. Generations to come will thrill to the timeless adventures that also recorded our culture to an astonishing degree. A thriving James Bond means that there is hope for our own survival as the startling present hurtles toward the unknown.
Links:
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/films/
http://www.jamesbond.com/
http://www.mi6.co.uk/mi6.php3
Since most of the leads and many of the guest stars in The Avengers television series had appeared in various Bond films, I began by looking up which ones they were in and realized that I could own all 20 films in the new James Bond deluxe DVD set. This includes everything except the latest release, Casino Royale, which I purchased separately, thus acquiring all 21 official Bond films to date. There are a couple unofficial releases that I may get around to eventually, but I wanted to study the main series in its entirety first. Since the new Casino Royale is something of a prequel, being Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel, I decided to start with that and then go back to the beginning of the movie sequence.
I was generally impressed with the new film and agree with most critics that it has revitalized the franchise. For a story originally set in the Cold War of the mid 1950s, it was remarkably updated to include modern computer technology and cell phones. It was perhaps a bit long (the longest yet at 144 minutes), but I would be hard pressed to identify where it could be cut; each scene seems necessary to the plot. It begins before Bond had achieved 00 status and extends to his first case as 007. All in all, it's an excellent entry in the oeuvre, and portends well for the future. Daniel Craig is a fine James Bond, and adds a grittiness that was perhaps lacking in some of the more recent incarnations.
The original screen Bond, of course, was the inimitable Sean Connery. Many believe his performances has never been equalled, and indeed, the first five films starring him are the most consistent in the series. Starting with Dr. No in 1962, the tone was set with thrilling action, breathtaking scenery, exotic locales, outrageous stunts, cutting-edge gadgets, and beautiful women. It was the beginning of the 1960s and there was a new flamboyance that the film benefited from. The first Bond Girl was Ursula Andress and she is still one of the best. Her opening appearance out of the sea is one of the most famous and imitated shots of the series.
The success of the first film allowed the producers to purchase the rights to all the other James Bond novels by Ian Fleming, in turn increasing the popularity of the books themselves. President Kennedy was seen reading From Russia with Love on an airplane, and when asked, said it was one of his favorite novels. This helped catapult sales of all of Ian Fleming's books in the U.S. and launch the phenomenon worldwide. All of a sudden a secret agent craze swept through the entertainment industry that lasted most of the sixties and continues in many ways to this day.
From Russia with Love was soon filmed, and it remains one of the best in the cycle. The Cold War allusions were softened slightly for diplomatic reasons, but the metaphors speak for themselves. The criminal organization SPECTRE is introduced here and remains a force in several more of the films. One of the charms of this film is that Bond still lives by his wits most of the time rather than relying on extravagant gadgets. This would soon change for good or ill. Making his debut is Desmond Llewelyn as Q (Quartermaster), the man responsible for the technical innovations the series became famous for.
The third film, Goldfinger, is an utter classic that set the tone for the rest of the series with its high-end gadgetry and over-the-top stunt work. Q's part was now a regular feature and technology would play a major role from now on. Honor Blackman, having just left The Avengers, stars as Pussy Galore, one the most well-known Bond Girls of all time. She was able to use some of the Judo moves she learned while doing the television show; maybe that's why she was such a perfect choice for the role.
After this is Thunderball, a pull-out-all-the-stops extravaganza that perhaps seems overlong due to the extended underwater sequences. The underwater cinematography was state-of-the-art at the time, though, and it is understandable that it was featured so prominently. By this time, each film was designed to outdo the previous ones in sheer opulence and even length. Starting here, most of the films would extend to at least two hours or longer.
Next is a personal favorite, You Only Live Twice, set in Japan. It features an incredible extinct volcano hide-out for SPECTRE that provides one of the best climaxes in the series so far, and that's no mean feat. Sean Connery announced his retirement from James Bond during production, so maybe that contributed to the sense of extra pizazz at the end.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service followed, with a new Bond, George Lazenby. It also starred Diana Rigg (another Avengers alumnus) as the first realistic Bond Girl. This film remains one of my favorites, though it is an anomaly in the series. Lazenby burned his bridges during production and was not asked to return, though he does a credible job.
Sean Connery was talked into doing one more after the search for a new Bond stalled. He returned in Diamonds Are Forever, and while good, it's perhaps not up to par with the first five classics. Still, in the pantheon of those to come over the next forty years, it holds its own admirably.
Roger Moore was chosen as a more permanent replacement. His first outing, Live and Let Die, is a spectacular tour-de-force that unfortunately appears dated perhaps more than many of the others. The blaxploitation theme is so early seventies, and Moore appears too white-bread in comparison. This hurts his debut slightly, though it's not of extreme consequence; in a way, the datedness adds to the fun of watching it so many years later. There is also a Voodoo subplot that adds to the proceedings and a memorable crocodile sequence. This was the first James Bond film I ever saw, and so it remains a prototype for me. It was fun seeing Jane Seymour as a Bond Girl, in one of her first major roles. I also particularly like the title song by Paul McCartney and the George Martin score.
The Man With The Golden Gun finds Moore becoming more comfortable with the part, and features Christopher Lee as one of the best villains in the series. This film remains a personal favorite of mine from the Moore era, one reason being the energy crisis background and its focus in solar power as the solution. It also stands as the last one with Harry Salzman as co-producer. Since the beginning, Albert R. Broccoli and Salzman had overseen production; now Broccoli remained as sole producer. The Spy Who Loved Me followed, with the idea being introduced that East and West could work together, reflecting current events at the time. This entry was the furthest departure from Ian Fleming's original story in the canon, with essentially only the title being used.
Moonraker continues the finger-on-the-pulse nature of the series with a film about the space race, and was an attempt to compete with the new Star Wars and Star Trek movies that came out around that time. It also marked the final appearance of Bernard Lee, who had been there from the beginning as M, Bond's boss at MI6 (British Secret Service). The next few films featured a Minister of Defense and a Chief of Staff as replacements. For Your Eyes Only is another personal favorite and represents a return to basics. It is perhaps the last consistently great Roger Moore James Bond film.
Octopussy followed, and though it contained some excellent sequences, most notably the scenes filmed in India, it would mark the beginning of the inevitable downward slide that was only hinted at before. At this point, the scripts became more predictable, even cartoonish at times, though never completely losing touch with the original premise. Part of the problem was that they had run out of Ian Fleming novels, and most of the stories from here on in had to be written by someone else. This coincided with Moore slowly becoming too old for the part.
A View To A Kill is the final one for Moore, and is usually considered the worst of the entire series; though with that as the consensus, I found it much better than expected. In fact, the fine extended appearance of The Avengers' Patrick MacNee helps this entry reach into the more than acceptable range. The film also marked the last portrayal by Lois Maxwell of Moneypenny (M's secretary), a recurring character since the first film.
Timothy Dalton accepted the role of Bond for two films, The Living Daylights, and Licence to Kill. Both of these are exceptional and present a character perhaps closer to Fleming's vision than any others. Dalton was originally signed to appear in one more film, but production delays forced him to give up the part. He never really regretted it, but it did keep him from being considered one of the main actors to play Bond. Besides Sean Connery and Roger Moore, this role was filled by his successor, Pierce Brosnan.
The first film with Pierce Brosnan as Bond was Goldeneye, and though good, it was perhaps flat compared to its predecessors. It did introduce Judi Dench as M, a part she is still playing. Also, taking over as producer after many years as production assistant, was Barbara Broccoli, Albert's daughter. She and her step-brother, Michael G. Wilson (also a long-time assistant), would co-produce the series from now on. Brosnan found his footing with Tomorrow Never Dies, a personal favorite. Achieving world domination through media manipulation is a prescient theme that holds up well today. It was nice to see Teri Hatcher as a Bond Girl; also Michelle Yeoh gave a notable performance.
The World Is Not Enough came next, and here the scripts were starting to lose their originality again. Though still entertaining, the series was starting to show its age. Also marked was the final appearance of LLewelyn as Q; he is shown grooming his replacement played by John Cleese. Die Another Day was another valiant effort, but it was clearly time to reassess. Halle Barrie was hot as the new Bond Girl, but she wasn't enough to rescue the film from mediocrity. It wasn't awful by any means and had many fine moments, but the character of James Bond needed freshening for the new century, and it would be four years before returning with a vengeance.
The future for the Bond franchise now appears bright on the strength of Casino Royale and the new one due next year so far known as "Bond 22." Considering the record of the last 40+ years, I'm optimistic that the series can continue almost forever, and look forward to the endless possibilities inherent in the most successful formula of our time. Generations to come will thrill to the timeless adventures that also recorded our culture to an astonishing degree. A thriving James Bond means that there is hope for our own survival as the startling present hurtles toward the unknown.
Links:
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/films/
http://www.jamesbond.com/
http://www.mi6.co.uk/mi6.php3
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Cindy Sheehan Peace
On Memorial Day, Cindy Sheehan withdrew from activism in order to recover some of her previous life that was lost ever since her son died in Iraq and she subsequently galvanized the Peace Movement. She will be sorely missed by her fellow activists, but maybe the torch she carried can be passed on, in the hopes that her message will not disappear from the national discourse.
She was vilified by both the right (for disagreeing with their defence of endless war and their definition of supporting the troops), and the left (for her uncompromising stance in favor of peace). After first being the darling of the media during the dog days of summer 2005, when she camped out near George Bush's vacation retreat and demanded to speak with him personally about the "noble cause" that her son and so many others had died for in Iraq, she has since faced an increasingly hostile mainstream press that can't understand how she could "trash the president" or his policies; and she did it all while retaining her composure and dignity.
She didn't care about the politics of the situation and finally she stopped supporting the Democratic Party because of its failure (so far) to end the war. For this she received scorn from leftwing bloggers that eventually was enough to cause her to rethink her commitment to the cause itself. These are certainly trying times for the movement, and she deserves a chance to rest; maybe this is a good time for her to take a step back and look at the larger picture. She has said that in the future she will return to humanitarianism, but not to peace rallies and marches. She feels betrayed by the Democratic Congress that voted to continue funding the war without timelines, and is frustrated by the lack of evidence that all of the hemming and hawing accomplished anything.
One problem is that, though the reasons given for the invasion continue to appear elusive (or illusive), there are substantial rationales in place that preclude ever completely leaving Iraq. A timetable for withdrawal would force the issue and cause us to face certain truths that many would rather see obscured. This war was started by a Bush administration determined to secure Middle Eastern oil for its corporate sponsors, and unfortunately, many Democrats are also beholden to the same lobbyists. That's why some Democratic candidates for president pay lip service to the anti-war movement, but support a continued presence in Iraq for years to come.
Fourteen bases, scheduled to revert to four permanent bases once we have obtained long-term oil contracts, and an American Embassy (the largest in the world), are entrenched to maintain control over any action perceived to threaten U.S. interests. And make no mistake, that means U. S. business interests, not the interests of the American people. It may appear on the surface that we really do need the oil, but in reality, conservation and alternative resources (solar, wind, biomass), combined with friendly trading for oil with foreign countries while we convert to them, is a far better long-term solution.
Despite all the rhetoric from presidential candidates about ending the war, until oil can be mentioned as the reason we are there, no real progress can be made. Even Cindy Sheehan fails to address this issue, while understandably focusing on the human costs. It's hard to build a case for leaving Iraq without elucidating the real purpose of our government's agenda there. Until we expose the corporate basis of our presence in the Middle East, the U.S. will never begin forming a sane foreign policy.
We could offer to build solar, wind, and biomass converters in Iraq and Iran, especially since the latter is lobbying for increased energy and we oppose their current nuclear enrichment so vehemently (while promoting it for ourselves and allies); yet not once has this been suggested by our diplomats, president, or Congress. No mainstream media source has even mentioned the possibility of using alternative energies in the Middle East, and "The U.S and it's allies believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons, while the Iranian's insist that their nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes only," line is repeated ad nauseum in virtually every news item on the subject. Ultimately, the use of nuclear energy for even "peaceful" purposes must be challenged. That is where we have the biggest failure of leadership by both our country and our allies.
The Democrats shouldn't be given up on in the face of this latest setback over timelines for many practical reasons. The Green and Libertarian parties, for instance, lack seats in Congress, and thus would be powerless in the unlikely event that they could win the presidency. Instead of playing spoiler, third parties should lobby for switching to a Parliamentary system, where all parties can share power according to their level of support. It's true, though, that Americans are probably never going to agree to changing the two-party system, both because of tradition, which reaches back to the forming of the republic, and because we tend to favor a winner take all "championship" type battle for president. Unless or until this paradigm evolves, coalitions must be formed within the existing structure to help bring about positive change.
It is counter-productive to work against those trying their best to achieve our goals, and therefore I disagreed with Cindy Sheehan when she and her group protested the Democrats at their inauguration this January. I also disagree with her and others that are abandoning the Democratic Party in favor of third parties with even less of a chance to end the war. Though they have a slim majority, Congressional Democrats currently lack the votes to override a recalcitrant executive. We must work towards increasing their majority, rather than challenging them at the ballot box in pursuit of unrealistic, though well-intentioned ideals. Change must come in increments, unfortunately, and it will take years to reverse the damage this administration has wrought. In fact, some of it can never be mended, and here I share her frustration.
Cindy can take heart that she helped make a difference when it was needed and that her sacrifices were not in vain. Achieving peace may seem insurmountable now, but it is never hopeless as long as we remain vigilant and focused on our goal. Here's hoping that she can find the strength to rejoin us at some point and bring more of her inspiration to our eternal cause.
Sources:
She was vilified by both the right (for disagreeing with their defence of endless war and their definition of supporting the troops), and the left (for her uncompromising stance in favor of peace). After first being the darling of the media during the dog days of summer 2005, when she camped out near George Bush's vacation retreat and demanded to speak with him personally about the "noble cause" that her son and so many others had died for in Iraq, she has since faced an increasingly hostile mainstream press that can't understand how she could "trash the president" or his policies; and she did it all while retaining her composure and dignity.
She didn't care about the politics of the situation and finally she stopped supporting the Democratic Party because of its failure (so far) to end the war. For this she received scorn from leftwing bloggers that eventually was enough to cause her to rethink her commitment to the cause itself. These are certainly trying times for the movement, and she deserves a chance to rest; maybe this is a good time for her to take a step back and look at the larger picture. She has said that in the future she will return to humanitarianism, but not to peace rallies and marches. She feels betrayed by the Democratic Congress that voted to continue funding the war without timelines, and is frustrated by the lack of evidence that all of the hemming and hawing accomplished anything.
One problem is that, though the reasons given for the invasion continue to appear elusive (or illusive), there are substantial rationales in place that preclude ever completely leaving Iraq. A timetable for withdrawal would force the issue and cause us to face certain truths that many would rather see obscured. This war was started by a Bush administration determined to secure Middle Eastern oil for its corporate sponsors, and unfortunately, many Democrats are also beholden to the same lobbyists. That's why some Democratic candidates for president pay lip service to the anti-war movement, but support a continued presence in Iraq for years to come.
Fourteen bases, scheduled to revert to four permanent bases once we have obtained long-term oil contracts, and an American Embassy (the largest in the world), are entrenched to maintain control over any action perceived to threaten U.S. interests. And make no mistake, that means U. S. business interests, not the interests of the American people. It may appear on the surface that we really do need the oil, but in reality, conservation and alternative resources (solar, wind, biomass), combined with friendly trading for oil with foreign countries while we convert to them, is a far better long-term solution.
Despite all the rhetoric from presidential candidates about ending the war, until oil can be mentioned as the reason we are there, no real progress can be made. Even Cindy Sheehan fails to address this issue, while understandably focusing on the human costs. It's hard to build a case for leaving Iraq without elucidating the real purpose of our government's agenda there. Until we expose the corporate basis of our presence in the Middle East, the U.S. will never begin forming a sane foreign policy.
We could offer to build solar, wind, and biomass converters in Iraq and Iran, especially since the latter is lobbying for increased energy and we oppose their current nuclear enrichment so vehemently (while promoting it for ourselves and allies); yet not once has this been suggested by our diplomats, president, or Congress. No mainstream media source has even mentioned the possibility of using alternative energies in the Middle East, and "The U.S and it's allies believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons, while the Iranian's insist that their nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes only," line is repeated ad nauseum in virtually every news item on the subject. Ultimately, the use of nuclear energy for even "peaceful" purposes must be challenged. That is where we have the biggest failure of leadership by both our country and our allies.
The Democrats shouldn't be given up on in the face of this latest setback over timelines for many practical reasons. The Green and Libertarian parties, for instance, lack seats in Congress, and thus would be powerless in the unlikely event that they could win the presidency. Instead of playing spoiler, third parties should lobby for switching to a Parliamentary system, where all parties can share power according to their level of support. It's true, though, that Americans are probably never going to agree to changing the two-party system, both because of tradition, which reaches back to the forming of the republic, and because we tend to favor a winner take all "championship" type battle for president. Unless or until this paradigm evolves, coalitions must be formed within the existing structure to help bring about positive change.
It is counter-productive to work against those trying their best to achieve our goals, and therefore I disagreed with Cindy Sheehan when she and her group protested the Democrats at their inauguration this January. I also disagree with her and others that are abandoning the Democratic Party in favor of third parties with even less of a chance to end the war. Though they have a slim majority, Congressional Democrats currently lack the votes to override a recalcitrant executive. We must work towards increasing their majority, rather than challenging them at the ballot box in pursuit of unrealistic, though well-intentioned ideals. Change must come in increments, unfortunately, and it will take years to reverse the damage this administration has wrought. In fact, some of it can never be mended, and here I share her frustration.
Cindy can take heart that she helped make a difference when it was needed and that her sacrifices were not in vain. Achieving peace may seem insurmountable now, but it is never hopeless as long as we remain vigilant and focused on our goal. Here's hoping that she can find the strength to rejoin us at some point and bring more of her inspiration to our eternal cause.
Sources:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/31/1573/
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/05/1768/
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014385.php
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18340
Monday, April 30, 2007
Hitchcock Journey
Over the last year I have been on a grand mission to view every Alfred Hitchcock film in chronological order. I had purchased several sets and realized just how close I was to owning all 52 extant films. Four are presently unreleased on DVD: Rebecca, Notorious, Spellbound, and The Paradine Case. I've seen the first three on the big screen or video at one time or another, so only the fourth remains as completely unseen. I've heard it is among his worst films, but I've also learned that some others with bad reputations weren't nearly as awful as they were cracked up to be. One of my goals was to view them all objectively with fresh eyes.
All 19 available British films are contained on two sets and are public domain, so the DVD quality varies. Each film has its charms; even the ones far removed from Hitchcock's eventual oeuvre. In fact, even though some are pretty much straight dramas essentially done as contractual obligations, the Hitchcock touch can still be discerned, and provided an opportunity for him to develop his craft. The first 6 are silent, but Hitchcock's use of imagery rather than a lot of subtitles, makes them unique for the time period. His first film as director was 1927's The Lodger, and appropriately set the tone for his later style. A series of Jack the Ripper-type murders confounds London, and a family becomes suspicious that their upstairs lodger may be the culprit. Be careful not to read the blurb on the DVD cover before viewing, as it maddeningly gives away the essence of the mystery. I've learned to never read even the slightest sentence (if it can be helped) about a movie before viewing it, even if I've seen it before. It's generally preferable to suspend disbelief if you can.
The other silents are: The Ring, Easy Virtue, The Farmer's Wife, Champagne, and The Manxman. I enjoyed all of them, but they are admittedly probably for Hitchcock fans or film buffs (of which I am both) only. Hitchcock's first talkie, Blackmail, was actually filmed in both silent and talking versions, of which only the latter survives. Appropriately, the first 20 minutes or so are without dialogue. This movie is the first that is instantly recognizable as what we have come to know as an Alfred Hitchcock film. It was still an uneven road, though, before Hitchcock had more or less complete creative control over both choosing and directing his projects. Juno and the Paycock, The Skin Game, Rich and Strange, Number 17, and Jamaica Inn are in this category. Of the remaining British films, Murder!, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The 39 Steps, Secret Agent, Sabotage, Young and Innocent, and The Lady Vanishes, are the best. After this impressive output, he was approached by American producers, and agreed to come to Hollywood to work for David O. Selznick.
His first film in America was Rebecca, starring Joan Fontaine and Laurence Olivier, and it was a big success, though Hitchcock was obligated to stay close to the Daphne Du Maurier novel, while doing things the Selznick way much of the time. It's still a masterpiece of its kind, and I find little to quibble about in its presentation. Next was Foreign Correspondent, another tour-de-force, that established the Hitchcock style in Hollywood as its own entity once and for all. Mr. and Mrs. Smith was a rare romantic comedy for Hitchcock, though there were almost always at least traces of the genre in his work. It's thoroughly enjoyable for what it is. Next came Suspicion, which combines more of the traits we've come to expect in a true Hitchcock film. Joan Fontaine won the Academy Award for best actress, the only such victory for a Hitchcock cast member. It also includes Cary Grant in the first of his many roles with the director. The ending had to be changed in order to make the film more palatable to audiences (and Grant fans), and the film has been criticized for this, but I particularly like the way it turns out.
World War II provided the basis for Saboteur, another fine vehicle, and features the Empire State Building in the thrilling finale (sorry to mention the ending, but it is quite famous). Shadow of a Doubt, Hitchcock's own favorite, followed, and it portrayed a typical American small town as a backdrop to suspicions of murder. Next, Hitchcock made two short propaganda films for the war effort that ended up not being released at the time; they were grim espionage tales that didn't necessarily march in step to the message that the producers wanted. Also, they were filmed in French, with English subtitles, and this adds to their inaccessibility; I found them almost unwatchable. 1944's Lifeboat finds Hitchcock back in more familiar territory with yet another World War II story. This film is unique because all of the action takes place on the lifeboat, providing a cinematic challenge that Hitchcock relished. After this are the 3 remaining films that are currently unavailable due to ownership technicalities (here's wishing for a swift resolution to this).
1948's Rope was another unusually filmed project; it employed one take for the entire film. This necessitated that the actors perform their lines like a stage play and the camera would steal away to focus on a doorknob, for instance, when a scene change was required. It was largely successful, though never repeated to such lengths again. Under Capricorn is not known as one of Hitchcock's best; however I found it to be much better than expected. It features Ingrid Bergman in her last appearance in a Hitchcock film, and is worthwhile just for her performance; one of her scenes features a long take a la Rope. Stage Fright was a film that rises above a possible flaw in the plot (I won't give it away), to achieve classic proportions by the end. The supposed drawback is considered revolutionary today, though to Hitchcock himself it was merely a mistake that was discovered too late to rectify. The film also features Marlene Dietrich in a performance that's worth the price of admission.
Strangers on a Train begins a sequence of films during the 1950s where Hitchcock was arguably at his most consistent. I Confess, Dial M for Murder, and Rear Window follow in rapid succession. Rear Window, of course, is one of the greatest films of his career. It combines star power, suspense, and humor in a cumulative effect. This was followed by the lightweight but fun To Catch a Thief, which was Grace Kelly's last film (before marrying the Count of Monaco and giving up acting). It was ahead of its time and reminded me a bit of early James Bond or the Pink Panther films as far as locale and style. The Trouble with Harry was a farce that is more enjoyable the second time around, once you aren't expecting anything serious. The Man Who Knew Too Much was a remake of of the 1934 classic and it stands on its own as a vehicle for Jimmy Stewart. The Wrong Man, with Henry Fonda, was an excellent film noir based on a true story. Vertigo was better than I remembered, perhaps because I expected too much the first go-round. North by Northwest is simply one of Hitchcock's best, the peak of his 50s films both literally and figuratively.
Psycho marks the beginning of a new era for Hitchcock that coincided with the advent of the 1960s. There was a modernity present that wasn't as apparent before. The film stands up well and represents Hitchcock at his absolute pinnacle. It would be difficult to match the dizzying heights that his career reached with this film, and he never was quite able to. Tippi Hedron was Hitchcock's new star and was featured to good effect in his next two films. The Birds was a flawed masterpiece that nevertheless is still one of my favorites; Marnie was a lot better the second time through (Sean Connery is superb). Torn Curtain stood up better than could have been foreseen (Paul Newman and Julie Andrews were wonderful together, in my opinion).
Topaz was disappointing and might win the award for Hitchcock's worst film: the plot is grim and there is no humor or romance to brighten the proceedings. It's overlong and lacks star power to carry it. Frenzy was a return to form, while also a return to England for Hitchcock. Family Plot was his final film, and it was at least successful as a black comedy of sorts, though it can't compare to any of his finest films. It has such a bad reputation that I ended up enjoying it because it wasn't nearly as awful as I feared or remembered; maybe perspective allows us to be more forgiving. Part of what I was trying to do was give each film another chance without the expectations that usually accompanied the initial screening.
I came away from the journey with even more respect for Hitchcock as an artist than I had before, which was substantial. He definitely stands as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, director of all time. His career spanned an unprecedented 6 decades, and bridged the silent, sound, and modern eras. There is not another director that comes close to his level of output on a year after year basis. He never received the kind of recognition he deserved until late in his career, but his legacy will endure for generations to come. I look forward to watching all of these films again over time, and will no doubt find new treasures within them with each new viewing.
Sources:
http://imdb.com/name/nm0000033/
All 19 available British films are contained on two sets and are public domain, so the DVD quality varies. Each film has its charms; even the ones far removed from Hitchcock's eventual oeuvre. In fact, even though some are pretty much straight dramas essentially done as contractual obligations, the Hitchcock touch can still be discerned, and provided an opportunity for him to develop his craft. The first 6 are silent, but Hitchcock's use of imagery rather than a lot of subtitles, makes them unique for the time period. His first film as director was 1927's The Lodger, and appropriately set the tone for his later style. A series of Jack the Ripper-type murders confounds London, and a family becomes suspicious that their upstairs lodger may be the culprit. Be careful not to read the blurb on the DVD cover before viewing, as it maddeningly gives away the essence of the mystery. I've learned to never read even the slightest sentence (if it can be helped) about a movie before viewing it, even if I've seen it before. It's generally preferable to suspend disbelief if you can.
The other silents are: The Ring, Easy Virtue, The Farmer's Wife, Champagne, and The Manxman. I enjoyed all of them, but they are admittedly probably for Hitchcock fans or film buffs (of which I am both) only. Hitchcock's first talkie, Blackmail, was actually filmed in both silent and talking versions, of which only the latter survives. Appropriately, the first 20 minutes or so are without dialogue. This movie is the first that is instantly recognizable as what we have come to know as an Alfred Hitchcock film. It was still an uneven road, though, before Hitchcock had more or less complete creative control over both choosing and directing his projects. Juno and the Paycock, The Skin Game, Rich and Strange, Number 17, and Jamaica Inn are in this category. Of the remaining British films, Murder!, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The 39 Steps, Secret Agent, Sabotage, Young and Innocent, and The Lady Vanishes, are the best. After this impressive output, he was approached by American producers, and agreed to come to Hollywood to work for David O. Selznick.
His first film in America was Rebecca, starring Joan Fontaine and Laurence Olivier, and it was a big success, though Hitchcock was obligated to stay close to the Daphne Du Maurier novel, while doing things the Selznick way much of the time. It's still a masterpiece of its kind, and I find little to quibble about in its presentation. Next was Foreign Correspondent, another tour-de-force, that established the Hitchcock style in Hollywood as its own entity once and for all. Mr. and Mrs. Smith was a rare romantic comedy for Hitchcock, though there were almost always at least traces of the genre in his work. It's thoroughly enjoyable for what it is. Next came Suspicion, which combines more of the traits we've come to expect in a true Hitchcock film. Joan Fontaine won the Academy Award for best actress, the only such victory for a Hitchcock cast member. It also includes Cary Grant in the first of his many roles with the director. The ending had to be changed in order to make the film more palatable to audiences (and Grant fans), and the film has been criticized for this, but I particularly like the way it turns out.
World War II provided the basis for Saboteur, another fine vehicle, and features the Empire State Building in the thrilling finale (sorry to mention the ending, but it is quite famous). Shadow of a Doubt, Hitchcock's own favorite, followed, and it portrayed a typical American small town as a backdrop to suspicions of murder. Next, Hitchcock made two short propaganda films for the war effort that ended up not being released at the time; they were grim espionage tales that didn't necessarily march in step to the message that the producers wanted. Also, they were filmed in French, with English subtitles, and this adds to their inaccessibility; I found them almost unwatchable. 1944's Lifeboat finds Hitchcock back in more familiar territory with yet another World War II story. This film is unique because all of the action takes place on the lifeboat, providing a cinematic challenge that Hitchcock relished. After this are the 3 remaining films that are currently unavailable due to ownership technicalities (here's wishing for a swift resolution to this).
1948's Rope was another unusually filmed project; it employed one take for the entire film. This necessitated that the actors perform their lines like a stage play and the camera would steal away to focus on a doorknob, for instance, when a scene change was required. It was largely successful, though never repeated to such lengths again. Under Capricorn is not known as one of Hitchcock's best; however I found it to be much better than expected. It features Ingrid Bergman in her last appearance in a Hitchcock film, and is worthwhile just for her performance; one of her scenes features a long take a la Rope. Stage Fright was a film that rises above a possible flaw in the plot (I won't give it away), to achieve classic proportions by the end. The supposed drawback is considered revolutionary today, though to Hitchcock himself it was merely a mistake that was discovered too late to rectify. The film also features Marlene Dietrich in a performance that's worth the price of admission.
Strangers on a Train begins a sequence of films during the 1950s where Hitchcock was arguably at his most consistent. I Confess, Dial M for Murder, and Rear Window follow in rapid succession. Rear Window, of course, is one of the greatest films of his career. It combines star power, suspense, and humor in a cumulative effect. This was followed by the lightweight but fun To Catch a Thief, which was Grace Kelly's last film (before marrying the Count of Monaco and giving up acting). It was ahead of its time and reminded me a bit of early James Bond or the Pink Panther films as far as locale and style. The Trouble with Harry was a farce that is more enjoyable the second time around, once you aren't expecting anything serious. The Man Who Knew Too Much was a remake of of the 1934 classic and it stands on its own as a vehicle for Jimmy Stewart. The Wrong Man, with Henry Fonda, was an excellent film noir based on a true story. Vertigo was better than I remembered, perhaps because I expected too much the first go-round. North by Northwest is simply one of Hitchcock's best, the peak of his 50s films both literally and figuratively.
Psycho marks the beginning of a new era for Hitchcock that coincided with the advent of the 1960s. There was a modernity present that wasn't as apparent before. The film stands up well and represents Hitchcock at his absolute pinnacle. It would be difficult to match the dizzying heights that his career reached with this film, and he never was quite able to. Tippi Hedron was Hitchcock's new star and was featured to good effect in his next two films. The Birds was a flawed masterpiece that nevertheless is still one of my favorites; Marnie was a lot better the second time through (Sean Connery is superb). Torn Curtain stood up better than could have been foreseen (Paul Newman and Julie Andrews were wonderful together, in my opinion).
Topaz was disappointing and might win the award for Hitchcock's worst film: the plot is grim and there is no humor or romance to brighten the proceedings. It's overlong and lacks star power to carry it. Frenzy was a return to form, while also a return to England for Hitchcock. Family Plot was his final film, and it was at least successful as a black comedy of sorts, though it can't compare to any of his finest films. It has such a bad reputation that I ended up enjoying it because it wasn't nearly as awful as I feared or remembered; maybe perspective allows us to be more forgiving. Part of what I was trying to do was give each film another chance without the expectations that usually accompanied the initial screening.
I came away from the journey with even more respect for Hitchcock as an artist than I had before, which was substantial. He definitely stands as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, director of all time. His career spanned an unprecedented 6 decades, and bridged the silent, sound, and modern eras. There is not another director that comes close to his level of output on a year after year basis. He never received the kind of recognition he deserved until late in his career, but his legacy will endure for generations to come. I look forward to watching all of these films again over time, and will no doubt find new treasures within them with each new viewing.
Sources:
http://imdb.com/name/nm0000033/
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Purple Sky
Purple Sky Press is the new publishing company that I am launching with the release of my first book. Recaptured Beauty is a book of prose poems tracing every change of the seasons that happened to catch my fancy, beginning with the particularly colorful fall of 1986. I've been revising it for over twenty years, while working on other projects that will also be forthcoming; specifically, short stories and a full-length memoir. Considering my perfectionist nature, it will probably be several years before these other works are ready to publish. In the meantime, there is this offering.
http://purpleskypress.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Recaptured-Beauty-Alan-Lawrence/dp/0977987108/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-6081765-4246032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173047347&sr=8-1
http://purpleskypress.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Recaptured-Beauty-Alan-Lawrence/dp/0977987108/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-6081765-4246032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173047347&sr=8-1
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The Avengers Again
Lately I've been rediscovering the British television series The Avengers on DVD. I hadn't seen the show since watching it regularly as a kid. In those days I had been impressed by the atmosphere, imaginative storylines, and flamboyant characters, both in the lead and supporting roles. Seriousness and humor were counterpointed in an intriguing fashion that was to be influential for many other series' to come (i.e. The X-Files). The plots usually revolved around various diabolical masterminds attempting outlandish schemes to take over the world, one English county at a time. It's amazing how many different ways that it could be accomplished, and the entertaining ways each potentially catastrophic situation was resolved by our heroes. Unconventional combat methods were often deployed, such as Karate, Judo, or an umbrella and bowler hat, to defeat their adversaries.
In all, there were 161 episodes of the original series (1961-1969), over six seasons. However, a persuasive argument has been made by aficionados (of which I am becoming one) that there were technically seven seasons, because of wildly varying season lengths, differences between United Kingdom and United States air-dates, a complicated stop and start of production during season five, and the fact that it was first shown in the U.S. as a summer replacement. For the purposes of this article, I'm sticking with the more straightforward six-season count, while acknowledging the points made by the seven-season camp. The DVD sets are released by year, in UK broadcast order, instead of by season, adding to the confusion, or maybe because of it.
I checked out from the library The Avengers '64 vol. 1&2, depicting an earlier incarnation of the show than what I was used to, and was impressed with Honor Blackman as Cathy Gale, John Steed's partner before Emma Peel. These volumes actually represent the end of the Cathy Gale era (in another confusing twist, vols. 3&4 constitute the first half of 1964). The show is basically separated into four eras (Dr. Keel, Cathy Gale, Emma Peel, and Tara King) established by Steed's main counterparts; the debonair Mr. Steed being the only constant. Patrick Macnee (pronounced MACK-knee) as Steed and Diana Rigg as Mrs. Peel were to become the ultimate combination for the series, but what came before and after is superb in its own way.
In the beginning (1960), there was a British television show called Police Surgeon starring Ian Hendry. When it was cancelled after only thirteen episodes, the producers decided to start another series: The Avengers. Hendry played David Keel, a doctor who became interested in fighting crime after his fiance was murdered. He is enlisted by a mysterious government agent, John Steed, to help solve unusual cases, and was occasionally assisted by his nurse Carol Wilson, played by Ingrid Hafner (in a foreshadowing of the female side-kick concept). For many years only one episode, The Frighteners, was known to survive from this 1st season (1961), since in those days programs were videotaped, broadcast, and then taped over or even destroyed, without a thought to posterity. Recently, one other complete episode, The Girl on the Trapeze (the only episode not featuring Steed; you hardly miss him, it's so good), has surfaced along with the first act (22 minutes) of the first episode Hot Snow. These are now available as part of a bonus disc on the Emma Peel megaset or separately if desired. These are excellent examples of early 60's British television, and provide a fascinating introduction to the show.
After an Equity strike cancelled the last half of the 1st season, Hendry decided to take the opportunity to seek other roles, and the show resumed in the Fall of '62 for a second season, now without Dr. Keel. Three episodes originally intended for him were re-written for a Dr. Martin King, played by Jon Rollason. After a short time Honor Blackman was hired to play Mrs. Cathy Gale, a more equal partner for Steed. The producers weren't through experimenting with characters, however; Julie Stevens was hired to play a jazz singer named Venus Smith that assisted Steed for six episodes. It was eventually decided, though, that Honor Blackman as Cathy Gale was the perfect foil for Steed. That's when the series really took off, and the third season ('63-'64) features her as Steed's only counterpart.
All of these early episodes were filmed on videotape in essentially one take, so there are camera and verbal flubs that remain intact, and the productions are generally less sophisticated than what audiences are used to today. Viewed from an historical perspective, however, these inconsistencies are interesting and even humorous, especially compared to the slickness of later years. For instance, the fight scenes were also done in one take without stuntmen; sometimes the action appears a bit perfunctory like a stage play, which the programs often resemble. One startling aspect that was introduced early on, though, was the use of Karate by Mrs. Gale to overcome antagonists, a tactic that set the tone for the duration of the series. This added to the show's appeal, since it was the first to feature a strong female lead that could take care of herself; in fact, she often rescued Steed instead of the other way around. When Blackman decided to leave the show to accept the role of Pussy Galore in the James Bond thriller Goldfinger, the search was started for a replacement; a difficult task.
At this same time American television producers had begun taking an interest, and offered to broadcast the show in America while substantially increasing its budget. Originally, Elizabeth Shepherd was signed for the part of Emma Peel, but after only two episodes it was decided that she was unsuitable. On a lark, actress Diana Rigg decided to audition for the role. The chemistry between her and Patrick Macnee was evident from the beginning, and some of the early episodes featuring them together are among the best of the entire series. The two seasons featuring Emma Peel clearly represent the epitome of The Avengers. She was as strong as Cathy Gale (and just as good at Karate), but a bit less contentious with Steed. Their friendship was more open-ended than previous eras allowed, and their banter more scintillating.
The fourth season ('65-'66) was shot in black and white, but film had replaced videotape; the fifth season ('66-'67) was filmed entirely in color. After awhile, Diana Rigg became fed up with the increasingly bizarre scripts and this, combined with a contract dispute, caused her to ask to leave the show midway through her second season. When both the show and Rigg were nominated for Emmys, she was offered a raise and agreed to finish the season. After that she joined Honor Blackman as Avengers alumni who went on to take roles as Bond girls, this time as Tracy Di Vincenzio in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Since then she has continued her illustrious career on both the stage and screen.
Linda Thorson was brought in to play Tara King, a slightly different kind of partner for Steed. For instance, whereas Cathy and Emma were flirty yet undefinedly platonic in their relations with him, Tara was decidedly in love with Steed. This created a nice balance between the eras. In the early to mid-sixties it was believed that, after a solid period of mourning, widows were potentially more available than women that were still blatantly single; thus we have Mrs. Gale and Mrs. Peel. This allowed Steed to flirt with other females in the show while still leaving the possibility open that something could develop with his compatriots. It also left Mrs. Gale and Mrs. Peel considerable leeway in their various encounters with other men. By the time Tara King made the scene, female roles were liberalized and women had more freedom to pursue relationships on their own terms.
This new incarnation only lasted one season, however, because of several factors. In the first place replacing Diana Rigg was no easy task; in the second, the scripts became more and more far-fetched, almost to the point of the show spoofing itself; and thirdly the show was scheduled opposite Laugh In, also one of the most popular shows at that time. Season six ('68- '69) happens to be the most dated of the later seasons, partly because of the quirkiness (even for this show) of the late-sixties plots, but also because of the many hairstyle changes endured by Thorson when the dye she used to become platinum blond for the program caused her hair to fall out, forcing her to wear various wigs until her natural locks returned. This last season was also filmed in color (as was most television by then), and it had its charms despite its problems. Some of the scripts were actually some of the best ever written for the show, and Tara was really beginning to come into her own. The final season of The Avengers came to a close in the Spring of 1969. In the last episode, Tara King and John Steed blast off together in a rocketship at the end, a fitting finish for a show that took the basic crime and espionage format to extraordinary heights.
Sources:
http://theavengers.tv/
http://theavengers.tv/forever/
http://theavengers.tv/forever/guide.htm
http://theavengers.tv/forever/timeline.htm
In all, there were 161 episodes of the original series (1961-1969), over six seasons. However, a persuasive argument has been made by aficionados (of which I am becoming one) that there were technically seven seasons, because of wildly varying season lengths, differences between United Kingdom and United States air-dates, a complicated stop and start of production during season five, and the fact that it was first shown in the U.S. as a summer replacement. For the purposes of this article, I'm sticking with the more straightforward six-season count, while acknowledging the points made by the seven-season camp. The DVD sets are released by year, in UK broadcast order, instead of by season, adding to the confusion, or maybe because of it.
I checked out from the library The Avengers '64 vol. 1&2, depicting an earlier incarnation of the show than what I was used to, and was impressed with Honor Blackman as Cathy Gale, John Steed's partner before Emma Peel. These volumes actually represent the end of the Cathy Gale era (in another confusing twist, vols. 3&4 constitute the first half of 1964). The show is basically separated into four eras (Dr. Keel, Cathy Gale, Emma Peel, and Tara King) established by Steed's main counterparts; the debonair Mr. Steed being the only constant. Patrick Macnee (pronounced MACK-knee) as Steed and Diana Rigg as Mrs. Peel were to become the ultimate combination for the series, but what came before and after is superb in its own way.
In the beginning (1960), there was a British television show called Police Surgeon starring Ian Hendry. When it was cancelled after only thirteen episodes, the producers decided to start another series: The Avengers. Hendry played David Keel, a doctor who became interested in fighting crime after his fiance was murdered. He is enlisted by a mysterious government agent, John Steed, to help solve unusual cases, and was occasionally assisted by his nurse Carol Wilson, played by Ingrid Hafner (in a foreshadowing of the female side-kick concept). For many years only one episode, The Frighteners, was known to survive from this 1st season (1961), since in those days programs were videotaped, broadcast, and then taped over or even destroyed, without a thought to posterity. Recently, one other complete episode, The Girl on the Trapeze (the only episode not featuring Steed; you hardly miss him, it's so good), has surfaced along with the first act (22 minutes) of the first episode Hot Snow. These are now available as part of a bonus disc on the Emma Peel megaset or separately if desired. These are excellent examples of early 60's British television, and provide a fascinating introduction to the show.
After an Equity strike cancelled the last half of the 1st season, Hendry decided to take the opportunity to seek other roles, and the show resumed in the Fall of '62 for a second season, now without Dr. Keel. Three episodes originally intended for him were re-written for a Dr. Martin King, played by Jon Rollason. After a short time Honor Blackman was hired to play Mrs. Cathy Gale, a more equal partner for Steed. The producers weren't through experimenting with characters, however; Julie Stevens was hired to play a jazz singer named Venus Smith that assisted Steed for six episodes. It was eventually decided, though, that Honor Blackman as Cathy Gale was the perfect foil for Steed. That's when the series really took off, and the third season ('63-'64) features her as Steed's only counterpart.
All of these early episodes were filmed on videotape in essentially one take, so there are camera and verbal flubs that remain intact, and the productions are generally less sophisticated than what audiences are used to today. Viewed from an historical perspective, however, these inconsistencies are interesting and even humorous, especially compared to the slickness of later years. For instance, the fight scenes were also done in one take without stuntmen; sometimes the action appears a bit perfunctory like a stage play, which the programs often resemble. One startling aspect that was introduced early on, though, was the use of Karate by Mrs. Gale to overcome antagonists, a tactic that set the tone for the duration of the series. This added to the show's appeal, since it was the first to feature a strong female lead that could take care of herself; in fact, she often rescued Steed instead of the other way around. When Blackman decided to leave the show to accept the role of Pussy Galore in the James Bond thriller Goldfinger, the search was started for a replacement; a difficult task.
At this same time American television producers had begun taking an interest, and offered to broadcast the show in America while substantially increasing its budget. Originally, Elizabeth Shepherd was signed for the part of Emma Peel, but after only two episodes it was decided that she was unsuitable. On a lark, actress Diana Rigg decided to audition for the role. The chemistry between her and Patrick Macnee was evident from the beginning, and some of the early episodes featuring them together are among the best of the entire series. The two seasons featuring Emma Peel clearly represent the epitome of The Avengers. She was as strong as Cathy Gale (and just as good at Karate), but a bit less contentious with Steed. Their friendship was more open-ended than previous eras allowed, and their banter more scintillating.
The fourth season ('65-'66) was shot in black and white, but film had replaced videotape; the fifth season ('66-'67) was filmed entirely in color. After awhile, Diana Rigg became fed up with the increasingly bizarre scripts and this, combined with a contract dispute, caused her to ask to leave the show midway through her second season. When both the show and Rigg were nominated for Emmys, she was offered a raise and agreed to finish the season. After that she joined Honor Blackman as Avengers alumni who went on to take roles as Bond girls, this time as Tracy Di Vincenzio in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Since then she has continued her illustrious career on both the stage and screen.
Linda Thorson was brought in to play Tara King, a slightly different kind of partner for Steed. For instance, whereas Cathy and Emma were flirty yet undefinedly platonic in their relations with him, Tara was decidedly in love with Steed. This created a nice balance between the eras. In the early to mid-sixties it was believed that, after a solid period of mourning, widows were potentially more available than women that were still blatantly single; thus we have Mrs. Gale and Mrs. Peel. This allowed Steed to flirt with other females in the show while still leaving the possibility open that something could develop with his compatriots. It also left Mrs. Gale and Mrs. Peel considerable leeway in their various encounters with other men. By the time Tara King made the scene, female roles were liberalized and women had more freedom to pursue relationships on their own terms.
This new incarnation only lasted one season, however, because of several factors. In the first place replacing Diana Rigg was no easy task; in the second, the scripts became more and more far-fetched, almost to the point of the show spoofing itself; and thirdly the show was scheduled opposite Laugh In, also one of the most popular shows at that time. Season six ('68- '69) happens to be the most dated of the later seasons, partly because of the quirkiness (even for this show) of the late-sixties plots, but also because of the many hairstyle changes endured by Thorson when the dye she used to become platinum blond for the program caused her hair to fall out, forcing her to wear various wigs until her natural locks returned. This last season was also filmed in color (as was most television by then), and it had its charms despite its problems. Some of the scripts were actually some of the best ever written for the show, and Tara was really beginning to come into her own. The final season of The Avengers came to a close in the Spring of 1969. In the last episode, Tara King and John Steed blast off together in a rocketship at the end, a fitting finish for a show that took the basic crime and espionage format to extraordinary heights.
Sources:
http://theavengers.tv/
http://theavengers.tv/forever/
http://theavengers.tv/forever/guide.htm
http://theavengers.tv/forever/timeline.htm
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Revolving Treadmill
It seems like we are on a revolving treadmill like on the closing credits of the old Jetsons TV show. News stories that we knew about years ago are just now reaching the mainstream media as though nobody was aware of them before. Big news, folks: Vice President Dick Cheney may have been involved in the Valerie Plame leak. As though we're all dense or so distracted that we didn't understand this from the beginning. Remarkably, this is even a retread from the "news" about six months ago. There are revelations almost every day that just confirm what was already known from other sources a long time ago. Meanwhile, the real story, that the Bush administration lied us into the war in Iraq, is apparently just an obligatory side-issue.
President Bush is now moving towards another war, this time with Iran, and the media is helping him to the point of suggesting that it might happen "accidentally." Woops! We started World War 3. The unasked question seems to be: How will this affect the 24 hour news cycle? Will we be able to continue going shopping as though nothing was awry? Don't worry, corporations are making record profits; the economy is doing great they say. Forget about poverty, it's just not sexy; though talking about it may help if you're running for president. Just keep watching television and consuming junk food to the point of oblivion.
There are positive messages coming from the new Congress and from Democratic candidates in an unprecedented early start to the presidential race. The diversity of the field is encouraging and I find myself excited by the three front-runners, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, though they each face varying degrees of opposition from within their own party. With choices like these there may be a chance to turn America around before it's too late, though the task is daunting, with more challenges to come. Two years is a long time for a lame-duck president trying to solidify a tattered legacy. At least the issues are being debated fully for the first time, and it's possible some of the damage might be mitigated. We must cling to this hope as we attempt to survive the most disastrous president in U.S. history.
A massive march on Washington occurred on Jan. 27th that exemplified the possibilities inherent in a movement away from greed and war towards understanding and peace with our "enemies" worldwide. Early press reports indicated "tens of thousands" of protesters descending on the Capital, and even though the crowd was eventually estimated at approximately 300,000 or more (by the organizers at least), the figures were never updated and they kept showing the same cropped pictures as if to say it was just a relatively small group of dissatisfied customers, albeit with big names like Sean Penn and Jane Fonda. It was nice that the event was covered at all, though it was probably a combination of the celebrity factor, and the fact that Congress is actually mulling a resolution expressing opposition to the escalation in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of people protesting the war is being considered somewhat newsworthy for a change; non-reportage of the true numbers notwithstanding.
If Bush now insists on starting a war with Iran, talk of impeachment will increase, though he may gamble that Americans wouldn't be able to stomach such an upheaval during "wartime." Ironically, the final straw needed to convince Congress of the necessity of removing Bush and Cheney from office may preclude their very removal. "World War 3 can't wait for impeachment hearings to take place," they will shriek. Consequently, steps must be taken now to weaken the administration before their plans become irrevocable. Even if Congress doesn't have the votes at the moment to prevail in an impeachment proceeding, they are required by the Constitution of the United States to introduce this remedy anyway, and follow the investigation wherever it leads. The future of the nation and the world is at stake, and that should be enough of a reason to seek accountability from our government.
Sources:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-25.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-23.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-26.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0129-22.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0128-21.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0127-20.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0126-24.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0126-25.htm
President Bush is now moving towards another war, this time with Iran, and the media is helping him to the point of suggesting that it might happen "accidentally." Woops! We started World War 3. The unasked question seems to be: How will this affect the 24 hour news cycle? Will we be able to continue going shopping as though nothing was awry? Don't worry, corporations are making record profits; the economy is doing great they say. Forget about poverty, it's just not sexy; though talking about it may help if you're running for president. Just keep watching television and consuming junk food to the point of oblivion.
There are positive messages coming from the new Congress and from Democratic candidates in an unprecedented early start to the presidential race. The diversity of the field is encouraging and I find myself excited by the three front-runners, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, though they each face varying degrees of opposition from within their own party. With choices like these there may be a chance to turn America around before it's too late, though the task is daunting, with more challenges to come. Two years is a long time for a lame-duck president trying to solidify a tattered legacy. At least the issues are being debated fully for the first time, and it's possible some of the damage might be mitigated. We must cling to this hope as we attempt to survive the most disastrous president in U.S. history.
A massive march on Washington occurred on Jan. 27th that exemplified the possibilities inherent in a movement away from greed and war towards understanding and peace with our "enemies" worldwide. Early press reports indicated "tens of thousands" of protesters descending on the Capital, and even though the crowd was eventually estimated at approximately 300,000 or more (by the organizers at least), the figures were never updated and they kept showing the same cropped pictures as if to say it was just a relatively small group of dissatisfied customers, albeit with big names like Sean Penn and Jane Fonda. It was nice that the event was covered at all, though it was probably a combination of the celebrity factor, and the fact that Congress is actually mulling a resolution expressing opposition to the escalation in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of people protesting the war is being considered somewhat newsworthy for a change; non-reportage of the true numbers notwithstanding.
If Bush now insists on starting a war with Iran, talk of impeachment will increase, though he may gamble that Americans wouldn't be able to stomach such an upheaval during "wartime." Ironically, the final straw needed to convince Congress of the necessity of removing Bush and Cheney from office may preclude their very removal. "World War 3 can't wait for impeachment hearings to take place," they will shriek. Consequently, steps must be taken now to weaken the administration before their plans become irrevocable. Even if Congress doesn't have the votes at the moment to prevail in an impeachment proceeding, they are required by the Constitution of the United States to introduce this remedy anyway, and follow the investigation wherever it leads. The future of the nation and the world is at stake, and that should be enough of a reason to seek accountability from our government.
Sources:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-25.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-23.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-26.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0129-22.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0128-21.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0127-20.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0126-24.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0126-25.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
