The Right Side of History

A collection of writings that attempt to connect the meaning of the major and minor events and distractions of today to a broader philosophy of life that tries to strip away the non-sense, spin and lies to reveal something that is closer to truth.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Bronx, New York, United States

We need to realize that we are all prisoners and the prison guards are ourselves. I am trying as hard as I can to divorce myself from my ego and this materialistic nightmare we have created and in the process awaken my spiritual self.

Watch My Videos!!

Click Picture PromoPaid WebPromoWhy PromoTeedo To View
Click Picture Kramer To View
Click Picture Arteries1941 URMyGirlWebPromo2 To View

Monday, February 28, 2005

A Night At The Oscars.

Oscar


Well it’s Oscar time again. I, like so many millions of my fellow Americans, worked myself into a tizzy, totally wrapped up in the glitz and the glamour, of tinsel town’s biggest night. I was dying to know who Cameron was wearing. I waited with anticipation for the shockingly outrageous comments from Joan Rivers. My eyes welled up and my mouth quivered at some of the intense emotional acceptance speeches delivered from the podium by truly grateful award recipients. Then the E! Network’s coverage of all the hot post-Oscar parties with well informed reporters getting exclusives with Alan Alda….

OK, the reality is I did not watch the Oscar telecast at all. As a film lover, I realize that the Academy Awards is complete bull shit and any recognition of excellence is completely coincidental. I pretty much had this point of view for the last 20 years but everyone else should have been “on board” with my way of thinking the year Gladiator won best picture. My official boycott started when “Saving Private Ryan” was beaten by “Shakespeare in Love.”

I have to admit, this year I was a little interested because I was rooting for Clint Eastwood and his gang of old timers. Keep in mind that I did not see ANY of the nominated movies so for all I know the guy who made “Vera Drake” kicked serious ass but without any direct proof, my money was on Morgan Freeman.

Like I said, it was only of little interest and definitely not enough to watch that disgusting display of ego in its entirety so it was another night of Law and Order. Every once in awhile I would flip over to the Awards and pretty much anything I saw confirmed my pre determined disgust. I’m sure there is a whole laundry list of things about the broadcast that could be held up and ridiculed to the point beyond all reason but there is one thing that caught my eye that made me never go back to that channel for the rest of the night.

I happened to tune in right in the middle of the Academy’s “death medley” which they do every year. This consists of a series of still shots of the stars that died the year before. A shot of Tony Randall, looking very gay, followed by some sound guy no one ever heard of, etc. The volume of applause varies from name to name, face to face, usually causing some awkward moments where you here the proverbial crickets for some and thunderous applause for others.

Yo Yo

Enough of this shit already!


What really pissed me off was, during the appearance of each name on the screen, cellist Yo-Yo Ma is on stage playing some funeral dearth on his cello. Every so often they would cut to him, looking all serious, banging out some sad sounding notes. I know I am just speaking for myself but I have to say ENOUGH OF THIS GUY ALREADY!!! Don’t get me wrong, I do not question the man’s talent or character; I just want the mother-fucker off my TV screen.

Starting with the first anniversary of 9/11, when he sat on the stage and played some grim funeral Cello piece as the names of the victims were being read one by one, Yo-Yo seems to be the go to guy when it comes to “somber” occasions. What do the organizers of these events say to themselves?

Executive A: We got a list of names of dead people to read get me Yo-Yo on the horn. His number’s in my 'dex.


And what the hell does Yo-Yo think when his phone rings with an offer for yet another depressing funeral thing:

Yo-Yo: Oh no…not again… you can’t make me do that shit again!!! I am so fed up with this bullshit! (Begins to tear up) I am a Cellist…A damn good cellist… why must I dance for the white man?


These two scenarios are purely hypothetical but can they be far from the truth?

What bothers me about this whole thing is the creatively bankrupt banality that is being projected onto the general public. They want something somber: call Ma. They want something classy: call Ma. They want something dignified: get Yo-Yo’s ass in here.

On 9/11/02, I thought having a classical cellist playing something dignified was original and appropriate. The same can not be said 3 years later. We are still pulling this guy out whenever we want instant “atmosphere.” The whole Yo-Yo/Cello/Quiet reflection thing needs to be laid to rest.

Yoko

On the other hand...


On the other hand, I guess we could consider ourselves lucky. The guys in charge of this fiasco could have accidently called Yoko Ono by mistake and we could have been subjected to banshee like screetching and screaming while the picture of the guy who directed "King of Hearts" flashes on the screen

Sixth Army

Friday, February 25, 2005

What's It All About...Donnie?

Yesterday, when an esteemed colleague of mine, one whose taste and intelligence I trust implicitly, handed me a copy of the film Donnie Darko (2001) and told me to check it out, I did the only thing I really could do in the circumstances.

I sat in my cube and stared blankly at the felt covered walls for another four hours. After the remainder of my paycheck required time was up, I hand scanned out and hurried home as fast as I could. Upon my arrival at my "evening cubicle," I hung up my fedora and stripped off my worn out green micro fiber jacket, making a bee-line to the kitchen. I immediately poured myself a tall Sloe Gin Fizz on the rocks, turned on my X-Box, removed the van Dam DVD that was already in the disc tray and replaced it with Darko. Settling in my rust colored comfy chair, I picked up the remote and pushed the play button.

As the opening credits came on I put my feet up and took a long sip of my beverage, settling in, waiting with anticipation, hoping to experience an old fashioned horror movie and escape reality for a couple of hours.

I got a lot more than I bargained for.

Disclaimer Alert!!! Plot points revealed.



Darko

Jake Gyllenhaal


The story is deceptively simple and hopelessly complex at the same time. It is thoroughly satisfying at some points and maddeningly frustrating at others. It is also patently original.

The movie takes place in Virginia in October of 1988. It is about a mildly psychotic teenager named Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhaal) who, in the past, liked to play with fire and burned down an abandoned neighborhood house. Now he takes mood-altering medication, when he feels like it, and sees a psychiatrist once a week. He is obviously intelligent even if he is slightly disturbed.

One night Frank, a large demonic gray rabbit, which only he can see, visits him. The rabbit tells him the world is coming to an end within a month. From that high concept everything else emanates.

Overall, although there is an intricate plot, this is a movie of well-defined characters and strong mood. Most of the scenes take place in the local school, or in Donnie’s house, and is populated with a whole bunch of stereotypes. I spotted a troubled anti-hero, the supportive good looking girlfriend who has an abusive (step)father, the rule obsessed fuddy-duddy principal, a bunch of over achieving cheerleaders, a fat misunderstood sensitive shy girl, the older more responsible sister, the younger mischievous smart aleck sister, the well meaning ineffectual parents, the young caring unconventional teacher and the older out of touch anal retentive teacher, etc. There are so many cliches that not only is there a sadistic bully and a loyal dimwitted sidekick but there are actually two of each.

It is a true testament to the writing and acting that this assortment of stock characters, stereotypes that date back to Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney movies of the Great Depression, come off as a realistic group. This is achieved by having them behave not as you always expect.

For example, near the beginning of the movie, in a brilliant exposition scene, the family sits around the dinner table. By the end of this scene the viewer knows several things about the Darko family. They are a relatively happy family that has the usual sibling rivalry that comes from three teen and pre-teen kids. Donnie has a past that neither parent likes to face and he will use it against them like a weapon whenever he feels uncooperative. There are no serious discipline problems nor is there violence at the dinner table as the sister, voting for the first time, respectfully disagrees with her father about presidential politics and a reasonable intelligent conversion ensues. These are smart people.

Watch, during this scene, when Donnie and her older sister Elizabeth (Real life sister Maggie Gyllenhaal) get into a name calling session. Donnie stutters and finally calls her a "fuck bag." How does she react? She giggles and asks, "Did you just call me a fuck bag?" The mother interrupts to "break it up" but Elizabeth is still giggling. Maggie Gyllenhaal is flawless in her reaction. She’s not angry. Her facial expression is amused and dumbfounded, not believing that her brother could not come up with any insult better than the non-sensical "fuck-bag." A pretty typical situation is handled in an unusual way with a strong cast carrying it off. The whole scene ends with the youngest daughter asking "what’s a fuck bag" and everyone having a big laugh.

The cheerleaders, doing sexy dances, instead of being the traditional girls that all the boys are trying to screw, are actually a dance troupe of little kids called Sparkle Motion who are on their way to appear on Ed McMahon’s Star Search. One of the dancers is actually Donnie’s smart aleck little sister.

The young, unconventional teacher, Karen Pomeroy (Drew Barrymore – also credited as executive producer), who is "making a connection" with the kids, has a scene that betrays her true contempt for her students’ passionless apathy. When a new girl, Gretchen, comes into the classroom in the middle of a lesson and informs her she is a new student, Karen tells her to "sit next to the boy who you think is the cutest. You choose."

The boys immediately pose like peacocks while Gretchen walks down the aisle, nervously contemplating where she is going to sit before choosing Donnie. The whole time, Karen stares with glee at the situation she has created. Talk about being incredibly cruel to 16-year-old kids and their raging new found hormones! In any event, Barrymore definitely is not exhibiting typical behavior for her "type."

The only one out of the bunch who pretty much stays the predictable course out is the anal retentive older teacher Kitty Farmer. She is also the coach of the Sparkle Motion dance team. At an emergency PTA meeting, she suggests to ban a book by the author Graham Green because she believes it to be pornographic. When she is asked does she even know whom Graham Green is, she proudly states, "I think we have all seen Bonanza," and returns to her seat triumphantly. She also supplies the punch line in a scene in the principal’s office. When Donnie’s parents, after being called down to the school, ask what their son said, Kitty responds, "I'll tell you what he said. He asked me to forcibly insert the Life Line exercise card into my anus." I don’t mind the caricature because she is good comedy relief.

A truly original character is Jim Cunningham, a local well-respected motivational speaker, portrayed by Patrick Swayze. He is a self-help guru whose system reduces all human behaviors into a "Life Line" that only has two poles, fear and love. His idea for achieving spiritual contentment is for the individual to eliminate fear from their lives and embrace love.

He has an exercise program where people read a hypothetical situation off a pre-printed card, (Such as the classic ethical question if you find a wallet do you return it with the cash still in it?) and then place an "X" on the diagramed Lifeline which is drawn on a chalkboard where they believe their response should be, either closer to "love" or "hate." Of course Donnie sees these exercises as complete bullshit which leads to the scene in the principal’s office I mentioned earlier.

At this time, I have to make a special mention about the performance of Patrick Swayze. I always thought of him as a pretty boy but, as he proves in this movie, he is not a terrible actor after all. Swayze nails the part.

Swayze

Crawling his way out of the gutter


I realize now that he has always been a victim of miscasting. He was a cheesy TV actor, most famously starring in the mini series North and South (1985) who then lucked out with that hackneyed MTV age gibberish Dirty Dancing (1987) and peaked with the totally plot driven Ghost (1990). From these two scores he somehow became A list material when, in reality, he did not belong anywhere near top billing. Consider the "TNT New Classic" Road House (1989), possibly the worst major film ever released to the public in the post studio system era. Swayze’s absurdly bad performance in the lead role contributed immeasurably to that dubious honor.

But as his career rolled along, like so many whom came before him, he started to believe his own press. Probably surrounded by Hollywood phonies, sponging hanger-ons and entourages of yes men, he began to take himself way too seriously. I am thinking specifically of City of Joy (1992) where he plays some kind of humanitarian in some disgusting Indian slum. He probably thought of it as a "serious" project that would ultimately help the poor and starving around the world. See, in his eyes, he thought "the world" would pay attention to the problem of poverty and disease because a "star" of his magnitude deserves to be heard and paid attention to.

What really happened was the critics, and, more importantly, the ticket buying public, thought the "film" was a complete piece of dog shit and it effectively ended his career.

Being in a textbook state of denial, it took him some time to realize that roles were no longer coming his way. The industry turned to the surprising success of lower key "indie" movies starting with the Cannes winning Soderbergh picture "Sex, Lies and Videotape" (1989) and sealing the deal with Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction (1994). All of a sudden agents starting calling James Spader and debt collectors were on the horn with Swayze. In true Spinal Tap fashion he tried to reinvent, reinvigorate, actually resuscitate, his career with that ridiculous cross dressing Pricilla: Queen of the Desert remake To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar (1995). No one bought it and it was back to unreturned phone calls, the unemployment line and quiet desperation.

I was completely surprised when I saw his name on the box but probably not half as surprised as Swayze himself was when his telephone rang that day in 2001 and it wasn’t a utility company demanding money but someone who actually wanted to hire him.

He is excellent as the self-help guru who half the town seems to idolize. Watch the scenes that are supposedly the actual get-well tapes. They look done on the cheap with bad video graphics and terrible acting. "Real" patients offer "real" testimonials of the success of the sure fire methods to contentment the Swayze character is selling. Inter cut with this are shots of Swayze, standing uncomfortably unnaturally posed, saying ludicrously simple axioms in a God like fashion.

Of course the overall credit of the effectiveness of these scenes goes to the director’s (Richard Kelly) complete grasp and understanding of the visual look and tone of these generic late night "infomercials." Anyone who as ever stayed awake past midnight knows you can’t go two clicks of the remote without running into one. I am sure the director has seen a few in his lifetime.

But Swayze deserves a lot of credit too because he does something a little more subtle. In delivering his lines he is thoroughly convincing as one of these snake oil salesman types who are probably charming and charismatic in a live setting but are stunted and affected in front of a TV camera. Remember the story takes place in 1988, which was the dawn of FCC deregulation, and the sophistication of these pitch shows was still in its infancy. It has been said that the hardest role for an actor to perform is one OF a bad actor. It is easy to give a bad performance but quite another to give a GOOD performance of a bad performance.

These are the kind of roles Swayze should stick with. Instead of the romantic or action leading man parts he should play good looking, sleazy con men that perpetually have disingenuous smiles across their faces. Facial expressions which are tools of the trade, used to mask the base shallowness, terrible secrets and character flaws that lurk just below the surface.

To put it another way, in yet another putrid piece of celluloid Next of Kin (1989) Liam Neeson played Swayze’s backwoods hillbilly brother, hell-bent on exacting revenge on some "city slicker" who did their family wrong somehow. Neeson, of course, gets killed for his troubles and what follows is shot after shot of righteous heroics by our hero. If the actors reversed roles back then possibly there would have been no forced hiatus for Swayze and he wouldn’t be in a position where he is scrounging around for scale jobs.

Donnie Darko (2001) uses several techniques to create the eerie atmosphere that permeates the entire picture.

Darko

A typically disturbing scene


The first one involves sound combined with unusual camera angles whenever the rabbit makes an appearance. He is always shot almost as a prop with the camera starting at full figure and slowly closing in until the rabbit mask is seen in a grotesque close up. Everything he says is in an almost calm soothing monotone coupled with ominous piano chords in the background. The rabbit’s face being a mask, his mouth never moves which also adds to the nightmare like quality. These scenes are further layered by the inter cutting of close ups of Donnie’s face either hypnotized, confused or terrorized. The overall effect is doom and these scenes are the movie’s best.

The second noticeable "trick" is the speeded up and jump cutting of several scenes that take place in the school. Lines of uniformed students file into the school in fast motion with the camera following right behind them. The image slows down here, jumps cuts there, just long enough to focus on one character or another doing something that, out of context, seems hopelessly pathetic. Tears for Fears, or some other 80’s pop band, playing on the soundtrack nicely puts the viewer in the general era but the overall effect creates a feeling of time out of kilter. Normally, I am against such obvious visual manipulation but I liked these scenes anyway. I thought, with its images of rigid conformity and banal activity, they visually conveyed Donnie’s intellectual detachment and alienation.

The third technique, and my personal favorite, are the tittle cards that appear throughout the film. The card has the exact date and how much time is left until the rabbit’s initial prophecy. A typical card reads, "October 20, 1988 – 10 days remain," accompanied by a deep dramatic piano chord. By the end the cards have an hourly countdown. I do not know what the director specifically intended with this clever narrative ploy but they sure worked on me. What a feeling of suspense and dread these cards produce!

But, unfortunately, I can’t stop my critique there. There is simply too much that is either ambiguous or underdeveloped for me to ignore.

For starters, is this rabbit real or just a figure of the protagonist’s mind because he doesn’t take his medication like he is supposed to? The rabbit definitely has an agenda but what is it? The rabbit starts telling him to do bad things that all turn out to benefit Darko or his town greatly. He tells Donnie to leave his house one night and an hour later a plane engine falls through the roof that would have certainly killed him if he was still there. The rabbit then tells him to crack a water main to flood the school building canceling classes which results in a chance meeting with a new girl in town who later becomes his girlfriend. Darko is told to burn the house down of Jim Cunningham, who is in the process of brainwashing the whole town. The speaker’s credibility is destroyed because the fire exposes his involvement in a kiddie porn ring. Is Frank a messenger of God or just the product of Donnie’s schizophrenia?

Religion plays a steady part throughout the story. All the characters seem to accept religion on its own terms even though they veer off the traditional path sometimes. Some, like Kitty Farmer, the "holier than thou" coach of the girls dance team, take to the feel good "new age" philosophy of the Swayze character, while others, like Darko’s psychiatrist (A very aged Katherine Ross) have more of a "medical" view and there are the ones, like Donnie’s physics teacher, who adhere to science and time travel theories. My guess is the writer is a big Kurt Vonnegut fan.

None of these characters seems to question the actual existence of God, just His grand plans or methods. Darko, himself, seems to be a believer. For example, at a school general assembly, Darko publically confronts Jim Cunningham, calling him "The Anti-Christ" receiving scattered applause from some of his fellow teens before being physically expunged from the room. There is a very deliberate scene that is set at a movie theatre. Donnie leaves the theatre and walks past the box office. He is on his way to burn down Swayze’s house because Frank told him to. After Donnie walks out of the frame, the camera lingers for several seconds on the movie marquee that reads "Evil Dead II" right above "The Last Temptation of Christ." I think the director is definitely trying to tell us something. I just don’t know what he is trying to say.

The third element of this hodgepodge ambitious film is "The Philosophy of Time Travel," which is the title of a book written by the local town recluse/weirdo Roberta Sparrow (Patience Cleveland). There are several discussions about "worm holes" "life paths" "planes of existence" and the existence of free will. Donnie even starts seeing physical manifestations of our "destinies" through CGI special effects. Tube shaped, water textured "lifelines" start protruding out of people’s chests which the characters unconsciously follow. Donnie, on the other hand, is very conscious of his "choice of life path" and one time follows it to a closet in his parent’s bedroom where he finds a gun. This gun, of course, plays a huge role in the course of events that unfolds in front of us where Donnie attempts to save his girlfriend from two brutes but ends up killing another kid who turns out to be the rabbit...I’m sorry, does all this sound confusing? It was.

Back to Roberta Savage, the author of the book, who the local kids, including Donnie, call "Grandma Death." She earns this moniker because she is very old, has a wild unkempt appearance and she is seemingly senile. She stands in the middle of the road everyday, pacing back and forth, in front of her dilapidated house, checking and rechecking her empty mail box. One day, after Donnie and his father almost run her down, she pulls Donnie close and whispers in his ear, "All living creatures die alone." Since she doesn’t seem to talk to anybody, and this cryptic statement seems specifically for Donnie, we, both the audience and the main character, find ourselves asking, Is Grandma Death another messenger from God? Is Donnie a prophet?

All of these actions and events are really beside the point because the viewer is not going to get any answers to these and other serious questions the film raises. I think any one who watches it is going to draw his or her own conclusions.

After viewing the film, ask yourself:

Does Donnie willingly go back in time to save his girlfriend and by doing so emotionally destroy his family with his own death?

If the mysterious plane engine that fell through the roof of the Darko residence the first time, whose ID or flight number was unknown even to the FAA officials, turns out to be the plane his mother was on the second time, how is Donnie’s mother in the house when it happens for a third time?

Donnie writes a letter to Grandma Death from "the future" which is dramatically read in voice over near the end of the movie while we visually see time go backwards. What do these words and images mean?

It turns out the rabbit is a kid named Frank in a Halloween costume. He runs over and kills Donnie’s girlfriend and then, in turn, is shot and killed by Donnie on the day "the world is coming to an end." Why is he helping Donnie out by giving him the "inside information" on one’s lifeline of destiny? A lifeline, I might add, that leads directly to his own death?

For that matter how does Frank manage his "quantum leap?" Didn’t he die?

Why does Donnie laugh knowing his own death is approaching in a matter of minutes? Is it because he is proud at "proving himself right" by successfully leaping to alter history? Is it the triumph of overcoming his own fear and finally accepting Grandma Death’s proclamation about "dying alone?"

Did any of the previous events happen at all?


I can guess but, on the other hand, why bother? Oh I am sure someone out there has explanations for all these things, and I am sure all these explanations are very plausible. Please feel free to leave comments I would love the discussion. I admit these questions pertain more to the "nuts and bolts" as compared to the more philosophical questions contemplated throughout the viewing. But that’s the whole problem I am having with this picture. My position is simple.

For about an hour and a half the writer (Richard Kelly who also directed) sets up an extremely interesting riddle. He creates scenes of such powerful mood that they border on the transcendental. The acting is subtle and strong. The dialogue has some nice touches that make you take notice that there is a real film going on here. But he has no idea how to end it so, in an attempt to wrap it up, he supplies a mundane explanation for all we had witnessed and then tacks on a totally confusing, unsatisfactory ending giving the impression of some sort of meta-physical conclusion. In other words, I think he bailed on his own convictions.

Mr. Kelly, for three quarters of the film’s running time, is shooting for the stars but, in the last quarter, settles for OK and his unique bold statement remained in his pocket. I can’t believe he wanted "the meaning of life" and "how does it work" type inquiries reduced to drunk driving accidents and secret hideouts. This movie was not a cheap commercial thriller so why mar a possible enlightening experience with plot contrivances that supply cheap quick fixes instead of letting us sort it out for ourselves and possibly learning something in the process? There are no proven answers, at least not yet, for the questions he raises and we all have to find our own answers to these questions anyway, either through faith, thought and/or experience. In my opinion, a better last act would have reflected this fact.

Or maybe it was too esoteric for me and over my head. I don’t know, either way I recommend it.

Sixth Army

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

The Black List

HUAC

HUAC 1950 - W's Blueprint?



Because of the death of Arthur Miller, PBS replayed a great American Masters documentary last night: American Masters: Arthur Miller, Elia Kazan and the Blacklist

If you don’t know much about that chapter of history, the height of the Cold War and the Red Scare (1947-1960), it is both eye opening and educational. For example, one of the “talking heads” pointed out something I found enlightening.

Elia Kazan, a very prominent progressive director, was called to testify in front of H.U.A.C. (House on Un-American Activities committee) in 1952 and “named names” of fellow Hollywood communists, who were his friends in the 1930s. In this way he was allowed to continue to work in Hollywood while the people he named were blacklisted and were not able to find work unless they too ratted out their friends. His best friend, Arthur Miller, wrote a play titled “The Crucible” in 1954 which took place in Salem, Mass during the witch hunts of the 1600s but obviously was a critique of contemporary America and probably was an accusation aimed at Kazan. Miller once loved Elia like a brother but, after Kazan’s testimony, they did not even speak for the decade that followed.

Arthur Miller, was called in front of the committee in 1956. At that point in time his prominence was waning (Death of a Salesman was in the 1940s) and the only reason he was targeted, besides the extreme right wing’s hatred of him, was because he was having a relationship with Marilyn Monroe. He refused to talk and was held in contempt of Congress which was later overturned on appeal. He was lionized by American intellectuals for standing up to tyranny.

What this talking head correctly pointed out is that even though the two men’s testimony was only 4 years apart the climate was radically different. By 1956 Sen. Joseph McCarthy was already disgraced and H.U.A.C.’s power was diminished. Although both people were put in the same agonizing position, and took two polar opposite courses of action, Kazan’s predicament was much more serious. To refuse would have immediately ended his film career while Miller had a lot less to lose. Remember the first recognized legitimate credit for any blacklisted writer was Dalton Trumbo for “Spartacus” and “Exodus” in 1960.

Kazan later would win academy awards for “On The Waterfront” but, from that point on, he would always be branded a traitor. Many people even consider “Waterfront’s” unequivocal triumph as a piece of propaganda which Kazan boldly justifies his own shame through the Marlon Brando character, a thinly veiled version of himself, who is a long shoreman who turns snitch against organized crime. When Kazan was given the Lifetime Achievement Oscar 50 years later there were loud protesters in the streets in front of the auditorium and many of the actors inside silently showed there disgust by not standing up and applauding when Kazan took to the podium. Miller never again achieved the earlier success of “Death of a Salesman” but his place in the American Play Write Pantheon is secured. In many respects, it was all a question of timing.


The documentary ends with a quote which summed up the film’s point and that whole chapter in the American experience beautifully. It was from Dalton Trumbo’s acceptance speech when he received the Writers Guild Laurel Award for career achievement in March of 1970. He said:

The blacklist was a time of evil. No one on either side who survived it came through untouched by evil... There was bad faith and good, honesty and dishonesty, courage and cowardice, selflessness and opportunism, wisdom and stupidity, good and bad on both sides... It will do no good to search for villains or heroes or saints or devils because there were none; there were only victims. Some suffered less than others, some grew or were diminished, but in the final tally we were all victims because almost without exception each of us felt compelled to say things he did not want to say, to do things he did not want to do, to deliver and receive wounds he truly did not want to exchange. That is why none of us--right, left, or center--emerged from that long nightmare without sin.


Truly remarkable words from a person who had every right to gloat or thumb his nose at an establishment who barred him from his craft for years A man whose only crime was standing up for free speech. This could have been a beligerant “Michael Moore moment.” Instead he was pragmatic and reconcillatory, speaking with an understanding that comes from being in the eye of the storm.

He is speaking through experience and with intimate knowledge of the people involved. He went to jail for several years as part of the original “Hollywood Ten “ and I think his point was that they, “the ten,” were also flawed people. Obviously standing up to that kind of fascist shit has to be considered a good thing but no one is a saint. For example Edward Dmytryk, who was also part of “the ten,” actually went to jail for the cause and then later turned rat to get work.

But the larger impact of his words is one of reflection. What is the lesson of the black list? Is it that villains (such as H.U.A.C.) fought a hard battle for America’s soul with heroes (such as Trumbo) who, momentarily defeated in the darkest days of the early 1950s, ultimately prevailed?

Or is there a more grandiose moral in that whole episode? Could it be the observation that we, as people, are reducing complex ideas and emotions into simple concepts like good and evil, right and wrong, black hats and white hats in our quest to make sense of life? And when these simple schematas we cling to are taken to the extreme, the majority may feel superficially safer and more comfortable, but, in the process, flawed innocent people are steamrollered, forced to make painful choices and suffer immensely for no reason at all. Is the lesson of the “Red Scare” or the Salem witch trials for that matter, that ultimate truth and real justice will continue to elude us if we continue to have such a black and white philosophy?

I think Trumbo’s statement is by a man, older and nearing the end (He died in 1976) looking back at his life, career and culture with regret at the way things unnecessarily played out.

I would argue that many people, young and vibrant today, years from now are going to have the same feelings about their thoughts and actions in the situation we find ourselves in.

Sixth Army


P.S. If this period of time interests you check out: The Front (1976)

It takes place during this time and stars many actors who were actually blacklisted. The lead is played by Woody Allen in a very rare “acting only” capacity so it shows how strongly he felt about the subject.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Did George Orwell Give Florida It's Nick Name?

Map

A map of "The Sunshine State"



2/10/05

I sat down the other day and watched a movie called Monster (2003) and I believe it deserves comment. Not only the film itself, which was very good, but, more importantly, the “reality” it creates which is both enlightening and disturbing at the same time. It is “based on a true story,” about the highway prostitute turned serial killer, Aileen Wuornos, who, in the early 1990s, was convicted, and subsequently executed, of shooting seven of her “Johns” in Florida.

Its focus is on the “real” day to day Florida society which, according to this movie, is filled with working class natives and transplants, bikers and undesirables, transients and directionless beach bums whose existence seems to be a malaise of alcohol, drugs, cars, intellectual laziness, sexual promiscuity, moral hypocrisy and, most of all, boredom. These people are not the self absorbed, image conscious, phony, attention craving celebrities and their hanger-ons of the posh, overpriced, over-hyped dance clubs of Miami. This film is populated with characters whose idea of “class” is dinner at Pizza Hut.

theron

Now you see her...

The first thing that needs to be mentioned about Monster is the Academy Award winning tour de force performance of Charlize Theron. She physically transforms herself from the classic statuesque beauty that she is in real life to a rather unattractive woman whose face is weathered and scarred betraying a life of hard drinking, self loathing, hardships and experiences that “fine upstanding” society doesn’t know about, doesn’t want to know about or can not possibly come close to understanding. Visually speaking it is akin to Robert De Niro’s metamorphosis in Raging Bull from a young stealth boxer to a paunchy middle aged slob.

Looking at the movie poster, I find myself staring at the facial features of Ms. Theron. There is no question that she used heavy make-up around the eyes and possibly some kind of prosthetic mouthpiece because, as I mentioned before, there is no way you would confuse the cover girl on this DVD box with The Cover Girl of Vanity Fair and W Magazine which she actually is. I am sure the make-up went a long way in the Academy voting that won her the Best Actress Oscar but to stop there would do her a great disservice.

Theron adopts a whole body language that says everything you need to know about her character and the point in life where she is at. Tall, stooped shoulders and a manly swagger that suggests a life of hard knocks but she also often sticks her chin and chest out suggesting dignity and fearlessness. This is a person who knows she is in the gutter. She knows there is a “normal” happy life out there being enjoyed by others but is unattainable by her. She is also fiercely proud of the fact that she is a survivor in a cold cruel world that treated her like dirt. She will do whatever it takes to stay alive.

theron 2

...now you don't.


Based on her looks and her celebrity, Charlize Theron is probably used to being treated like a Queen. She probably gets the best tables at restaurants and never has to pay for drinks. I am sure hotels have rooms available even if reservations don’t exist. I am sure her phone calls are taken and promptly returned by friends and business associates. I am sure people are polite whenever she is at a social gathering or making a mundane transaction at the local supermarket. People are probably happy to see her.

Nobody holds the door open for Aileen Wuornos and Ms. Theron is so thoroughly convincing in her portrayal of this person, a character that is so diametrically opposed to her own experiences, that, by definition, she is a great actress and this is a great performance. It is her movie.

In a superficial skin deep world, Aileen’s looks, lack of refine, taste and social standing make it easy for everyday people to dismiss her as “trash.” These same people who judge her, would, for the most part, consider themselves decent folks. They have a job and pay their bills. They go to church on Sundays and believe in an all loving God. They point to their wives, husbands or kids, their tacky house and their meager possessions as symbols of their righteousness and civility. Yet these same people can not see their basic hypocrisy: By relegating Aileen to the trash heap, passing judgment upon her on a daily basis, they demonstrate an inability to see another human being as a person deserving of love and/or respect.

This salient point is beautifully illustrated in a scene that takes place in a roadside diner between Aileen’s (Theron) new, much younger, girlfriend Selby (Christina Ricci) and Selby’s mother, an evangelical Christian who is very upset with her daughter’s “choice” of living a lesbian lifestyle and specifically her decision to live with Aileen. Although Aileen is paying all the bills, Selby’s mother reasons, “You know she is up to no good. She is just using you for money. I know you are feeling all romantic with this woman but she’s not even gay you know. She’s not like she was born a nigger. She made a choice…” When Selby protests her mother’s obvious bigoted racist statements she dismisses her daughter as “being silly…you know I’m no racist” and then continues to try to convince her that “her soul can still be saved.” She is completely oblivious to the fact that her whole philosophy and raison d’être have no connection with her own actual feelings and actions.

Keep in mind that the mother never talked to or even met Aileen, the new love in her daughter’s life. She just caught a glimpse of her the first night the couple met when Aileen snuck out of Selby’s bedroom window. Selby’s mother has no need to talk to her, she knows that Aileen is no good because she looks like a bad person and the church tells her so. Her attempt “to save” her daughter, with sermonizing and vague threats involving Selby’s authoritarian pious father, actually drives her away. Her actions producing a result that was the exact opposite of what she had intended to happen.

All of society is against Aileen, a situation that is hammered home in a sequence of scenes that show her attempting to go “straight” and get some kind of office job even though she has no experience whatsoever. The prospective employers are extremely rude openly mocking her when she asks them for a job. The movie shows 3 different interviews each one progressively worse than the last, with Theron, having no resume or appropriate clothes, doing some scenery chewing, alternating between begging for a chance and verbally abusing the interviewer.

These scenes play very false to me. I understand it is not a far stretch to think that the interviewers do feel and think what their written dialogue has them saying but they are so rude and belligerent toward Aileen they border on caricature. People in human resources are generally very conscious of outward appearances. Although they certainly are not going to hire this applicant, they are not going to let them know so bluntly. There are reasons “Don’t call us, we’ll call you,” and “We’ll be in touch,” have become clichés of rejection. Then when you consider this story takes place in 1989 or 1990, an era of Clarence Thomas, P.C. and anti-sexism litigation, these supervisors’ behavior would probably be considered unacceptable. Maybe things were done differently in Florida.

To put a punctuation mark on “the world is against me” theme, this sequence ends with Aileen, walking on the street outside the office where she has just been humiliated, being harassed by a beat cop who forces her to perform oral sex on him in his patrol car. Afterwards, on returning to Selby, who by this time, has ran away from her parents and is living with her in a cheap hotel room, she decides to go back to hooking on Interstate 95 because there is no other way to make money. Aileen, in a monologue that is part confession and part declaration, says, “Who am I kidding? I’ve been hooking since I was 13, I don’t know anything else. And besides, I don’t really mind ya know. I don’t care. I only quit because I was afraid of being caught…” She was not afraid of being caught prostituting herself. A week before her speech to Selby, she shot a man to death in a deserted area off the Inter-State and stole his car.

Selby, Aileen’s girlfriend and recipient of her heartfelt words, is one of the more despicable characters put on celluloid. It is Aileen’s faith and trust in Selby that ultimately brings her own downfall. Aileen sees her as “a last shot at a normal life” and welcomes a chance to love and take care of her like a combination lover/mother. I understand her need to care for and about somebody. I understand her need to have somebody, anybody, care about her. In short, I fully understand Aileen’s need to be needed. But, like the Great Gatsby before her, she chose the wrong person to adore and fulfill these needs.

Well portrayed by Christina Ricci, Selby is a whiney, selfish little brat. I am not sure how old she is supposed to be but I would guess in her early 20s. When we meet her she is shy, awkward, still sponging off her parents and has no prospects. She runs off with Aileen and almost immediately starts complaining about money. When Aileen informs her that she wants to stop hooking, Selby doesn’t understand why and gets upset. Upon hearing of the plan, Selby breaks out into a hysterical crying fit and actually says, “But how are you going to take care of me?” While most people her age, on their own for the first time, revel in their new found freedom and responsibility, Selby has no intention of supporting herself. And then she has the audacity to portray herself as the one who is being taken advantage of.

At this point Selby doesn’t know about the murders. Over the next year, whenever Aileen comes home with another car, she is told that it is “borrowed” from a friend. When she eventually finds out the source of these automobiles her behavior is quite curious. At first, she is horrified but then, it seems like the next day, she is egging Aileen on to, “get another car” knowing damn well how she’s getting these cars. When their police sketches appear on TV, Selby only thinks of herself and gladly accepts all of Aileen’s money and gets on a bus to an unspecified location.

Two for the road.



The next time we see her she is sitting in a room filled with police and recording equipment, on the phone with Aileen, who has been arrested, tricking her into making a confession. Selby testifies against her and probably, afterwards, goes back home to her parents as if nothing ever happened. And if anything did happen, in her own mind, it had nothing to do with her anyway. This character is disgraceful and shameful. Aileen’s last chance at redemption turns out to be yet another shrill and hollow person. The world’s betrayal of Aileen is complete.

The Florida of Monster is shown to us as a very grim, very dark place. Every scene seems to be shot at night or mid afternoon with characters waking up in tacky rooms that are a complete mess. Floors and tables are littered with empty beer cans and bottles. Ashtrays overflowing with cigarette butts are visible in every shot. After awhile the sets, lighting and circumstances create a realistic look at the fringe of society which is rarely depicted on screen and, with it, the distinctive feeling of an accelerated alcoholic daze that has no beginning and no end.

The exterior shots are mostly on I-95. Car headlights pass by at high speeds as the dimly lit form of the pathetic Aileen stands on the side of the road with her thumb out. Other cars slow to a stop and offer Aileen “a ride” at which time she goes into a tired spiel of being a mother whose truck broke down, she trying to get money to help her kids (She even has a picture), she looking for work, etc. etc. The men driving know this is a load of bull but play along by acting sympathetic and “offering help” etc. etc.

Although the situation is standard, the needs of both the prostitute and the John are straightforward and the outcome of their meeting painfully obvious to both parties, they perform this ridiculous ritual anyway. Social custom requires it. Although what Aileen is doing is called “the world’s oldest profession,” proper society pretends these meetings never occur, so, to do their part, the participants pretend they don’t happen either. Is it really a surprise the majority of Aileen’s clients are married who, on a deserted stretch of road at midnight, in the back seat of a 1983 Chevy Chevette, would share an extremely intimate moment with a woman who, if they saw again at noon in downtown, the very next day, would cross to the other side of the Street just to avoid looking at her? Like a house of cards, lie is placed upon lie, waiting for a wind to blow them all down exposing the accumulated self hatred and degradation that lurks just under the surface of a proud exterior.

One night that wind does come, taking the guise of a “client” who picks up Aileen right before she is about to “punch out” and go on her first date with Selby, who she met in a gay bar sometime earlier.

Aileen might or might not have “accidentally” stumbled into that gay bar. I believe there is some room for speculation. She says definitively upon settling down on a barstool, “I’m not gay ya know…just my truck broke down.” This of course is yet another lie, and she ends up going home with Selby, a shy girl, who had been buying her drinks all night. If Aileen was in denial or not is irrelevant because she certainly sees her new “friend” as her last shot at happiness. In a voiceover narration, right before she enters the bar, she explains how she was just about to kill herself, “…but I wanted a last drink, asking God for a sign… and then… there she was.”

The client turns out to be a brutal psychopath. He drives her to a secluded spot and after some awkward conversation and playful haggling over price he begins to beat her to a pulp eventually knocking her out. When she awakes she is in the front seat, bound to the passenger side door, bent over with her pants and underwear down. This guy appears through the open driver’s side door and asks if she is awake. He then proceeds to rape her with a tire iron as well as forcibly kicking her in the genitalia. After pouring what I believe to be rubbing alcohol (I can’t be sure nor do I understand) all over her battered body he yells “You better be ready for some fuckin’” and goes to the trunk of the car evidently to get some more torture instruments. Terrified and screaming Aileen manages to wriggle her hands out of the rope and grabs a gun that is in a handbag which I believe was her own. When the rapist reappears in the driver side doorway she shoots him several times, I think I counted six.

She takes the dead man’s car and drives it to Selby’s house who, by this time, understandably thinks she was stood up. Knocking on the bedroom window, accidentally waking her parents up, a bizarre scene out of a 1950s romance comic book plays out. Aileen convinces Selby to run away with her and, as another piece of voice over narration earlier stated, “It seemed that love conquered over all.” The validity (or lack there of) of that statement, which is referenced several times by Aileen (As voice over narrator), will be a running theme throughout the movie.

I would like to apologize for my graphic description of the rape scene but I felt it was absolutely crucial for you to understand how graphic and despicable it was. I hope it made you feel uncomfortable and uneasy because that is the way I felt when I was watching it but it is was by no means gratuitous. I think it was an almost expressionist way (No, I am not crazy I know it was shot quite “realistically”) of demonstrating the truly putrid way this person has been treated by life. In her voiceovers and dialogue, throughout the film, the bad things that were done to her as a child and an adult are hinted at and mentioned.

Evidently she was raped repeatedly as a child by her father’s best friend (“Friend” = Lie); She was pregnant and gave up the baby at the age of 13; By that same year both her parents were dead so she already was “working the street” to support her brother and sister; That same brother and sister a few years later were so ashamed (“Ashamed”=Self Loathing) of her “work,” which incidentally kept the two of them fed and clothed, threw her out of the house in the middle of winter (She was originally from the upper mid-west so it was cold and snowing). Throw in the disrespect as an adult she receives from “polite society” and the use and abuse she receives from clients (The “clients” and “polite society” are many times the same people. She is first humiliated and then she used by them making her feel guilt and pain for something they themselves secretly crave and, because of there ability to maintain a reasonable “front,” are free to practice with no serious consequences for the most part. Yet more lies and hypocrisy) as well as the voluntary self pollution for almost 30 years and you have a victim of severe emotional violence with wounds that go way beyond the lines on her face provided by external make up. How does a film maker express these interior wounds that may only manifest themselves when the character is off screen, tossing and turning at night in the dark, tormented about her “wasted life” and the pain of a new day?

I could see the reason for someone not wanting this gruesome scene in the film or maybe shoot it more “suggestive” and less literal. It will probably offend some people. For that matter I could understand Ms. Theron not wanting to be in it. It is frank, raw and exposed. I think the director, Patty Jenkins, made the correct choice shooting it and the actor showed a lot of courage playing it.

First of all, by pointing the camera at such a disgusting crime and not blinking, the Ms. Jenkins plays fair. She is allowing the audience to catch a glimpse of the dangerous world of Aileen Wuornos. She lives everyday with the knowledge that the next car that stops and the next $20 sex act could possibly become a struggle of life and death. Saying this hard simple truth, writing about this terrible circumstance is a lot less effective than showing the actual cold inhuman reality. Events like this unfortunately do happen in this country and do we really benefit if we close our eyes and pretend they don’t?

Secondly, Theron’s expressions are completely believable spanning the entire emotional spectrum during her character’s ordeal. Beginning with confusion upon opening her eyes, she runs the table. Pain, fear, panic, determination, anger and rage are all presented to the viewer in a logical progression of the state of mind of a woman who is under attack. It is a superb performance that demonstrates a complete catharsis, a culmination of a lifetime full of unfair abuse by terrible flawed people, too many to count, a list that also includes herself. I think you could even sense a slight hint of relief and satisfaction right before the scene comes to an end.

The interiors in this Florida are no less forgiving or aesthetic than the highway. Shot after shot takes place in dimly lit apartments, cheap sleazy motel rooms, run down gin joints, the front seats of cars and the cabins of trucks and vans. The characters in these enclosed unventilated spaces are constantly smoking. Even when they are not lighting up, smoke seems to always be visible in the air possibly as a physical manifestation of the metaphoric Hell they inhabit.

Denny's

"St Peter don't you call me..."




A brief respite from this nightmarish underworld is one of the only scenes I can remember that was brightly lit. Aileen takes Selby to a Denny’s like restaurant to prove to her that she is “…going to get you anything you want. Nice things…” When a waiter tells her that Selby can not smoke at the table Aileen, like a wild dog protecting her pups, jumps up and verbally assaults the man in a profanity laced tirade. They then both leave in defiance and it’s back to the booze, smoke and darkness. It is clear that Aileen will never fit in the World of Light so she is banished back into the shadows. Only in Florida could a Denny’s Grand Slam breakfast with a side of sausage be anyone’s idea of Heaven.

The dive bars are seen as dying places. People sit around framed between flickering neon beer logos and shabby slabs of wood, listening to bad music, liquoring themselves up so they forget their lot in life. Their demeanors and behavior indicate that they are not there to have a good time but to fill a need or kill a feeling which is only achieved at oblivion. The payoff of these never ending sessions of self mutilation is some sort of meaningless physical exercise. Be it a sexual encounter with a stranger or an outburst of physical violence, the pain these people carry around inside can only be masked and never healed through this regiment of self medication. The truly sad part is Aileen knows this.

I would argue that the only time there is anything that can remotely be called “joy” in this dead end world is when they are regaling each other with tales of how they are smarter than everyone else and their next “plan” on how they are going to be on “easy street.” Observe Aileen’s face as she tells the other patrons about her disastrous job interview. Making it clear that, “…I told him to go fuck off! That’s right. Like I want your fuckin’ job, sit at a desk, answer a phone. Fuck that! Fuck you!” As she continues her story the others nod agreeably and are visibly impressed. Feeling validated she smiles a genuine smile. At that moment, in her triumph, she has no recollection of Aesop’s fable, “The Fox and the Grapes.”

A woman goes out into the “real world” intent on finding a job. She fails so totally that, after a short period of time, she feels that there is absolutely no other choice then to sell her body to strangers on an interstate which can only lead to self loathing and destruction. Utterly defeated she looks to numb her torment with legalized poison. Her only sense of satisfaction is when another societal outcast pats her on the back reassuring her how one day she is going to beat this system. She never understands that her downward spiral into nothingness is the system.

I have no idea if that was the point the storyteller was trying to make in that scene but it is what I took out of it. For all I know, the director wanted this scene to be a stellar positive example of the human spirit. Maybe her moral was no matter how much life beats you down and no matter what obstacles are put in your way, we, as people, have within us the strength to persevere and overcome. We all possess the ability to stand up and say, “I am a human being. I have worth God damn it!” But, then again, there is all that smoke.

The men in Monster’s Florida are sadists, dullards, sleazy, primal and just plain all around assholes. Pretty much every male character is depicted in an extremely negative light. There is the above mentioned rapist, cop and the interviewer who only care about degrading and humiliating women. There are the sleazy Johns who only care about satisfying their base cravings for physical gratification. There is Selby’s father who is portrayed as a dense religious fanatic who is seen once, maybe twice, but whenever his name is mentioned the other characters cringe as if they are going to receive God’s wrath. Then there are all the other male characters that barely have any lines if any at all. Bar patrons and passerbys who are often pictured with leering and devious facial expressions. Bearded and wearing biker jackets they look like fugitives from a 1970s exploitation movie. Even the casually dressed people have an ominous accusatory aura about them.

They DO NOT appear in Monster.

Watch the scenes that take place in the roller rink where Selby and Aileen go on a date. Evidently this is The Place in town that young adults go to have fun but it doesn’t feel that way. The camera follows Selby and Aileen from the dining area where they eat and then, after Aileen coaxes Selby, onto the rink itself. First of all the lighting, like the bars and hotel rooms before, is dim. At the time the story takes place the music being played is probably about 10 years old. The other patrons are all concerned with what other people are doing and look at each other in jealousy and fear. Finally the two of them sneak out into a pitch black alleyway where they make out passionately the only light coming from the entrance door which periodically opens with people leaving the rink who, of course, take a final ridiculing shot at the couple. The director seems to give a joyous Friday night out the real “Florida Treatment.” She paints a portrait of boredom and stagnation, a place which any attempt at joy is met with ridicule and contempt.

There are three exceptions to the “men are pigs” rule that I can remember. One is the guy who runs the storage units where Aileen seems to be living in at the beginning of the movie. An ex-Vietnam Vet (Bruce Dern), he is seen as the only person who has any compassion towards Aileen. This is implied in the scene when Aileen, with no money for the rent, offers “to blow him” but he declines telling her to “just pay me when you get it,” and offers her his sandwich. His character is not fleshed out too much but, I believe, he is suppose to be another person with a good heart that society has steamrolled over and forgotten about. A kindred spirit in this Sunshine Hell.

Another is a mentally retarded man who picks up Aileen on the road. Thinking he is “playing dumb” Aileen berates him at first, accusing him of being rapist, and plans on shooting him. When it becomes obvious he is mentally challenged, Aileen shows some remorse, takes pity on him and gives him a hand job.

monster gun

Her fate is sealed


The third one is the last of Aileen’s victims. The man picks her up on the highway but does not want sex even though Aileen offers. He genuinely wants to help her and offers her a place to stay and get cleaned up. She pulls a gun on him and he begs for his life. He brings up the fact that he has a family including expected grandchildren and Aileen for a moment is in turmoil yelling at him to shut up. She kills him anyway. I think this scene tries to be a counter weight to the rest of the movie which is totally sympathetic to a serial killer.

Throughout the entire film, Aileen is viewed as damaged and justified in her anger which manifests itself in these killings. All of her victims are portrayed as somewhat deserving of their fate to varying degrees. Think of her second victim, a paying client who asks Aileen if she will “Call me daddy.” Aileen then correctly asks, “Why? Do you want to fuck your kids?” Obviously, with her history, the thought of child abuse is very pertinent and the rage begins to build culminating in another shooting. I’m not suggesting the director is saying the man deserves the fate he receives but cold blooded murder is portrayed almost as “explainable.” It is the same as the “she was asking for it” rape defense but with the genders reversed.

She has spent her whole life justifying the poor choices she has made. She rationalizes with her friend, the Vietnam Vet, that she is a “victim of circumstance.” But Aileen’s last victim is not a creep, rapist or pervert. He is simply a good samaritan who saw another person in need and wanted to lend a hand. For this lapse of judgment, Aileen sentences him to death. This act completes her transformation from lost soul to a true monster.

key largo

Florida - 1948

There seems, as of late, to be a trend in the way Hollywood depicts Florida in the movies. Not only does Monster see this part of the country as an economically depressed, somewhat backward powder keg waiting to be set off by some arbitrary act of stupidity or boredom, but other recent titles come to mind with the same point of view. Bully is about the murder of a neighborhood jerk by his friends. Sunshine State is about economic and racial injustice in the emerging Floridian underclass. Even Secretary paints a picture of mentally damaged people who escape their problems through sexual perversion.

This is a far cry from the tranquil cinematic depictions of the past. Think of Cocoon’s energetic retirees. The colorful characters and locales of The Birdcage. The gooey sweet wholesomeness of Flipper. The stylized glamor of several noir/neo-noir films such as Body Heat, Get Shorty and Key Largo. There are many words you can use to describe the characters and situations in any one of these films but “pathetic” does not come to mind.

miami vice

Florida - circa 1986


I, personally, have only been to Florida once in my life and it was for only four days. Not only was my visit such a short one, but I spent the entire time in South Beach so I confess I do not know how “real” people live down there; I only know how they suck the money out of clueless tourists. In other words, I simply can not vouch for the validity or reality of any of these movies.

But there is something I have observed over the years. I know several people who relocated to Florida. They live in varying parts of that state and they are of different ages. Some are older and some are younger. Some are very good friends and some are slight acquaintances. They do not have much in common with each other and have differing political, religious and ethnic backgrounds.

And yet, no matter which one of them I talk to over the phone, no matter what time of the year it is, at least several minutes of each and everyone of our conversations is eventually dominated by my friend telling me how great it is down there and how much they love it. They tell me that, “The weather is fabulous,” reassure me that, “There is so much to do down here,” take the easy pot shot “How can you stand it in overpopulated New York,” and wind it all up with the inevitable question, “So, when are you coming to your senses and moving to paradise?” Their descriptions of Florida are so over the top that I have come to the realization that they’re not doing it to try to sway me over to their point of view. They are trying to convince themselves.

Something tells me the real world down there is a lot closer to Monster than it is to Miami Vice.

Gov. Jeb Bush
Nuff said

Sixth Army

Thursday, February 03, 2005

What Is Conscience?

As of late I have developed a lunchtime ritual that I have grown quite fond of.

 Usually I buy a slice of pizza and sit on a bench to eat it. It is usually very tasty but I normally don’t eat the crust. I used to just discard it but what I do now is sit there and throw the crumbs to an unruly bunch of pigeons that hangs out by the benches. I achieve some sort of peace, specifically on colder days, feeding this gang of winged vagabonds whose cadence vacillates between gratefulness and ferocity, thinking, somehow, through my observation of this basest form of survival, that I am getting just a little bit closer to understanding this thing called life.

 I particularly like the audacity of the little ones of the brood who give just as good as they get when it comes to the feeding frenzy that ensues in this little portion of the asphalt jungle. For my part, I try to help the babies of the motley crew. This assistance primarily takes the form of me lobbing the morsels closer to the apparently more feeble tikes who are sprinkled throughout this bazaar mosh pit, but believe you me they do not need it. They swarm the bread with grit and determination sometimes even muscling out one of the “adults” for the prize. After the quarry is secured in their beaks, they fly to safety, a few feet away, to enjoy their well earned feast suitable for a bird.

 Well today, in the middle of my quest for nirvana, an older woman, I would guess about 65, comes shuffling up to me with a pretty grim face on. She taps me on the shoulder and says with a very serious voice, “God bless you but you should throw them smaller pieces. They have no teeth.” I thanked the women for the advice and she turned away, confident that she is guaranteed a spot in heaven for her role in the protection of the lord’s Kingdom. The irony of her fur coat wisping in the brisk chill wind was not lost on me.

 It has been said:

 
Conscience is undeniable proof that God exists.


 To that I respond:

 Conscience is the fact that if you enjoy anything hard or long enough, someone is going to try to take it away.


 But Still, It Moves

Sixth Army