Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts

Thursday, March 28, 2019

Drain the Swamp!


The following is a short clip from this morning's C-SPAN coverage of the senate confirmation hearing for Interior Secretary Nominee David Bernhardt. Please pay attention to the background. 


The protester, obviously a surrealist, was apparently also a member of Greenpeace. She was eventually led away. Some environmentalists think Bernhardt is an oil company shill or some such.

Well, I don't know about that but I thought the harmless stunt was odd and funny. May Adrienne Lowry swim in peace.

By the way, Patrick Moore, who would go on to become a scourge of the leftist drift of Greenpeace and the rest of the environmentalist movement, has as much claim to be one of the co-founders of Greenpeace as anyone. And he was widely acknowledged as such even though the left tried to memory hole him. But after Moore recently called Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a "pompous little twit" and claimed her Green New Deal would "bring about mass death" even Google got into the action and scrubbed the co-founder reference from its search results:



Perhaps it was something he said.

But I digress.

The Creature from the Black Lagoon was my favorite movie monster when I was a kid. My friend subscribed to "Monsters of Filmland", whose title I slightly misread. I always wondered why Finland had all the cool monsters.

Please enjoy this clip from the film: 


Monday, February 27, 2017

When Sammy Davis Jr. was Handed the Wrong Envelope at the Oscars - "Wait till the NAACP hears about this!"


By now, everyone knows about last night's epic gaffe at the Academy Awards. The most political Oscars ever - where hardly a moment went by without an anti-Trump joke, hymn to the "marginalized" or hushed reading from the Holy Koran - couldn't even get the most basic and important thing right - giving out the award for Best Picture.

After opening the envelope, Warren Beatty visibly hesitated over reading the card. In fact Beatty had been given the wrong envelope - a second and unopened version of the Best Actress Award winner. He knew something was up, but his presenting partner Faye Dunaway, who had tussled with Beatty before the performance on who would get to read the winner, practically grabbed the card out of his hand and blurted out La La Land. It took two minutes before the actual winner, Moonlight, was identified, and by that time three representatives of La La Land had made their "acceptance" speeches.

The flub was symbolic of how far the Oscars have sunk over the last few years. Very few people actually saw the Awards, and even fewer had seen more than one of the nominated films. This year's Best Picture was an independent film made over only a few days, about growing up black and gay. But even the notable social angle - Moonlight was the first "LBGTQ themed" film to win Best Picture - was overshadowed by the envelope gaffe and the incessant political virtue signaling of the previous hours.

Actually, last night wasn't the first envelope gaffe. But you have to go back pretty far to find another one. In 1964, Sammy Davis Jr. was handed the wrong envelope for the Best Musical Score Adaption. He read the card, and there was brief applause, but as the "winner" hadn't been one of the nominees for the award in question, it was quickly obvious that there had been a mistake. Davis saved the day with a quip - "Wait till the NAACP hears about this!"

"I ain't gonna make no mistake this time, baby," he said, putting on his reading glasses as a new envelope was handed to him.

It was a more innocent time.


Sunday, February 26, 2017

That's Original: Oscars Open with Kimmel Calling Trump a Racist


How edgy.

Update: Sorry, they removed the video. You can probably find a similar one on YouTube by searching for "Kimmel Oscars racist Trump" or some such. Obviously, however, all Oscar news now pales before the climatic La La Land/Moonlight gaffe. The most politicized Academy Awards in history couldn't even get the Best Picture Award right.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Here's Another Iranian Who Won't be Attending the Oscars

Zeinab Sekaanvand

Asghar Farhadi, the Iranian director of "The Salesman" - nominated for an Oscar in the best foreign-language film category - won't be attending the Oscar ceremony. He decided not to come to the United States in order to protest President Donald Trump's executive order on travel. And along with the five other director nominees, he decried the growing "climate of fanaticism" in the United States. For this, he has won more international plaudits, adding to his fame and mystique as perhaps Iran's best known film director.

Here's another Iranian who won't be attending the Oscars:

Her name is Zeinab Sekaanvand and she is scheduled to be hanged.

A child bride, she was convicted of stabbing her husband to death.

She claimed he beat and abused her, that her complaints to the police were ignored, that her husband rejected her requests for divorce and that she was subsequently disowned by her conservative family.

After being arrested she was tortured by police officers. She confessed to the killing without benefit of a lawyer.

Later, she retracted her confession and claimed that her husband's brother had committed the crime, asking her to take the blame for it and promising to pardon her for it if she did - a practice permissible under Iranian law.

While on death row, Sekaanvand married a fellow prisoner and became pregnant. After her cellmate was taken away for execution, her baby was stillborn, apparently having died from shock.

Zeinab Sekaanvand's case has become somewhat of a cause celebre in the international human rights community. That might save her, although judging from recent history, it probably won't.

Iran now leads the world in executions per capita. One thousand people were executed last year. Since the 1979 Revolution tens of thousands have been executed, many thousands of them political opponents, religious minorities or people running afoul of sharia law penalties for adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy and so on.

It is estimated that 70 women have been stoned to death. They won't be attending the Oscars.

4,000 homosexuals have been killed, in many cases publicly hanged. They won't be attending the Oscars.

5,000 political prisoners - mainly leftists and communists - were executed in a five month period during 1988, a ferocious and massive purge which the government still denies ever existed. They won't be attending the Oscars.

200 Bahais have been killed. They won't be attending.

Many jews, scientists and government officials have been convicted of "espionage" and executed after dubious trials. They won't be attending either.

But I want to return to Asghar Farhadi. Here he is posing with the Oscar for best Foreign Film in 2012.


Farhadi is a sort of "hip" director. You can read long intellectual analyses of his work in cinema journals. Some of his films have been interpreted as veiled criticisms of Iranian government or society, but he also appears to have enough support within government circles to have furthered and protected his career and person.

He has become wealthy and famous, and he travels abroad regularly, hobnobbing with the likes of Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem.

Other Iranian directors have been jailed or been banned from filmmaking due to alleged dissident activities.

But Asghar Farhadi has always kept his nose clean. As far as I know, he has never explicitly condemned his country's human rights record nor lobbied for those imprisoned or on death row.

The name Zeinab Sekaanvand has never publicly passed his well-coiffed lips.

When Sekaanvand is hanged, what suit will he be wearing?

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Comparing Silence with 1984: "Do it to Julia!"

The late John Hurt as Winston and Suzanna Hamilton as Julia in the most recent film version of 1984

This post was prompted by an excellent review by Fr. Lawrence Lew of Martin Scorsese's film Silence.

The climax of the film, and the climax of the novel by Shusaku Endo that it is based on, is the moment where Rodrigues, a priest, arguably apostasizes - he mimics stamping his foot on a picture of Christ in order to save others (and perhaps himself) from horrific torture and death.

The question is not per se whether we should condemn the fictional Rodrigues for what he did. He obviously confronted an awful choice. Many men, including some of the greatest saints, denied Christ for far less weighty reasons. And Christ would surely have forgiven Rodrigues if he had asked for it.

Rather, the controversy concerns the question of whether this really does constitute apostasy - especially against the background of a final scene in which "Christ" tells the priest that trampling on the image was in fact he right thing to do. I put "Christ" in scare quotes because it's somewhat ambiguous whether it actually is Christ or just Rodrigues justifying himself in his own mind. It's only a story, of course, so in a sense, the question of who it really is, has no answer. But from the context and from some of his other writings, I think it's clear that Endo (and thus I assume Scorsese as well) meant to suggest that stepping on the image is what Christ would have wanted. From the novel:
“Trample!” said those compassionate eyes. “Trample! Your foot suffers in pain; it must suffer like all the feet that have stepped on this plaque. But that pain alone is enough. I understand your pain and your suffering. It is for that reason that I am here.”
“Lord, I resented your silence.”
“I was not silent. I suffered beside you.”
“But you told Judas to go away: What thou dost do quickly. What happened to Judas?”
“I did not say that. Just as I told you to step on the plaque, so I told Judas to do what he was going to do. For Judas was in anguish as you are now.”
He had lowered his foot on to the plaque, sticky with dirt and blood. His five toes had pressed upon the face of one he loved. Yet he could not understand the tremendous onrush of joy that came over him at that moment.
But is this really the Christian position? Fr. Lew writes:
Christianity is essentially about the Person of Jesus Christ and one’s relationship with him. It is, above all, about loving him and following him even at the cost of one’s life. And here’s where the question concerning apostasy lies: how many of us, even to save others, would deny and stamp on our wife, our child, our Beloved? It is a conundrum, sure, but I believe that few of us would betray and stamp on someone we truly deeply loved. Now, if we grant that the external act of stamping one’s foot on an image of the Lord has that kind of relationship-breaking, love-denying significance, then the question we have to ask is: Do we love the Lord enough? Interestingly, that is the very question Jesus asked St Peter after he denied him: “Do you love me more than these?” (Jn 21:15).
There is a similar dilemma in another classic novel familiar to us all, George Orwell's 1984. In one of the final scenes, the Party attempts to break the hero Winston by confronting him with his worst fear - the prospect of being devoured alive by rats. A grotesque torture device is placed on his head:
The cage was nearer; it was closing in. Winston heard a succession of shrill cries which appeared to be occurring in the air above his head. But he fought furiously against his panic. To think, to think, even with a split second left – to think was the only hope. Suddenly the foul musty odor of the brutes struck his nostrils. There was a violent convulsion of nausea inside him, and he almost lost consciousness. Everything had gone black. For an instant he was insane, a screaming animal. Yet he came out of the blackness clutching an idea. There was one and only one way to save himself. He must interpose another human being, the body of another human being, between himself and the rats.
Winston instinctively knows that there is only one way to save himself, and that is to betray his lover, Julia. He screams out:
"Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I don't care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me!"
Winston and Julia are eventually released and they meet again on the outside. It is implied that Julia had gone through a similar ordeal. She tells Winston:
"Sometimes...they threaten you with something – something you can't stand up to, can't even think about. And then you say, 'Don't do it to me, do it to somebody else, do it to so-and-so.' ... And after that, you don't feel the same towards the other person any longer."
Winston and Julia are physically alive. But inside they are dead. We might say they are now "spiritually dead," although Orwell of course wouldn't have put it that way. They do not anymore love each other. They love Big Brother.

This is how they break you.

I doubt there are very many readers of 1984 for whom that ending, as horrible as it is, does not ring true.

Contrast that with the ending of Silence and that "tremendous onrush of joy" that came over Rodrigues.

For many critics of Silence, that ending not only doesn't ring true - in any sense, Christian or otherwise - but positively drips evil.

The irony is that in some of his non-fiction works, Endo implicitly styled himself as a sort of "love expert," at least when it came to the Christian understanding of it.

Could it be that the atheist Orwell understood a bit more about love than the Christian Endo?