The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

In “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” the viewer is presented with a tale of loyalty, dishonesty, and the fact that both of these can conspire to create a legend. The main protagonist, Ransom “Rance” Stoddard, portrayed notably by James Stewart, must come to grips with the fact that he is a legend, although it is in name, only. His status of town legend was brought about by his friend Tom Doniphon, played by John Wayne. Liberty Valance, the antagonist in the story, more or less runs the town of Shinbone as if he owns it.

Stoddard, who is vehemently opposed to violence, eventually winds up having to confront the villain. He is so against violence, he refuses to carry a gun. So not surprisingly, when he is called upon to face Valance, he is more or less inept in the ways of gun handling. His loyalty to Doniphon is secured, due to Doniphon hiding in the shadows with a rifle during the showdown, although he did not know until later. Doniphon knew Stoddard was a dead man, so he shot Valance at the same time as both men fired. He even comes back to Shinbone to bury Doniphon, as shown in the beginning of the film. Afterwards, Stoddard leaves to go back to his life, made possible by Doniphon’s intervention, which makes Stoddard’s new life something less than honest. However, as is explained in the film, sometimes the truth must take a back seat to what people want to, or need to, believe to get by. That is what legends are for.

Changeling

Changeling is a movie that sets out to shock in a sort of unique way. It opens with mother and son, with son vanishing soon after. Its uniqueness lies in it’s almost Twilight Zone like atmosphere (for me, anyway, as I knew next to nothing about the film, other than the son vanishes). This atmosphere is compounded with the “successful” retrieval of her son. The police present a total stranger to her and try to explain it away as “him being away and her under stress for 5 months”. It is also a snapshot of the period in which the events are portrayed. The United States is a very young country, compared to the rest of the world.

It took a long time for society to evolve into what it is, today. In the period of “Changeling”, women had very little rights and were frequently inundated with injustice. Jolie’s character, Christine, received much of this injustice at the hands of the Los Angeles Police Department. The police department is very corrupt and anyone, much less a woman that dares to challenge the system is indeed putting her life on the line. Christine, who tries to play along, at first, cannot accept this injustice thrust upon her and challenges the police at every turn. The result, Christine is slandered by the powers that be, and painted as an unfit mother. She is deposited into a mental hospital, where she discovers other women that faced the same injustice.

It is around this point that the film shifts from the earlier Twilight Zone atmosphere to the gritty scene of a serial killer of children. In fact, the story is of the real life and infamous “Wineville Chicken Murders” in Riverside County, California. This is underplayed, as it’s not known at the beginning of the movie. This is what makes the movie thrilling on different levels. It starts with total mystery, and ends with the real story of the “Wineville Chicken Murders”.

All Quiet on the Western Front – The Anti-War War Film

Since the dawn of the era of cinema, the American soldier has served as a role model to America’s youth. They have been our heroes and have made an impact in the lives of many men, in regards to military service. Films, such as “McArthur,” “Platoon,” “Saving Private Ryan,” and “The Green Berets” have cemented the idea of the hero in our minds, inspiring young men to join the military and seek out their own adventures. However, there is another side to the coin regarding war. These films, while inspiring, often leave out the bloody reality that comes part and parcel with war. More recent films give a better view of the total picture, such as “Saving Private Ryan”, although some older ones also depict the grim reality, such as “All Quiet on the Western Front” which has no hero and shows no glory, only the reality of death.

 

With all the various films circulating around about wars, “All Quiet on the Western Front” is a refreshing change from the norm. To be honest, there should be more films like this one. The reason is the portrayal of events. There is no “hero”, nor is there a “villain”. There are only soldiers doing their duty for the fatherland. The setting is real and the emotions displayed by the characters are real. Men really do fall to pieces in combat situations. They really do wonder why they are there and who will benefit from their deaths (or their enemy’s death).

 

When they are told, in the beginning, of all the “glory” they would have, they are all filled with excitement. This is realistic, in that battles have always been glorified in books, movies, etc. What is usually left out is that one’s best friend might explode from an artillery shell, 50 feet away from them. The excitement fades very quickly, when they are being shot at and shelled. Some hold it together, while some cry for their mother.

 

Overall, the point is clear. War is useless. Thousands of men go to die because of one man being killed, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. The soldiers are not privy to all of the happenings higher up. They only know that must fight and die. Another thing that is fascinating about this film is the fact that it is shown from the German point of view. Normally, films portray the Germans as these unfeeling, unthinking, monsters that are out to kill all of the “good guys”. In this film, you see that they are normal people with families, problems, fears, and pride. They get killed and grieve just like the “good guys”.

1776 – An Observation

First of all, I should say that the film 1776 is rather hindered by the fact that it is a musical. While the musical element makes this film more humorous or comedic, to some, it really detracts from what could have been a great film. The musical element is merely a distraction and, quite frankly, a nuisance. The scenes without the singing were humorous enough. This shows that one can take a serious event from history and add a little humanity to it, making it a little bit more palatable to the general public. History tends to paint historical figures as stuffy, humorless, and quite frankly, boring.

It is refreshing that 1776 decided to add humor to these characters. Who is to say that Ben Franklin did not make joking comments in congress hearings? Who is to say that delegates did not argue and sometimes came to fisticuffs? Without a firsthand account of these proceedings, anyone can inject whatever personality they choose to in these historical figures. And on this occasion, the beginning of our struggle for independence, notated with Franklin’s dialogue regarding the birth of a new people who should not be considered British, was painted with the afore-mentioned humor and humanity that a modern day audience would understand. Add to that the period that it was created in and you also have a jab at the modern day congress of the Vietnam era.

The Illiad – A Brief Analysis (Originally Written in 2002)

For starters, the story is an excellent, realistic, portrayal of the horrors and brutalities of war that often get overlooked in stories in modern society as well as in primitive societies. They (most other stories) seem to paint a picture of war being this glorious act with heroes and villains. A good example of that would be Star Wars.

 

The story starts with a quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon, his king, over the fact that Apollo has attacked the Achaeans due to Agamemnon’s refusal to give back Chryseis, his “prize” to her father, Chryses. Achilles believes Agamemnon to be cowardly and greedy, claiming that he never goes to the front lines to fight, but keeps the lion’s share of the plunder after victory is secured. The rage of Achilles is very prominent throughout the entire story. He is even more infuriated when Agamemnon takes his “prize”, Briseis, as retribution for giving back Chryseis to her father to stop the onslaught of Apollo.

 

Another interesting facet of the story is how both characters, Achilles and Hector are carefully developed as opposed to the normal building up of just the hero, with the villain merely being there to be beaten. Both characters are men with honor and neither comes off as a villain. You feel sorry for Hector as he dies and his subsequent humiliation at the hands of Achilles. Hector’s humiliation is a good example of human cruelty as Achilles’s army stepped up to take a stab at the corpse of Hector.  Then he pierced the tendons at his feet, ran rawhide through them, and proceeded to drag his corpse up and down the streets of Troy, for all to see.

 

There were also other examples of human behavior patterns, such as the age-old story of a woman in a high place (Antea) who wanted to sleep around on her husband and tried to seduce Bellerophon. When he refused her advances, she told her husband, Proetus, the opposite was true, that Bellerophon had tried to seduce her and she, in turn, refused his advances. She told Proetus to kill him. Instead, he sent Bellerophon to Antea’s father with a tablet containing murderous signs, believing that her father would kill him. So we get a good dose of deceit in that part of the story.

 

Also another interesting aspect are the gods of Olympus, themselves. They are depicted as vicious, cruel, jealous, lustful, and vain. They are nothing more than humans in their character. Humans that do not die… A good example is Hera’s jealousy of Thetis when she plotted with Zeus to help Achilles get back at Agamemnon. Hera nagged at Zeus to let her in on what was going on, but he refused, telling her if she needed to know, she would know.

 

A character that seemed to be poorly developed, in my opinion, is Agamemnon. He doesn’t seem to have very much moral values. All he cares about is himself and it makes you wonder if, when he made the offer of peace with Achilles, whether he really felt as if he had wronged him or rather he was in a tight spot and knew the only way out was to recruit the help of Achilles.

 

Apparently, Achilles had that same impression when the special envoy came to see him to get his help. He refused and scorned Agamemnon, even though he had offered a lot of treasure and the return of his beloved Briseis.  Patroclus, his dear friend, also tried to get Achilles to return, but the best he could get from him was permission to wear Achilles’s divine armor to fool the Trojans into thinking they were fighting Achilles. Later on in the story he finally accepted Agamemnon’s offer and joined the fighting. His return filled the Trojans with terror.

 

Overall, the story is a good pattern of human behavior and a statement that history repeats itself, because even today, the same types of behavior flourish throughout the world. We still have constant warfare. We still have jealousy. We still have rage. Most of all, we still have brutality…

Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb – By Ronald Takaki

Ronald Takaki, in his book Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb, makes a rather drastic departure from the normal viewpoint shared by the American general public on the topic of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the destruction of both. The argument is the actual necessity of using the bomb. Takaki offers possible scenarios to the real reason Truman made the decision to drop the bomb. These reasons are racism, economics, and to show the Soviet Union that the United States has it and is capable of using it.

Ronald Takaki

Takaki makes the charge of racism against Truman, who he paints as a hardcore racist with a history of prejudice against blacks, as well as, Asians. He includes letters from Truman to his wife and other personal writings, in an effort to show his racist viewpoint. He also focuses on American society, as a whole. He asserts that in pre-world war two America, Japanese people received the worst treatment, as a race. The white population thought of them as the lowest strata of society.

 

He continues this point by referencing how America fought against “The Nazis” and not the German nation, while in the Pacific, America simply fought “those dirty Japs”. He contends that Japan did not receive the same distinction as Germany, because Germans were white. Japanese people looked different and they had different ideals and customs. This made it easy for Americans to label them as sub-human “monkeys” and, subsequently, made Americans not very concerned with obliterating their cities.

 

Takaki also offers the reason of economics. The Manhattan Project was a very expensive endeavor. After all of the money spent on research, there was a contingent in Washington that wanted to see it in action, so they could determine the bomb’s destructive power. However Germany, the reason the Manhattan Project started in the first place, already surrendered. The only target left was Japan. He states that Japan was already in ruin. Japan offered to surrender, although with one simple condition, to keep the emperor system in place and to keep Hirohito as the emperor.

 

However, Truman did not accept this proposal. He wanted unconditional surrender. Oddly enough, he accepted the same proposal from Japan after the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Takaki argues that America had a much larger target, the Soviet Union. He argues that Hiroshima and Nagasaki received annihilation, merely to warn Stalin and the USSR of American might and resolve.

 

Takaki’s arguments offer a different viewpoint to the American/Japanese conflict. While one should take his argument with a grain of salt, it is not hard to accept as mostly truth. Any student of history knows that facts can be concealed from the general public. Sadly, all of the players in this theater are long dead. There is no way to determine the entire truth.

Beethoven’s Eroica – The Hero’s Tale

 

 

To understand Ludwig Von Beethoven’s masterpiece, the Eroica, one needs to understand the tortured man behind the musical genius, the original intent of the work, and the exploits of the man to whom it was originally intended. Originally entitled Buonaparte, the piece was to be a musical painting of, as well as a tribute to, the rise of France’s first consul, Napoleon Bonaparte. However, upon hearing the news of Napoleon declaring himself emperor of France, Beethoven ripped the title from the page and renamed the piece Sinfonia Eroica[1]. The term Eroica, itself, means hero or heroism in French. So, in essence, the piece went from representing a specific hero to merely a hero, in general.

Also of importance, the Eroica displayed to the cognizant listener that it was possible for a symphony to impart certain beliefs and ideas. The piece represents the hero’s path, in the way it builds up to a frenzied pace in some parts while relaxing in others[2]. These shifts in tempo could represent the hero’s march into battle. Even the opening of the Allegra con Brio, the very beginning of the piece, can represent the gathering of troops for battle. The piece thrusts the listener into the world of Napoleon, or the un-named hero, upon the change in title. Around the three minute mark, the piece begins a march, a slow build-up to battle. Perhaps it is a buildup to the ‘whiff of grapeshot” or another one of Napoleon’s many battles.

Ludwig Von Beethoven, having studied under Joseph Haydn, broke away from the more classical (and much softer) style of Haydn and his contemporary, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Beethoven’s predecessors composed strictly classical pieces, where Beethoven broke away and branched into uncharted territory. One could argue that Beethoven was the punk rocker of his era, with his growing internal strife. While still in his 20s, he learned that he was losing his hearing. One could also argue that maybe this gradual approaching deafness and Beethoven’s anger because of it sparked his desire for loud, harsh, abrasive, symphonies.

In the world Beethoven lived, the listening audience was accustomed to the softness of Mozart and Haydn[3]. Imagine the shock of having their ears assaulted with Beethoven’s Eroica or even his Fifth Symphony. Imagine these new ideas being thrust upon them. Like most periods of musical change, they were not ready for such a drastic departure from what was ‘comfortable.’ What the listeners got was a manifesto about a much needed hero, which brought about change in music and ideas.

Around the two minute and thirty second mark, the symphony slows down for a breather. Perhaps a grand army is resting after the initial battle, while aware that more is to come. The piece could be used as a film score for such a scene. Perhaps even a movie about Napoleon, himself, although Beethoven might turn over in his grave at such a thought. Nevertheless, the piece shouts to the listener ideas such as heroism, revolution, courage, death, victory, and even possible defeat without Napoleon’s name being attached to it.

The piece is linked to Napoleon, whether Beethoven wanted it that way or not. As Beethoven was a visionary in music, Napoleon was a visionary in the theater of combat. Beethoven changed the world of music at the time from strictly classical to the upcoming Romantic era. Napoleon changed the face of France and gave the French people hope after the French Revolution and Robespierre’s Reign of Terror.

The Eroica, itself, helped to herald in the Romantic Era. The symphony not only changed harmonically, but it served as the prototype for future symphonies, which would be appreciated for things such as meaning and interpretation, a dimension that had never been explored, previously. The listener could now close his or her eyes and visualize whatever he or she imagined the symphony to be, as opposed to focusing on merely compositional technique. This opened the door for many future artists, all the way to modern acts, such as Pink Floyd and Harold Budd. They all owe a small debt to Beethoven for paving the way.

[1] Steinberg, Michael. “The Symphony: a listeners guide”. p. 12. Oxford University Press, 1995.

[2] http://www.beethovenseroica.com/Pg3_anal/1mov/1m01.htm

[3] http://www.beethovenseroica.com/Pg2_hist/history.html

The Television Question…

Does anyone think that the TV shows of today somehow lack something that shows of old had?

I mean, I have heard some say that new shows are all about sex, etc. but I think there’s something more. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but it seems like TV show producers are kind of over-doing the intelligence angle. In many interviews on TV and on paper, I hear the phrase “Audiences are much smarter, now.” Do you think we were dumb, in the 70s & 80s (as opposed to the generation of rocket-scientists we are, now, HAHAHAHA!!!)? Modern shows seem to go for the grittiest, realistic, situations that you can find.

I’m not saying this should not be done, but couldn’t producers look at what made older shows great and try to make something similar? In the 60s, shows like The Andy Griffith Show, Bewitched, & Beverly Hillbillies were the top shows, but it seems the formula is considered outdated and the following is essential to be considered good: Sex, Profanity, Crappy-Jerky camerawork, and almost all picture-perfect specimens of humanity (I’m not conservative or anything, I just think sex shouldn’t sell a show). In the old days, there just seemed to be more of a variation (Dukes of Hazzard, Dallas, Love Boat, and Fantasy Island). Also, nowadays, I think things are so bad in Hollywood on a creative level that old shows have to be re-imagined or re-booted.

We’ve had Battlestar Galactica, which was very good.  The Bionic Woman, which was excellent, but got shut down, anyway. I guess it wasn’t low-brow enough for these “smarter” audience members? They remade Hawaii Five-O, but I never watched the original or the remake.

Not to mention all the movies from these shows, like Bewitched, Beverly Hillbillies, Dukes, etc. Then, there is Star Trek, which spawned a whole family of shows and movies. Even Trek got the reboot, which was more or less dumbed down to entice the general public (that otherwise think themselves above this “nerdy” show) with non-stop action. It was a good remake, but JJ Abrams more or less pissed me off with his comment: “We wanted to make Star Trek COOL.”

I found that one comment to be greatly insulting, as if it was garbage, before. But Hollywood people are more or less arrogant and full of themselves, anyway. I guess the major difference is back in the old days, they were making new shows, films, etc. Now they just seem to re-create or re-imagine everything. There is a movie for the show “The Equalizer,” coming out soon.

Smallville – Expanding An American Myth

The story of Smallville is quite simple. It is the metamorphosis of Clark Kent into Superman. What is different about it, is the show takes its time to let things unfold. It begins with a brief rundown of Clark’s ship crashing in one of Smallville’s corn fields during a meteor shower, to be found by Jonathan and Martha Kent. This same event sparked what would become the town’s greatest source of intrigue, adventure, or horror, depending on who one might ask. The reason is when Clark lands, a lot of kryptonite lands with him (although logic would suggest that this is very unlikely, as the ship travelled so far on its own power and the kryptonite would have either been left behind or drifted off in a different direction-But who cares? It’s good drama and a way for Clark to not be totally invincible 100% of the time).

Season one focuses on what becomes known as “Freak of the Week” episodes. The only drawback of this is the kryptonite angle is grossly over-used. But Superman fans roll with it, because it is a good show. We are introduced to a young Lex Luthor, portrayed by Michael Rosenbaum (Possibly the best interpretation of Lex Luthor, to date) who lost his hair in the same meteor shower. Lex runs his car off of a bridge, hitting Clark along the way. Clark rescues him and starts the storyline that creates the backbone of their relationship (and the eventual destruction of their friendship). See, Lex isn’t the evil villain from past incarnations of Superman, at least not yet. Here, he is a tortured soul, having been denied a nurturing family atmosphere by his father, Lionel Luthor.

What we see is two sides of the same coin. We see a loving family environment for Clark. Clark’s parents are the epitome of the thoughtful, loving, role model parent. Although they might have made mistakes in life and during the run of the show, they are almost bullet-proof in this regard. Maybe this is a metaphor for Superman, who is bullet-proof, literally. The producers of the show chose to make Jonathan and Martha Kent younger, so they could be more integral to the stories, instead of old people sitting in a rocking chair or baking pies and nothing more. They were more able to identify and deal with situations, even being part of the action, on occasion. With Lex, we see a child with no mother and a father who is only interested in financial success, no matter the cost. Lex is made to feel inferior, as a result of his father pushing him to be a strong, ruthless, person, such as himself. In both Lionel and Lex Luthor, there is a mutual obsession driving both characters to self destruction. The seeds for good and evil are planted early on, on Smallville.

In the second season, we start to learn about Clark’s true heritage. What Smallville does, though, is it lets the story out a little at a time, to keep the viewer interested. It does so, very well, as a matter of fact. The story arcs are strategic and designed to keep the viewer watching. A bonus for Superman fans, in season two, is the addition of Christopher Reeve in the role of Dr. Virgil Swan. The creators of the show hoped this would give Smallville the credibility it deserved, in the minds of Superman fans. This “passing of the torch” was a great success, with Reeve voicing his approval of the show, in general.

Some Superman fans did not immediately warm up to Smallville (I know I didn’t-I think around season five is when I started watching). The “No Tights-No Flights” rule (it was decided Clark would never wear the costume or fly during the run of Smallville) was seen by some as a put-off. Why? Superman wore his tights and he flew. Plain and simple. How could they make a show about Superman and not have this? Well, the joke was on us. The reason was they wanted to build Clark up into Superman, instead of having him there, already. And with the ten-year span of the series, the audience got a more realistic story of this young man growing from a young kid into the hero we all know and love, unlike the brief scenes we see in Superman, the Movie. He eventually becomes known as the “Red/Blue Blur” based on his outfit colors, which were based on the colors of Superman’s costume.

Throughout the show, Superman Iconography is practically littered all over the place. One episode focuses on an election for school president. One of the students has a notebook with a drawing of himself in a raw version of the Superman suit. In the pilot, itself, Clark is seen with an “S” spray-painted on his chest. Later, when he defies Jor-El, the crest is burned into his chest, although without the “S.” These are small treats for loyal fans of Superman. Add to this, the inclusion of past Super-Alumni, like Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Dean Cain, Mark McClure, Helen Slater, Terrence Stamp, Teri Hatcher, and last but not least Annette O’Toole who plays his mother, Martha Kent. Perhaps this was a small gesture to fans for denying them the tights and flights? Who knows?

What we have is the life story of one of America’s oldest super heroes. And in the finale, he finally dons the suit and zips up in the sky to save humanity for the very first time, as the proper Superman. If there are any Superman fans that have refused to watch this show, they are really missing something special. All of the cast are excellent in their roles. If there is to be anything negative to be said, it might be the Clark/Lana on again/off again relationship. It simply went on a little too long. That is hardly a reason to not watch the show.

Five Guys Burgers & Fries “Cajun” Fries – The most disgusting thing ever created in a kitchen

I’m not even a “Cajun” but if I were, I would recoil in horror at this abomination, this twisted abhorrence in the form of “Cajun” seasoning.

Wait a minute, I’m an “honorary Cajun” (title bestowed upon me, back in 2000 in either Plaquemine or White Castle (I forget), Louisiana)… So yeah, this is the most disgusting “Cajun” thing I have ever tasted. They basically fry some fries and dump this disgusting seasoning on them, after they are done. The fact that they give you five pounds of fries doesn’t add to this despicable freak of nature. I have had plenty of “Cajun” seasonings, straight from the source. Tony Chachere’s, Zatarain’s, Slap Ya Mama, Cajun Injector, Leblanc’s, the list goes on.

I place my order and I see “Cajun” fries on the menu, so I figure, this should be good. They bring out my deep fried, greasy, 10 pound bag of lunch. Before I ever get to the bag, I smell this awful stench, which screams out to me to turn away and leave the place. But since I blew $15 on lunch, I grabbed it & sat down. I open the bag and there are about 50,000 “Cajun” fries staring me in the face. The stench is just revolting, but I paid for it, I figured I would try it.

The taste was no better than the stench. I tried drowning them in ketchup. No luck. Instead, I have ketchup-covered-twisted-abhorrence in my mouth… Finally, when I couldn’t stand anymore, I shoved this pile of deep-fried hogwash to the side and ate the burger & hot dog (with no chili – they do not serve chili, which is a separate matter altogether). For the next hour or two, I still smell this errant “Cajun” concoction while in my car, driving. Amazed and dumbfounded (I kind of know how my real Cajun buddy Kyle felt when he tasted Bojangle’s “Cajun Chicken…”), I was curious about the seasoning they, for whatever reason, decided to use.

So I Google this evil freak of nature:

The first hit claimed they use “Zatarain’s” seasoning, which I knew was an out and out lie (yeah, I know the pic doesn’t show that, but the original search I did, showed it). I have used Zatarain’s for years (I’ve used them all for years) and none of them have ever tasted so horrid… I scroll down and see where someone said they use McCormick’s Cajun Seasoning. I hit the jackpot. I knew who deserved the anger and bile I felt like slinging every time I inhaled and smelled that nasty shit. I guess my real question is, if you are going to have something on your menu that is based on another region, such as “Cajun” anything, why would you use generic, crappy-ass, grocery-store seasoning that just says “Cajun?”

Wouldn’t it make a little more sense to do a Google-search on “Cajun” cooking and “Cajun” products that are really “Cajun?”

What this is, is basically some lazy-ass douchebag guy sitting in an office trying to come up with some sort of “different” item. “Hey, Cajun sounds cool!!” thinks lazy-five-guys-guy… He runs to the local Food Lion/Harris Teeter/Winn-Dixie/Kroger/Whatever-northern-grocer-chain-that-isn’t-in-the-south and runs straight to the seasoning aisle and grabs the first thing that has the word “Cajun” on it. He runs back and sprinkles it on something and, for some god-awful reason, likes it. Next, Five Guys Burgers & Fries has “Cajun Fries” on the menu…

Don’t take my word for it; try some of this disgusting shit, for yourself…