Classic Movie Monday: Strangers on a Train

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Strangers on a Train
Released: June 30, 1951
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Starring: Farley Granger, Ruth Roman, & Robert Walker

Plot in a Nutshell:
Two strangers meet on a train. Both are having problems with somebody that they wish could just disappear. Bruno (Walker) has a father who rules over his life, and Guy (Granger) has a wife he'd like to divorce so he can move on but she refuses to agree. Bruno suggests they murder the other's problem, that way, they'd both have no motive and they could have realistic alibis. Guy turns him down and shrugs it off, but Bruno goes through with it killing Guy's wife. Does Guy go through with it, and if he doesn't, what ends will Bruno go to make sure he doesn't take the blame?

What I thought:
I really enjoy Alfred Hitchcock presents. It was an old TV show back in the early days of the format, where Hitchcock would present a short 30 minute story filled with his usual staples: murder, mystery, suspense, contained within a clever yarn. They are great bite-sized pieces of a master storyteller at work. About halfway through Strangers on a Train I began to feel that it was a story that was better suited to that 30 minute limitation of television. But my mind quickly changed by the conclusion of the film.

This is a very simple set-up, Two men meet, a scheme is hatched, and over the course of the film, the cards come crashing down. It seemed very cut and dry. That's why I felt it shouldn't have been a feature length film. The things it was reaching for seemed very rudimentary. There really was no sense of suspense or great build up. The characters just seemed to be, and not do. But then something happened. The film twisted and ceased to be about whether or not a man was going to commit to murder and morphed into a story where a man was desperately trying to keep from being framed for a murder he didn't commit. By all accounts, Guy should have been the one to kill his wife, he had a motive, a shoddy alibi, and no real credible story. He couldn't tell the police, Bruno would have denied the whole thing. So about 2/3rds of the way through you realize the picture is much more dangerous than initially thought.

The two leads are not very good, but I don't think it is the fault of the actors. Both Granger and Walker perform fine, but they don't seem to bring anything with them. It is the fault of the screenwriter that the characters are not very detailed or deep. There are no layers to their conflicts or circumstances. Guy is an upstanding citizen tennis player who tries to do things right. Bruno is a man suckling from his parents' teat too long and wishes daddy could just go away. Those may sound like interesting characters, but believe me they aren't, and there is very little beyond that. I wish more could have been made out of them, and I never really cared for either one.

But let's be honest, this isn't a Robert Walker movie or a Farley Granger picture. This is Hitchcock, and he more than brings his skill to play here. I have no idea how he is so able to effectively create such great moods and chilly vibes with just simple understated shots and slow deliberate pacing. It is amazing. The finale literally had me on the edge of my seat. Even though it was absolutely preposterous and very unnatural, Hitch had me glued. And there is no greater testament to the man, than his ability to turn around such an unexciting premise into something very watchable.

Anybody who can take a mediocre story, with bland characters, and infuse it with as much tension as he does, is a true master storyteller. This is a Hitchcock film that doesn't disappoint, even though it seems that it might. I was more than ready to give up on this flick, but it was able to squeak up a notch or two by the end, all thanks to Alfred Hitchcock.

(And yes, that is a spinning out of control merry-go-round pictured above that our two characters are fighting on. It gets THAT silly.)

Bottom Line:
Dull characters inhabit a simple and sometimes silly story, but under the direction of Hitchcock, it manages to make up for it's deficits.

B+

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Healthcare change. Scary?

I've been avoiding writing about this topic (other than the occasional post here or there). This is such a hot topic in both today's political arena and in town halls across the nation that it deserves closer examination. Violence has erupted because people are afraid of the government having too much control.

The stories that are being slung around are a little unsettling. In the future the government will decide when grandma and grandpa will die. Our rights will dissolve before our eyes. The initial steps our government takes now to help its citizens will ultimately lead to a supremacist, socialist government that will stop at nothing to rule its citizens with an iron fist.

People really don't understand America do they?

It sounds grim doesn't it? It sounds very extreme, and frankly I don't want that for my country. But the fact is that those are all gross misinterpretations and fear mongering by a very tiny minority. But it's working. The health care reform has a serious hurdle to overcome in the approval of the nation. I for one cannot think of a better time to push this bill through.

Never in our history has a president had so much support and backing from day one. President Obama is a charismatic leader, he inspires so many to do so much. I am not one of those people mind you. In virtually everything he does, I disagree nearly all of the time. But health care? He's got my attention. And I genuinely feel that if this President, this very influential figure, if he cannot push health care reform now while his numbers are high, then I feel it will never come.

What is the problem with our system? Why does it need change? I know many people who are perfectly happy with the system as is. Find yourself a good paying job, with a full benefit package, and you're golden. The system is set up to take care of you. You get sick, you go to the doctor of your choice and get medical help, most of the time. If you need corrective surgery, your insurance can help foot the bill. If you're in an accident and put on life support for several days or weeks, you are covered. It sounds great doesn't it? That's how it is supposed to function. You buy into it at a certain price, and they'll give you coverage, to a certain price.

What if your job doesn't provide health care? Then you go out and buy it yourself. No problem. What if you can't afford to buy it? What if you've never had insurance? You could argue that people are lazy, they sit on their ass and collect welfare. And now they'll be getting free health care. You may cry foul. You may say that health care is not a basic human right. I would disagree.

A country is only as strong as it's weakest citizen. If our weakest citizen is a homeless, crack-addicted, down-on-his-luck Joe without a thought of health care, than we have serious problems, most of which don't even begin at insurance. Drugs, homelessness, those are other posts waiting to be written. Today is health care.

I feel the problem to be that our health care is founded on a profit-based system. Yes we do live in a capitalist nation, but I don't hear the police knocking on my door asking for money before they'll protect me. Or fireman will stop putting out the fire in my house because I didn't pay my latest bill. There are certain things that should be set outside of the traditional capitalist mentality. There are things that must be provided for the benefit of people. Basic health care coverage should be one of them. We need to be a healthy nation if we are to survive long term.

There are stories, REAL stories of people dealing with the horrors of the health insurance companies. I find it very ironic that people talk of government "Death Panels," when insurance companies have been in the "Death Panel" business for years. You think that insurance companies have never turned down somebody who needed medicine to survive, simply because of a pre-existing condition, or they didn't meet the requirements for coverage. The truth is that insurance companies turn people down all the time, every day. They'll turn down care to people who REALLY need it. To save a buck? To protect the bottom line? Because they don't meet the requirements?

It is absolutely sickening that a business can rule over our very health the way insurance companies do. Opponents of the new health care bill would say that it scares them that the government could lord over our health too, but I think people are frightened too easily. An interesting statistic to think about: We are one of two developed nations in the world that DO NOT have government provided health care. The other is Mexico, whom I can think of better company to be in.

The point is that virtually every important nation on the EARTH does this, why is it so difficult for us to implement it too. Are we too ingrained into our insurance based system to not see it is a broken way of thinking? Are we so afraid of the idea that malevolent government could take advantage of it's citizens?

It all boils down to one simple idea. One that has halted many projects, bills, and ideas. Change. As you can clearly see in town halls nationwide, people are afraid of change. Most are afraid of what the government could do given too much power. But do you really think that a government wants to hurt its citizens? Do you really think it is in our country's best interests to harm people?

This is my final point:

I'm more afraid of a faceless business that is in it purely for monetary gain and not my personal health, than a government who has every intention of keeping its citizens healthy and happy. What the hell is there to lose?

We aren't talking about 1930s Germany here (although I do find the picture below, kind of funny). We aren't talking about the beginnings of socialism here (at least not in health care reform). We are America. The greatest thing about this country is the fact that people can voice their opinions and be heard. We are not in danger of loosing any rights, merely gaining a few. The right to live healthy with free healthcare is something I want from my country. So let's make it happen.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Wall Street

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old (or there abouts) that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Wall Street
Released: December 11, 1987
Directed by: Oliver Stone
Starring: Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, & Martin Sheen

Plot in a Nutshell:
A young stockbroker gets into leagues with a corrupt corporate investor, and finds his morality questioned as his success pays off.

What I thought:
I know nothing about big financial investing, absolutely nothing. I start thinking about investing, and stocks and I give myself a headache. But there are plenty of people who play in these waters every day. These people either perform very well, and see their investments multiply exponentially, or they drown. This film is a great depiction of absolute greed, what it does to people, and how it doesn't always pay to play dirty.

As I stated, I know nothing of wall street and investing. So it is a great compliment to the film that I was able to always follow what was happening and who was doing what, when I should have been completely lost in the numbers. Oliver Stone is able to portray this world and its inhabitants effortlessly. The world of finance and investing really does come to light in a way you never have seen it before.

Gordon Gekko (Douglas) is the money hungry corporate investor who takes the young inexperienced stockbroker, Bud Fox (C. Sheen), under his wing. He teaches him how things really work, and how to get "information" from people who are covering their financial tracks. It takes Bud a few scenes to get under Gekko's good graces, but eventually he does when an insider tip procured from his union-leader father (M. Sheen) leads to quite a lucrative stock buy.

Gordon Gekko is a pure sleazeball depiction of power and greed. He paces his office, making deals over the phone and through his investors, firing his mouth at 500 rounds a minute. He never slows down, never backs away, and is ruthless in his decisions. It is all about money and how to manipulate the system to get it. Michael Douglas does a great job at bringing this powerful figure to life. He is charming when he needs to be and a total blood hungry shark when crossed. But always he is portrayed as a man who cares about only one thing: Money.

The film revolves around greed. Everybody is touched by it. Bud Fox is greedy for success and once the money starts rolling, he finds his moral decisions becoming more and more compromised. It isn't until Gekko betrays his trust that he begins to see the corruption. Gekko on the other hand is a pure 100% homegrown powerful greedy incarnation. He even speaks to a group of investors in a company that he plans to take over, that "Greed is good." In this speech, he is justifying his incredibly destructive acts as something that is necessary, and dammit if he doesn't convince you, "Greed is Good," or at least vital. But then the next second you find yourself asking, "What just happened?"

I found myself enjoying the film as it played on, if not for anything else than to just see a world I never really saw before. My entire experience with investing and the New York Stock Exchange is entirely derived from what I see on CNN and what I've learned in class. So I found it incredibly fascinating to see this financial environment explored in film. And from what I've read, they nailed the feel and tone of that business, and that is no small task. Everything else about the film is executed with great skill. It is a very well made film, with strong performances from the leads. Some of the other minor characters can however be a bit of a wash.

Bottom Line:
An interesting look at the world of big business investing, and the dangers of getting too greedy.

B

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Nuff said

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Kramer vs. Kramer

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Kramer vs. Kramer
Released: December 17, 1979 
Directed by: Robert Benton
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, & Justin Henry  

Plot in a Nutshell:
A housewife abruptly leaves her husband and son in an act of desperation. The workaholic father must then cope with having to raise his son alone and also maintain his career. A year and a half later his wife comes back, wanting to take custody of their son.

What I thought:
I am a child of divorce. I have seen first hand, the effects that are wrought on all those involved. I have been forever changed by the repercussions of such a horrible thing (not always bad). Believe me when I say: Kramer vs. Kramer is an absolutely FLAWLESS representation of a failed marriage and what it does to Husbands, Wives, Fathers, Mothers, and the children caught between. 

The most powerful part of this film is not that it merely enacts the terrible time at the end of a marriage, but does so with absolute sincerity and utter realism. I have NEVER seen a film so well acted before in my entire life. Dustin Hoffman is amazing in his subtlety and equally powerful in his ability to restrain himself at just the right moments. There are eruptions of emotion throughout, but the strongest parts in the film are the simple understated nods, gestures, or slight smiles. He doesn't so much perform as he just lives and breaths this character and his trials. It's no wonder he won an Oscar here.

Meryl Streep doesn't have a large part, but she more than makes up for her little screen-time by bringing in an enormous presence. She does a despicable thing at the very beginning of the movie: she abandons her family. But Meryl is so good that you never hate her for it. You never once see that character as anything but tragic. That is the real magic to her portrayal. Playing a woman who is on the edge of a full and complete breakdown, it is no wonder that she also won an Oscar.

And rounding out the trio of great performances is that of Justin Henry, the son caught between two loving parents. I have no idea how a child of his age was able to pull off probably one of the greatest child performances in the history of cinema. It seriously is that good. The way in which he responds to a desperate father's attempts to connect, it is heartbreaking. When he asks so innocently of his mother, your heart crumbles as his father tries to explain the truth of divorce and separation. His reactions are some of the most gut wrenching I've seen.

The thing I want to iterate with this film is how extraordinarily real and authentic this film feels. It is not over played and it is not overly dramatized. It simply is. This is due in large part to the fact that both Dustin and Meryl were both going through similar problems that their characters were experiencing. Dustin was on the other side of a divorce, and Meryl had just separated from a long-term, close relationship. Their real world experience only elevated their presence and performance in the film, and you can see it in every frame.

Aside from the performances, the film succeeds on every level as a demonstration of the anguish of divorce. The courtroom scenes stand out in particular. Both parties fight passionately for the custody of their son, but both begin to see the other's side to a degree that they never had before. Dustin was confused as to what Meryl was going through when she left. It wasn't until the end that he truly understood what strong emotions she was dealing with. Also Meryl never seemed to get an appreciation for what her husband had been dealing with since she left. He lost his job because he was so devoted to his kid, and unfortunately at a crucial time for the custody hearing. This man, when his son fell off a jungle gym, ran three blocks, across traffic, to a hospital. They really give you a sense of the love and the hurt throughout the film.

I cannot gush enough about this extraordinary piece of work. Not only does it represent a pinnacle of acting talent, but it tackles a subject matter that is very difficult, very powerful, and emotionally charged. There is so much that I haven't even mentioned, the great juxtaposing, the idea that the Mother is almost always favored in child custody, the themes of rejection, love, loss. It is a great, great film. I cannot recommend this film enough. An absolute must see.

Bottom Line:
Realistic, powerful performances detail the anguish of a failed marriage and the hard repercussions people face in it's wake.  And it's a Best Picture winner.

A

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

The Limitations of Cost

I was watching From the Earth to the Moon a few months ago and it got me thinking about an interesting idea. What if there were no cost, no concept of money? Everybody worked for the benefit for each other, or were forced to work and develop due to outside influences? You may ask what does this have to do with From the Earth to the Moon?

From the Earth to the Moon is a miniseries that chronicles the space program from the moment Kennedy declared, "We choose to go to the moon," all the way through the Apollo program to the end of the Moon missions. As I was watching it, I began to think about how incredibly resourceful humans can be.

When Kennedy made that demand to put a man on the moon before the decade was out, our space program was a laughable joke. The Russians had just launched their Sputnik to much worldwide rejoicing and plenty of Washington headaches. It looked as though the Russians were going to beat us into outer space. This was something that the United States, in all its glorious, competitive spirit, could not allow. You can bet that when NASA got the news, they were a little bit overwhelmed. But you know what? They did it.

NASA pulled themselves together, set up a very ambitious plan and went about to make history. With plenty of setbacks and cost overruns they accomplished what was unaccomplishable: put a man on the moon. It is an amazing story about how it all came together, defying odds and inspiring a nation and the world. I recommend watching the series if you haven't seen it before.

But the thing that I realized was that NASA had, for the most part, a blank check. They were on a mission, mandated by a president that the country loved and missed, and nothing would stand in their way. So it got me thinking, what could we accomplish today if NASA was given similar circumstances? Those circumstances being an unlimited budget, rival international pressure, and a determined president's order. Now add our technology and knowledge of today, and you have a dangerous combination. We could build a Death Star!

But once I thought about this set of unusual circumstances, I began to apply it to every problem in our wold today. Everything is limited by cost and time. What if the expense were taken out of the equation? What if we had no concept of money, everybody working for the betterment of mankind? The only problem would then be time. So put a little pressure of an impending war, or ongoing war. Look at all the things to come out of two world wars. It is a fair argument to say that life would be very different today if Arch Duke Ferdinand wasn't assassinated, thus bringing about WWI and then WWII. Our lives today would be very different.

So what would this look like? What would a society that had no monetary value and a little bit of competition look like? I don't think it'd be all that great to be honest. The concept almost sounds like communism. But I see it more like a perfectly functioning utopia, everybody works for each other and for the betterment of man. Wow, that does sound communist.

In short I find that it would never work. Money or trade is a necessary part of society and culture. I simply find it fascinating to think of the possibilities if you simply took away a cost.

Think about the medical field. No longer limited by budgets and grants, they could throw all their resources into the hat to find cures and advance medicine. Or what about our infrastructure? How about those fuel economic cars? Think of the advances we could make if people weren't holding back.

And I return to space. If NASA had no budget limitations, we could be building that ship to go to Mars. We could be building that elevator to ferry equipment out of the atmosphere. The ideas are there. The science is there. All that is missing is oodles and oodles of cash, or an organization that doesn't need it.

It may sound a little dark, but I almost feel that a large scale war is needed to jump-start our ailing system. If the need were present and pushing, we could accomplish anything. All we have to do is put forth the effort, and put aside the cost.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Lingering in Misery

Everybody's seen this guy already. He opened fire in a fitness center, killed 4 people, including himself. If you're not in the know, go here, here, or here.

Very sad. But, he kept a small online diary. This has been all over the news, so I'm not going into details. Instead I wanted to get some thoughts out about why this guy did this.

I just finished reading the entire diary. Yeah, I was a little curious. I think this is an excellent opportunity to try and understand the motivations behind wanting to hurt and kill people. My initial impression after pouring through the few entries, is one of sadness, and almost sympathy. I know the guy has done something very hateful and completely uncaring, but his words suggest a very tortured soul. A soul who has just never had things line up for him.

He goes on to describe what the media had labeled "a hatred for women." I don't think that's very accurate. He clearly states at several points that he has longed for a companion, that he has not wanted to be alone. But throughout his life he has not been successful. He states that he had dated and been with women, but for whatever reason or another it never worked out.

Unfortunately it is incredibly difficult to get an exact view on this guy's situation. We don't know why people never seemed to get along with him. He does state at several points that people think of him as a "nice guy." But you also get the impression that his burden of childhood is clearly shown on his face. Someone made the comment if he had liked high school, they, thinking he had been bullied around. So obviously people have been able to see his torment, but why nobody ever stepped across that line to help him is a mystery. Who's to say he didn't ward them off somehow?

The thing I am trying to get at is this man lived and wallowed in his own misery. He seemed to embrace it as the way things HAD to be. He felt that he HAD to go into that gym and fire shots into a crowd, and take his own life. People can take a very valuable (and costly) lesson from this. I know I will be taking a lesson from this.

The reason why I said before that I almost felt sympathy with the man, is that I can understand his position. I can understand his frustration with social interactions. I can understand his broken childhood. I can understand the idea of being a "nice guy" that gets nothing and goes nowhere. For those reasons I feel bad for the guy. But the thing I can't understand is obviously why he felt he had to go and kill. And that's going to be the thing people will debate endlessly.

I get his turmoil. I don't get the need to murder. But the lesson to take is to keep an eye out for your fellow man. Be mindful of people, and not in a paranoid tattle-tell way. People could use the most help before they act. Because like in this case, there might not be another chance.

And the other thing to take away is about the dangers of stewing in your own misery. I've been guilty of being happy in misery. It sounds weird and contradictory, but it is a genuine feeling. Life is filled with highs and lows. Both are vital parts of a human life. They are what makes us unique and world wise. But it is important to not dwell in the lows, lingering in misery. Get help. Seek interaction. Even if you don't feel the need, meet people, have friends. Don't dwell?

Here's the link to his site.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: Pale Rider

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old (or there abouts) that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Pale Rider
Released: June 28, 1985
Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Clint Eastwood, Michael Moriarty, & Carrie Snodgress

Plot in a Nutshell:
A mysterious stranger, known as the "Preacher" comes to the aid of a small mining camp that is being terrorized by their big money neighbors.

What I thought:
Unforgiven is easily one of my most favorite movies of all time. The themes that it presents about violence and the carelessness of youth are some of the best. The regret and remorse of Clint's character is so skillfully and meticulously constructed throughout the film, that when it is completely and brutally destroyed in the final reel, it carries all the more meaning. I mention Unforgiven because Pale Rider so closely resembles it in its relaxed tone, at least for a western. You can clearly see the efforts of Eastwood, in trying to create something different here.

Much as Unforgiven was not your typical western, neither is Pale Rider. Your main character is essentially viewed as a preacher, a spiritual man of God that only acts when forced to. In the last act, he literally trades his collar for a gun belt. But more than the main character's attitude, the general feel and look of the film is much mellower than I was expecting.

There are no broad and colorful characters, rather we get very real characters. The protagonists are simple miners, just wishing to be left alone to do what they do. The villain is not boisterous or conniving, he wants his land, and he'll do anything to get it. And Clint.., is well Clint. Very sparse in performance he doesn't need to act, he just is. Effortlessly, he manages to inhabit his characters time after time.

The only thing I didn't really enjoy about the film, was that their wasn't a big idea. There was no major theme that the story could carry through the film. There was an element of a group of people refusing to run away from bullies, and wanting to "grow roots" as it were. And a little bit of spiritualism to the Preacher, but beyond that, there was little of substance to Pale Rider. I would say that it doesn't need substance as long as other elements pick up the slack. However, the serious manner in which it was told was never supported by the plot. Parts of it wanted to be heavy, and others wanted to be enthralling, but it never seemed to gel.

I think it all boils down to a still-learning director. At this time in his career, Eastwood had directed many films, and I have to imagine that with each he got better and better (look at the ones he has recently churned out). Some of the choices here, as far as the other performances, the camerawork, and editing, it all sits just on the edge of good. It isn't great, nor is it awful.

You can see in every frame that this is a spiritual precursor to the far superior Unforgiven. That doesn't mean that on its own, Pale Rider is not a good film. No, Pale Rider is a serviceable western that more than anything, never fully conveys it's message. Instead it is a realistic and interesting take on the classic western that looks as though its trying to bite for something meaty, yet gets nothing. I'm just glad Clint pulled it all together for Unforgiven. God, I love that movie.

Bottom Line:
A western that falls somewhere between a meaningful piece of film-making and an action packed western extravaganza, but with not much of either.

B-

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content