Time for some movie reviews. I’ve decided to do this by genre, starting with westerns since I grew up in New Mexico. I’ll start with what I consider to be really great films that happen to be westerns.

When I was pretty young, Lonely are the Brave came out and I saw it on TV. Despite the commercial interruptions, I was profoundly moved by this film. It’s not your traditional western, as it takes place in modern times. The theme is nonconformity and how the forces of society can overwhelm someone who wants to live life his own way when that way conflicts with (and seemingly threatens) what society views as acceptable. Filmed in my hometown and released in 1962, I suppose one reason this film had such an effect on me is because I had been to many of the places shown on the screen (now overwhelmed by the urban sprawl of Albuquerque) and I was lonely though not brave. It presages the coming nonconformity of the hippie generation. Kirk Douglas thought it was his best film – and that’s saying a lot since he’s been in some great ones. The screen writer was Dalton Trumbo, one of the writers blacklisted by the forces of society during the McCarthy era. The film was based on Edward Abbey’s The Brave Cowboy – and of course Abbey was another nonconformist (his Desert Solitaire was a formative book in my college years).

You know you’re in for something different when the opening scene has you thinking “Well, here’s another traditional western – cowboy sleeping on his bed roll on the prairie, gets up, makes a fire, saddles horse; and then a jet flies over! What??? Did the filmmakers not notice (it’s happened before – watch Winterhawk and notice the telephone wires and traffic in the background during a scene that supposedly takes place in the 1860’s)? Nope, it’s deliberate. You watch the cowboy (Douglas) ride into “Duke City” [Albuquerque] and notice his horse shying at traffic (important, though it doesn’t seem so at the time). He reconnects with old friends, gets in trouble and is thrown in jail (the sheriff is Walter Matthau) and rather than pay bail and avoid confrontation, escapes from jail and is chased by the law (Matthau’s character secretly wants the cowboy to escape). The ending is tragic and may have you in tears.

Many film critics think that The Searchers is the best western ever. I mean, what can go wrong – you’ve got John Wayne and John Ford and Monument Valley? Well here’s one “film critic” who really dislikes this movie. I think what turns me off about this is the rampant overacting, except by John Wayne. Everybody else in this movie is busy shouting their lines and gnashing their teeth, and it gets really tiresome. Another bad thing (in my opinion) is the unreality of the film. West Texas looks nothing like Monument Valley (compare this movie to No Country for Old Men), the Comanche don’t speak Navajo, and chicanos in New Mexico did not parade around in sombreros and serapes. So why am I mentioning this movie in a blog about great westerns? It’s a lead-in for what I think is really John Wayne’s greatest western and a great film regardless of genre. That movie is The Shootist.

John Wayne’s last film is really a valedictory for his career: he plays a famous gunfighter suffering from terminal cancer who just wants to find a quiet place to die in peace. Jimmy Stewart plays a doctor who reluctantly helps him deal with the pain, Harry Morgan plays the local sheriff who is glad Wayne is dying and Ron Howard plays a teenager fascinated by guns who wants to emulate people like Wayne. Despite Wayne’s struggles to remain anonymous, his presence becomes widely known and soon relatives of one of his victims arrive for revenge. The showdown plays out in unexpected ways; certainly very interesting in these times when gun violence is so common in our country.

The third western that ranks up there in terms of great films regardless of genre is High Noon. I don’t need to say much about this movie, as it may well be one of the best-known westerns ever made. It certainly is head and shoulders above a movie such as The Searchers. Stanley Kramer produced this movie (it was nominated for Best Picture – one of seven nominations he received for producing) and Kramer is responsible for producing or directing quite a number of amazing films (On the Beach, Inherit the Wind, The Defiant Ones, The Wild One, Judgment at Nuremburg, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, among others). During the McCarthy era, this film was viewed by some right-wing zealots as “anti-American” (including John Wayne, who ironically accepted Gary Cooper’s Oscar for this film as Cooper was unable to attend). The screen-writer was Carl Foreman, who was a member of the Communist Party at one time and who was blacklisted by Hollywood because the House Committee on Un-American Activities labeled him an uncooperative witness. Foreman co-wrote the script for The Bridge on the River Kwai but wasn’t listed because of that blacklisting. Unfortunately, Kramer tried to get Foreman removed from High Noon, but people like Gary Cooper (who was a conservative) helped keep Foreman on the film. Well, that’s a lot of stuff that isn’t in the movie; the movie itself is about responsibility, courage, and cowardice. Should Cooper have stayed to protect people who didn’t appreciate him? Truth is, a lot of times people don’t appreciate the help they receive from stronger persons, but those strong folks don’t do it for the sake of appreciation.

I suppose I should review Shane as well, but I haven’t seen that movie for a long time so I’ll put that off until I get a chance to watch it again. Instead, I’ll review Unforgiven. I’ve turned into a Clint Eastwood fan based on the movies he’s directed in his “later years” – and this is no exception. It’s not like any other western I’ve seen, in large part because the “hero” is a complex character who could be a loving father at one time and a completely cold-hearted killer at another. The dirt and brutality comes through on many fronts, as well as the reality of killing another human. It’s certainly not a movie for all tastes, but as westerns go, it has a lot to tell us. Well done, Clint!

The shootings in Connecticut have once again raised the debate about gun control in our nation, and I suppose many bloggers are sounding off about it. I'll join the herd, though I'd like to take a slightly different tack.

It seems that many people would like to blame these events on the Supreme Court, which has consistently ruled since 1962 that government-sanctioned prayer in schools is prohibited by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For those of you who have forgotten, the First Amendment reads, in part, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." A typical emotional appeal to re-introduce prayer into public schools reads something like this: "A child wrote a letter to God, saying 'Dear God, Why do you let people kill children in school?' God responds 'Dear child, I'm not allowed in schools.'" The take-away message is clearly that such awful incidents wouldn't happen if only we "allowed" children to pray in school.

There are many, many problems with such a view, beginning with the fact that children ARE allowed to pray in school, as long as their prayer doesn't disrupt the class. To top that off, people making such a statement seem to think that somehow the actions of the Supreme Court could cause God to leave! Or, worse, that God is a petulant child who takes His toys and leaves because the game isn't going His way!

Another big problem with this view is that school violence occurred long before the Supreme Court rulings of 1962 (the worst incident of violence occurred in Michigan in the 1920's). History teaches us that violence against children has been around as long as there have been children; it's even in the Bible (slaughter of the innocents, anyone?)

Instead of pushing their particular views on the rest of us, those arguing for prayer in school would be much more helpful if they turned their attention to real causes for such violence. But of course that is pretty complex - many factors play into this - and we as a society don't deal well with complexity. We like simple answers, even if they're the wrong answers. The fact is, such violence has many sources, but two which should require our immediate attention are mental health and the easy access to semi-automatic and automatic guns.

Until we deal responsibly with those two issues, we can expect more incidents of mass-shootings, in school and elsewhere.

Religion in America

Well, here we go again. I really should get off of Facebook; it's sole value is connecting to former students and friends - but sometimes things people post just piss me off.

For example, this tripe by Ben Stein (you know, the guy who used to work for Richard Nixon - that paragon of virtue; the guy who made the deceitful "documentary" Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed; the guy who's main claim to fame is appearing in second-rate movies as a monotonic bozo) showed up in my News feed this morning:

"Very insightful and very true....Take a second to read this: Apparently the White House referred to Christmas Trees as “Holiday Trees” for the first time this year which prompted CBS presenter, Ben Stein, to present this piece which I would like to share with you. I think it applies just as much to many countries as it does to America . . . The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary. My confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, “Merry Christmas” to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a crib, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat. Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to. In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking. Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her: “How could God let something like this happen?” (regarding Hurricane Katrina). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said: “I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?” In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay. Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.' Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. Are you laughing yet? Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not, then just discard it.... no one will know you did. But if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in. My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully, Ben Stein"

Well, Ben - how about if I blog about it instead? How about if I point out that the first amendment of the Constitution makes it crystal clear that we all have the right to practice our own religion - or no religion - but we absolutely DO NOT have the right to force other people to practice our religion (prayer in school anyone)? How about if I point out that using other people's tragedies to "support" your agenda would most likely by abhorred by God? How about if I note that calling a tree a "Holiday" tree might well be an effort to be more inclusive, instead of exclusive? Maybe - just maybe - the President thought it would be a good idea to be inclusive rather than politically correct. Maybe that's entirely appropriate for the President of the United States.

You think God is responsible for the many ills of society (and that's exactly what you're saying - that God is a petulant child who takes His toys and leaves when the game isn't going His way - whichever way that is)? I'm glad I don't share your version of religion! You think Christians are being "pushed around"? How do you feel about Muslims? Buddhists? Hindus? What exactly constitutes "pushing around"? Are Christians not allowed to practice their religion? Oh - I see - they're not allowed to use public spaces to push their particular view of God on the rest of us. They're not allowed to use public schools to present only their holy book to children. Yep - sure sounds like "pushing around" to me!

Guess what? I think it's entirely appropriate for the Bible to be in public school. And it's entirely appropriate that the Qu'ran be in public schools, or the Bhagavad Gita or - pick your holy text. In fact, I think the country would be better off if a comparative religions class was required of all public students - then our citizens would know something about other points of view instead of relying on sound bites from third rate commentators.

You "think" all this mayhem that you decry (school shootings, terrorism) started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare succeeded in stopping school prayer (guess what - it wasn't her - it was the U.S. Supreme Court)? Maybe you should learn a little history. The most children killed in an attack on a school in the U.S. occurred in Michigan in the 1920's. Terrorism didn't start in the U.S. in the 1950's (just ask an African American about lynching, for example). You "think" that because Dr. Spock recommended that we not spank our children - that explains teen suicide, murder, relativism? Wow - I bet Dr. Spock had no idea he was so powerful!

Catch a clue, Stein. There are other, more effective, ways to discipline children. How about logical consequences? If a child breaks a toy in a fit of temper, how about taking away all toys for a predetermined time. If a child refuses to pick up her room, how about any toys and clothes left on the floor go into the Goodwill bag to be donated to children who might actually care about them? Is spanking the only answer to a mis-behaving child? Is that the limit of your imagination? And what does spanking teach a child, anyway? Is it the case that Dr. Spock advocated inflicting NO discipline on children? If that is not the case, then your whole screed is a crock. And that is the best polite description I can apply to it.

Patriotism

I just "defriended" someone on Facebook because that person posted an image from some Tea Party-like organization entitled "Patriotism". It included an eagle and the tag line "Pro-family, Pro-gun, Pro-life, Anti-Obama!" The image came with the admonition to "not be afraid to post to show you are a patriot". Nothing frosts my cookies so quickly as nonsense like this. So - I'm not a patriot because I happen to believe there are many kinds of families, that - yes, the 2nd amendment means I can own a gun, but it doesn't mean I have the right to carry one with me everywhere I go - and that a woman has every right to decide whether to have a child or not? I'm not President Obama's biggest cheerleader, but I happen to think he's better than Mitt Romney. And I would never say someone who supports Romney is not a "patriot". I believe the US Constitution is an amazing document, and I swore to defend it against all enemies when I joined the Marines. Part of the reason I joined the Marines was that my country was in a war and I thought it was my duty to protect it. Turns out that particular war was not a valid exercise of national power, but I still believe that the US Constitution deserves (and needs) protection. "Patriotism" is not a club which can be used to beat people with whom you don't happen to agree.

Memorial Day

Memorial Day is always a bit of a mixed blessing for me. I appreciate the wishes for a "happy Memorial Day" from various folks, but it's not really a happy holiday, is it?

That's especially true for me, since at this time in 1969, my battalion had suffered between 30 - 40 % casualties (killed and wounded) in a series of battles south of Da Nang. When I visited the Viet Nam Memorial for the first time in 1983, I looked for the panels that would have contained the names of some of those folks, but it was too much - there were so many names. And those were just U.S. names - imagine what a Vietnamese memorial would look like (the Vietnamese suffered casualties on the order of 1 - 3 million deaths; an equivalent proportionate loss for the U.S. would require a Viet Nam memorial with space for 25 million names).

I often inflict some movie on my family that I think encapsulates what Memorial Day is supposed to be about. I remember having Colleen watch "Saving Private Ryan" and when it was over, she started to go up to her room in complete silence. I asked her what she thought and she burst into tears. We had a good discussion after she'd shed her load of tears. I suppose that's what I hoped would happen.

While down in Savannah, we saw a plaque which noted that Memorial Day originated in the south (the impression we got was that it originated in Savannah). Turns out Decoration Day originated with black Americans who decorated the graves of Union soldiers, both black and white, in Charleston, S.C. I guess that means I'll be watching "Glory" this Memorial Day.

I would feel better about this holiday if I thought we'd learned something from these various wars. Sadly, I can't say that; witness what Bush and Cheney expected when we invaded Iraq. Oh, well, we can't remain stubborn forever. A salute to all you vets out there - I hope you have a meaningful Memorial Day.

Movie reviews

We went to a book store the other day, where I got an updated version of Maltin's movie reviews. Peg said I should write my own reviews, so what the heck - why not?

First up, I'm going to review a review of a movie I haven't seen (and will undoubtedly never see)! Well, that sounds a bit bizarre (to quote another movie that I have seen). The movie reviewed (in Maltin's book) is Bloodsport, and the review states "Belgian-born Van Damme joins the movie macho brigade in this story (based on true events)[my emphasis] of American Ninja Frank Dux, the first westerner to win the Kumite ..." In Stolen Valor, it is shown that the "true events" are anything but. "Kumite" is a form of karate, not a tournament (though many karate tournaments use this form in scoring) and the "trophy" that Dux supposedly "won" for this tournament was paid for by him. The "tournament" took place at his own address. Though I enjoy the occasional chop-socky, I'll skip this one. Dux claimed to be a decorated Marine from the Viet Nam war - and research shows that he made all that up. I wish Maltin or his reviewers would correct the review.

As long as I'm discussing "chop-socky" movies, let me review a couple I do like. Jet Li's Fearless is definitely a good one in that the emphasis is more on personal morality (though there's plenty of punching to be seen). Ego gets in the way of the main character, and leads him to make some disastrous choices. After retreating to the country and falling in love with a blind peasant girl, he learns what must be done. There is no happy ending to the story, but that's ok.

The other Jet Li movie I like a lot is Hero. Again, while the fighting is important (and impressive - much better than Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), what matters is the story and the choices the main character ("Nameless") makes. Another great example of self-sacrifice in the interests of a larger goal.

I bought The Karate Kid a long time ago, and I've watched it once since I got it. The story is ok, though the protagonist can get on one's nerves, but once again Viet Nam veterans are portrayed as psychopaths. Can we move past that, please?

In the near future, I'll start reviewing some international movies that I've enjoyed. Cheers!

What do scientists "believe" and why should we care?

This topic has been brewing in my head for some time, prompted by continuing disbelief by many that evolution has occurred and that global warming is real.

First, evolution. The vast majority of scientists "believe" evolution to be the correct explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. The figure is pretty close to 99% when one canvases scientists who actually study biology. One could view this as simply an "argument from authority" which is not powerful evidence in support of the concept. But "belief" in science implies something different. What it implies is that the scientists have examined the evidence - pro and con - and have concluded that the concept in question is the one supported by the evidence. In this case, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of evolution. You don't have to (and shouldn't) take my word for it - examine the evidence yourself. A good place to start is the "Talk Origins" website.

Now, on to global warming. We've had an unusually warm winter here in Illinois, and some folks regard this as evidence of global warming. Those folks would be making the same mistake (though with better reason) than the clown who disparaged global warming by writing to the local paper that snow on December 1st showed how global warming was not true. Here's a clue - it's not called global warming for nothing. What matters is the global rise in temperatures, not what happens at any one particular spot on the planet. This case is similar to the evolution case in that well over 90% of climate scientists regard global warming as real, and the vast majority of those would come down on the side of anthropogenic causes (greenhouse gases released by fossil fuel combustion for example). Yet many people, including people I respect, don't "believe" in global warming. Again, the climate scientists who "believe" in global warming do so because that's what the evidence shows. The rise in greenhouse gases because of industrial activities is well documented. The rise in global temperatures is also well documented. Thus, "belief" in global warming is based on evidence, not intuition or some hidden hostility to capitalism.

The rub comes when we try and figure out what to do about it, and that's why we should care about scientists' "beliefs". In the case of evolution, the continued opposition to this theory (listen to some of the republican presidential candidates) threatens science education in our country. In the case of global warming, the continued opposition to this theory has delayed the search for possible ways to mitigate the long-term effects. Because global warming has serious economic implications, it is vital that we all agree that it is a real phenomenon and that we support efforts to lessen the long-term environmental and economic impacts. Putting our heads in the sand is exactly the wrong thing to do.