TITANIC (1997): Good or Bad Movie?

What one thinks about Titanic I suspect depends on the reasons why a viewer sees the movie.  Despite all his rhetoric about class differences, it may have actually been the intention of James Cameron to market the movie towards 15-year old girls.  For such an audience the movie delivered.  It also delivered for nostalgic movie buffs looking for the most important overblown epic romance (with great visuals) since Gone With the Wind.  But no one can seriously suggest that Cameron delivered a scathing statement about how we treat our poor.  The movie is cardboard entertainment - from start to finish.

Old Rose from Cedar Rapids, Iowa tells this story to her grandchildren.  We have the good people: Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose (Kate Winslet).  And we have the bad people: Cal Hockley (Billy Zane playing Rose’s fiancé), Ruth (Frances Fisher playing Rose’s mother) and Lovejoy (David Warner playing Hockley’s man-servant).  Ruth is priggish, Cal is a ruthless tyrant and Lovejoy is a sycophant.  Since there is no subtlety in this movie, Ruth and Cal are unsurprisingly very rich.  Rose is expected to sit with the boring first class passengers, but finds being with Jack to be much more fun.

Rose and Jack manage to get it on just about every imaginable place in the ship.  They also conduct a series of poses now and then that look really good on camera.  Jack even gets Rose to pose nude for a painting.  It seems like the only upper-class passenger on the boat pleased that Rose and Jack get together is the “Unsinkable” Molly Brown (Kathy Bates).  Anyway, the antics go on for so long to the disapproval of so many that we almost forget the ship is about to sink.

Well, we now know the ship did sink 100-years ago.  In the film Captain Edward James Smith (Bernard Hill) hurries the ship along against his better judgment while the ship is enveloped by a fog and scrapes the unsinkable boat against an ice berg.  The passengers all panic.  Rose is about to leave on a lifeboat but can’t leave Jack behind.  Jack, of course, is destined to die because he is poor while Hockley is to survive because he is rich.  Anyway, as if the sinking of the boat isn’t dramatic enough, Hockley becomes so upset that Rose fled the lifeboat to reunite with Jack that Hockley decides to start shooting at them amid all of the other chaos.

Jack and Rose eventually escape the ship and do swim to a piece of wood on the water.  However, Jack must immerse himself in the icy water to make room for Rose.  Jack freezes to death and Rose is eventually rescued by a lifeboat.  Meanwhile, Hockley gets to be a passenger on a lifeboat only by deceptive means.  (It does him no good because Rose wants nothing to do with him.  We learn that Hockley later shoots himself in the head after the stock market crash in 1929.  One impression one comes away from watching Titanic is that all 1500 people that died because of the shipwreck were good hearted poor people.)

We then fast forward some 80-years.  Eventually, the nude portrait of Rose is discovered by some treasure hunters while searching through the Titanic’s wreckage and the painting is presented to the old Rose.   Rose likely dies in bed while gazing at it.

Titanic is 194 minutes (or over three hours long) and it could easily be chopped in half.  Cameron could maybe then have saved a bit of the $200 million that was spent on the film (though he certainly has made that back in box office receipts).  The film has absolutely no character development.  The rich people are snobs and the poor people are all charming.  And I could think of almost no film that was any less predictable than this one – though I might have expected Hockley to at one time or another to exhibit human traits in the film.

As if the film didn’t already make enough money, Cameron decided to release a 3D version of it to commemorate the 100^th anniversary of the Titanic’s sinking.  For a whole new generation of movie watchers this will be great entertainment.  However, I feel sorry for anyone that feels the need to watch the film once again.  At most, viewing this movie should be a one-time experience.  And even seeing it one time will likely traumatize certain viewers not used to such cloying sentiment. 

But it did win an Oscar for Best Picture …..

April 28, 2012

Robert S. Miller © 2012

NEW ORLEANS SAINTS: The Bounty Program

I recently wrote a short post for another publication concerning the wrongful death action that the family of former professional football player Dave Duerson is bringing against the NFL.  Duerson’s family alleges that the player committed suicide in part due to the concussions he suffered as a player.

I received a short response from a reader as follows:

     “Bulls***, money loving bastards.”  (The asterisks are mine.)

It seemed to me like a bit of an overreaction.  It’s interesting that the commenter takes a shot at the supposed greed of Dave Duerson’s family while not mentioning the greed of the NFL, whose annual profits are in excess of $8.5 billion.  Still, I do give the commenter credit for spelling the offending words correctly.  I also believe he was sincere.  Probably no thoughtful reader with the capacity for self-doubt would have posted such a comment.

Besides the reader having an empty heart and empty head and probably being emotionally wound too tight, what are we to make of such a comment? I’m guessing he’s the type of person that represents a kind of insanity all too common.  We haven’t quite reached the point where we’ve had a soccer riot that’s left 75 people dead, but we do gamble away hundreds of millions of dollars every year on long shots that exceed ten-to-one.  Some of us threaten to kill a fellow Chicago Cubs’ fans that allegedly interfered with a foul ball.  Following the most horrific scanal in college history, Penn State football fans riot over Joe Paterno being fired rather than over the molestation of several young boys at their campus.  Finally, certain Saints’ fans are more outraged at Jerome Shockey, who may or may not have been the source for the New Orleans Saints bounty program leak, than they are by the fact that players were being paid to end other players’ careers.

It now seems the Saints specific bounty program has been going on for some time.  The owner of the Saints, Tom Benson, had ordered the Saints coaching staff to end their bounty program a couple of years ago.   Still, Head Coach Sean Payton and then defensive coordinator Greg Williams while promising to put an end to it continued with the pay-offs.  Eventually it was exposed through overheard conversations recorded on the sidelines, by a possible whistleblower whose identity remains unknown, and by some questionable shots on Brett Favre and other players during key games.  The program’s existence has since been verified by defensive coordinator Greg Williams.

I don’t think anyone should be too surprised about what was going on.  Players have probably always been trying to take out other football players on the other side in any case and there has been some give and take as far as this is concerned.  Quarterbacks have long been a target.  I once saw a film clip of Joe Namath being leveled close to three seconds after he had thrown the ball.  Namath like so many other great players from the 1960s is barely able to walk anymore. 

Such practices of course have continued.  One notorious example involved Charles Martin, a former defensive lineman for the Green Bay Packers, who in 1986 carried a “hit list” of opponent player’s names on a towel onto the field.   One of the names on the towel was Quarterback Jim McMahon who Martin subsequently threw down and injured after a play was over. 

And what has happened in New Orleans did not involve the first bounty program of its kind.  Variations of such programs go at least as far back as the fabled Oakland Raiders in the 1970s, and there probably was a similar type bounty program going on these last couple of years in the Washington Redskin organization as well.   Such programs may have been going on among several NFL organizations.

Still, the New Orleans bounty program was exposed at a bad point in NFL history when the league is under fire for not doing more to protect its players from concussions.  Roger Goodell for some time has been all about “player safety” to avoid the same type of Congressional Hearing that baseball faced concerning the use of steroids.  It seems Goodell does have some reason to worry as such a hearing has now been proposed by Senator Dick Durbin – not specifically about concussions but about bounty programs.

Goodell has now acted.  The Saints’ coach Sean Payton is suspended for the entire 2012 season and General Manager Mickey Loomis for at least half of the season.  The organization has been fined $500,000 and they have now lost two second round draft picks.  Greg William, who contributed money to the bounty fund and who claims to be primarily responsible for the bounty program’s organization, is no longer with the Saints but nevertheless faces an indefinite suspension. Several players are expected to face suspensions in the coming weeks as well.

As far as football punishments go, these were some of the stiffest ever handed down in league history.  As far as player safety goes, it will probably only make a marginal difference.  The punishments probably will lessen the use of such bounty programs.  It is also likely that the NFL will monitor concussions more closely than they did in the past.  Yet there is only so much that can be done as the sport is a violent one and players are hitting harder than ever.  Improved padding and equipment has only made such hits all the more possible.

I live in Minnesota where there is current debate going on to build a brand new football stadium for the Minnesota Vikings.  What used to be called the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome and is now called the Mall of America Field no longer seems to suffice.  I remember when the domed stadium was first built back in the 1980s.   Supporters of building the dome said that, though it would be expensive, such a structure would be a solution concerning the housing of our various sports’ teams.  The Vikings, the Twins and the Minnesota Gophers would all be able to call the domed stadium their home.  And almost from the beginning what instead happened was that none of the franchises were happy about this domed stadium.   We’ve since built separate stadiums for the Twins and for the Gophers.  So now instead of having what stadium for the three teams, we have three separate stadiums (presuming that the Vikings’ stadium does get built) at who knows how many more times the cost.

I predict the Vikings will get a stadium.  The reason I predict this has nothing to do with business factors, contributions to the community or development of neighborhoods.  Those arguments will certainly be brought up in support of building such a stadium.  The reason why I believe it will be built is because there are so many unreasoning individuals in the world such as the commenter I mentioned above.  They couldn’t put together more than a four word response as to why a new stadium is necessary, but there is no reasoning with them.  They’re interests are quite narrow.  They do not have lives outside of watching professional football.  They’ve willing to insult a family whose member committed suicide.  They are willing to threaten a fan that allegedly caused their team a chance at a championship.  And many such individuals are the type of fanatics that will vote out a politician for no other reason that we lost a professional sports franchise. 

I am a sports fan. I’ve written many times about sports on this website.  I admire the skills and dedication of professional athletes and have no grudge against them for the money they make.  They simply have a job to do.  I would rather see a professional athlete take home the millions of dollars than any business executive or Hollywood star.  At least I know that the athlete had to exhibit more real talent and perseverance to get where they are at.  There’s very little politics that goes into running a 4.4 forty or bench pressing more than 500 pounds.  If only more sports fans could learn from at least some of their examples rather than live vicariously through such athletes instead.

The New Orleans Saints fans can live a season without Sean Payton.  They can go without a couple key draft picks.  The Saints had their world championship a couple of seasons back and it’s yet to even be seen if they will be in the doldrums next season.  Even so, the fans that think they know everything now believe their world is ending. 

March 27, 2012

© Robert Miller 2012

MONEYBALL (2011): Billy Beane and Baseball Stats

Moneyball would be a decent movie if you didn’t buy into the premise that it’s supposed to be based upon an actual baseball team playing for the pennant.  Billy Beane was the General Manager (GM) for the Oakland Athletics in 2002 when the A’s went 103-59 for the season.  And yes, the A’s dropped the playoffs to the Minnesota Twins.  And the team did have a few players that surprised the league for their performance.  But much of the rest of the film is pure fiction.

This supposed team of ragtag and low salaried underdog players disposed of by other teams and picked up only by Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) and Assistant GM, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), who had a genius for baseball statistics, was put together to somehow compete with the hated New York Yankees.  Except that the Oakland A’s of 2002 also had on their team besides David Justice (Steven Bishop), Miguel Tejada, Eric Chavez, Jermaine Dye, Tim Hudson, Barry Zito and Mark Mulder – with virtually none of these players recruited through Billy Beane’s “moneyball” scheme or referred to in the movie Moneyball.  By the way, the Assistant GM’s actual name was Paul DePodesta, but Depodesta asked that his name not be used because he in no way resembled the character of Peter Brand - as portrayed in the movie.

The movie is predictable.  Billy Beane decides to implement the new moneybal scheme because he’s tired of losing every year to the Yankees and he understands that his payroll will never compete with that of the Bronx Bombers.  Beane receives an incredible amount of resistance to his new scheme from the baseball scouts in the organization and from the team’s Manager, Art Howe (Phillip Seymour Hoffman).  The team gets off to a slow start, but Beane is determined not to abandon his plan.

Beane resists the pleas of the scouts and of Howe and forces his system upon the organization.  Then the team goes on a roll and manages a 20 game winning streak.  By then everyone becomes a believer in moneyball until the team loses in the American League Divisional Series.  Then the baseball announcers and critics are telling about how you just can’t discard the scouting methods that had been going on in baseball for over a century.

Beane is nevertheless offered a shot at being GM for the Boston Red Sox.  Though he turns the offer down, we are erroneously led to believe that the Red Sox used the moneyball scheme to win their own World Series in 2004.  (I say erroneously because the Red Sox won that series the same way the Yankees had won so many series – by paying large salaries for players.)

If the film Moneyball works it is mainly due to the acting of Brad Pitt.  (I could hardly believe in any of the other characters in the movie including Peter Brand played by Jonah Hill.)  The movie is rather long (133 minutes) but moves well because of the screenplay of Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin of West Wing fame and the direction of Bennett Miller.  The movie is probably going to be interesting to individuals with a passing interest in baseball and a more passionate interest in baseball movies. 

While claiming that the moneyball strategy is all about the numbers, Moneyball will especially appeal to filmgoers that do not want to take a close look at what the numbers actually mean.  Nobody that enjoys this movie will actually look up the salaries of the 2002 Oakland Athletics or the 2004 Boston Red Sox.  Nobody will pay too close attention to the good run the Athletics had during the early years following 2000 and the mostly mediocre years that followed during the last half decade while Billy Beane has stayed on as GM.

I don’t even know what to say about what is false concerning the movie other than it’s false like so many other movies.  The film unnecessarily humiliates the manager of the team, Art Howe, and makes one assume he made no major contribution towards a team that won over 100 games that season.  And in truth, Brad Pitt actually looked more like Assistant GM Paul DePodesta than he did Billy Beane.  Jonah Hill was probably called in to play Assistant GM Peter Brand to make him appear more like a lovable loser.

I have the feeling that the screenwriters wanted to make more of a feel good ending to the film by actually having them go on to win the World Series, but that would mean they would have to acknowledge that the film was based on a fictional plot.  Yet having the team lose in the divisional playoffs at least gives the movie an added dose of realism.  Everything else in the film comes together too smoothly for a “true story.”

Moneyball has had its accolades and is probably as good as any other current film nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture in 2011.  I’ve long discounted the merit of most films nominated in any case, and I’ve lost further faith due to there now being ten nominees rather than five.  Yet this David vs. Goliath type film would be more convincing if I didn’t feel manipulated by the manufactured facts.

February 22, 2012

© Robert S. Miller, 2012

MR. MAJESTYK (1974): Elmore Leonard and Melon Farming

Many early reviews of Mr. Majestyk seemed put-off by the film because it lacked social dogma.  Yet critics that didn’t outright dismiss the movie upon its release found the low budget film to be entertaining and unpretentious.  It was based on a novel of the same name by Elmore Leonard before the novelist was particularly famous.  The movie only deviates once from the novel in any major way (one of the major characters, Bobby Kopas, does not get himself blown away like he does in the book), and that deviation was actually an improvement.

The movie is more than a simple and violent story.  Mr. Majestyk is a character study.  It’s a study in that it contrasts the character of three different individuals:

1.      Vincent Majestyk (Charles Bronson): a melon farmer and former war hero who has endured hardship throughout his life, who craves simplicity and who would like to get ahead in life through hard work and the true companionship he finds from his co-workers on his small melon farm.

2.      Frank Renda (Al Lettieri): a hit man, who has probably also endured hardship throughout his life, and takes his bitterness and regrets out on the remainder of the world by taking his revenge on anyone that tries not to let him get his way.

3.      Bobby Kopas (Paul Koslo): a down and out and emasculated loser who desperately wants to make something better of his life, but who does not have the courage to make ends-meet legitimately.

Only one of the three characters will ever be happy with what he has, and therefore the other two try to thwart him in any way they can.

Majestyk meets Renda in jail.  Majestyk was provoked into assaulting Bobby Kopas and is thus sent into lockup while his melons are waiting to be picked.  Renda is quite understandably in jail for a murder, though we already suspect that the authorities are never going to make any charges stick against him.  Kopas meanwhile is licking his wounds after being humiliated in a fight with Majestyk.

An attempt to break Renda out is made that goes badly wrong.  This ultimately results in both Majestyk and Renda fleeing, but with Renda dependent upon the whims of Majestyk as to where they go.  Majestyk wants to use Renda as a bargaining tool with the authorities so that he can get out of jail and get back to finishing processing of his melons before the growing season ends.  Unfortunately, Majestyk outthinks himself and Renda escapes through the assistance of Renda’s love interest, Wiley (Lee Purcell).  (Wiley is essentially treated by Renda as a fifth-rate person, but she remains loyal to Renda until it’s fairly obvious that Renda has met his match dealing with a baffling melon farmer.)

Renda, in the meantime, was so offended by the way Majestyk belittled him and treated him while they were on the run that he decides his next hit is going to be on Mr. Majestyk.  Renda drives off many of Majestyk’s workers, threatens various contractors not to do business with him, shoots up some of his melons and eventually breaks the legs of one of Majestyk’s best friends.  Though there should be some consolation in knowing that he has brought hardship and hurt upon his adversary, Renda remains unsatisfied because Majestyk shows no signs that he either fears or respects Renda in anyway.  In a face to face confrontation when Renda tells Majestyk that he is going to kill him, Majestyk responds (since he has nothing to lose) by punching Renda in the face.  Majestyk then tells Renda to go talk to the cops if he wants to press charges.

Though essentially a loner, Majestyk really is not in this fight all by himself.  Many of his workers respect Majestyk so much that they continue to work in the face of some very real threats.  And Majestyk meets up with a beautiful migrant worker by the name of Nancy Chavez (Linda Cristal), who in her own way is every bit as tough as Majestyk, and who in just a few days falls in love with the man.  In a pursuit through the mountains with Majestyk and Nancy on one side and Renda and his henchmen on the other (also joined by Bobby Kopas who doesn’t do much to help Renda’s cause), Majestyk ultimately becomes the pursuer while Renda is the pursued.  Majestyk kills Renda and his men, spares the lives of Wiley and Kopas, and waits for the incompetent police to arrive.  We are to assume that Majestyk and Nancy finish up on picking their melons and settle down to a somewhat satisfactory life alternating with long years of labor and struggle.

Many characters in the film appear to have little or no acting experience, but the acting of the three leads is sufficient.  In fact, the character of Renda might be almost incomprehensible to most film goers if not for the acting of Lettieri (who unfortunately died shortly after this movie was released).  Paul Koslo as Kopas was perfectly cast as a heel.  For Bronson, the film had an unfortunate side effect in that it led to him to starring in the Death Wish films that forever typecast Bronson into one particular role (a role that really was very different from what we had here). 

As for the criticism that the film did not raise social consciousness, it would be interesting to consider how many books and films would have no merit whatsoever if this was the sole criteria for judging a work of art.  The director of this film, Richard Fleischer, had already tried his consciousness-raising a few years before in a film called Che!  That ludicrous attempt to glorify a historical figure that we would all be better off remembering as a murderously idealistic clown, should have warned the critics that most of Hollywood was hardly equipped to put out a respectable “message film.” 

However, there is far more to the film that these ill-witted critics originally could fathom.  Elmore Leonard’s novels, I believe, are better than those of Larry McMurtry – another writer whose fame is essentially due to his works being adapted by the film industry.  Leonard comes across straight forwardly and this makes his stories fit easily upon the screen.  In the case of Hombre, the book is better than the film.  Paul Newman was badly cast as the lead in that movie.  In the case of Mr. Majestyk, the film is better because actually seeing the main character in action makes the individual more understandable.  If Majestyk were only a loner as is implied by the early criticism, he could just as well have pursued the path of Renda.  But Majestyk found warmth and humor in his relations with the migrant workers he did business with and thus we have sympathy for those migrant workers as well.  The message is just not forced, and the story is not reduced to social issues alone.

Mr. Majestyk is far from a perfect film, but it triumphs over so many other clumsy Hollywood attempts to appear relevant.  Mr. Majestyk is a film that can be enjoyed in subsequent viewings without the viewer having to pretend to having really enjoyed what he or she has seen.

January 15, 2012 

© Robert S. Miller 2012

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS – Both the Good and the Bad

Most recent commentary in the United States – be it political, economic or scientific – is predictable.  There is doctrine on the left and doctrine on the right that liberals and conservatives abide by without second thoughts.  The notable exception to this predictability (in practically all areas of thought except one area where he became all too predictable) has been Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens was all over the board concerning whatever else he believed in.  He criticized people from all sides.  Against the war in Vietnam in 1960s, he became a supporter of America’s efforts in Iraq following the 2004 invasion.   He was an avowed socialist in his youth but later flirted with libertarianism.    During his later years he spoke glowingly of capitalist innovation.  Yet even after this reversal he still somehow managed to assert that Lenin and Trotsky were great men.  Hitchens was against George W. Bush in 2000, briefly for Bush in 2004 and later became a Bush’ neutral.  God only knows where he stood on relations with Israel because his viewpoint on the matter always seemed to be in flux.  It was I guess his prerogative to later think something else, but it was also a fault.  His varied views may in part be due to his temperament, his need for attention, and his lack of intellectual discipline.

I’m not going to defend the man and suggest that he had a great mind or had his hand upon the pulse of our times.  What Christopher Hitchens did have was a certain degree of courage.  No matter how many times he changed his mind on any particular subject, I don’t doubt that he was always speaking his mind concerning what he felt at the time he spoke it. 

Religion was the one area where his views always remained consistent – and strident.  He once said that he wanted none of the promises of religion and instead seemed to prefer oblivion at the end of his life.  When Christopher Hitchens spoke regretfully how Christians are passing up the wonders of today for some obscure hope during the afterlife, I believe that he was being sincere.  Yet when he referred to religion poisoning everything around him, he was pandering to nihilists that like to loudly boast about their intellectual superiority. 

The followers of Hitchens religious theories were also the followers of Richard Dawkins.  Their admirers are non-believers that disparage religion and describe theists as a grouping of weak-minded individuals subsumed by fairy tales.  Such non-believers are usually college educated and often overstate their own IQ scores.  For the most part they’re as narrow-minded, dogmatic, humorless, disingenuous, unhappy and deluded as a member of any religion or cult.  These were the very people that Hitchens should have sought to avoid.  One can admire an honest atheist.  One can admire another person that wonders about the magic of our world and still does not see a divinity behind it.  One can’t admire a person that refuses to pause and wonder yet still belittles those that come to different conclusions than they do.

We all make mistakes.  Even Christopher Hitchens made mistakes as many of his obituaries will attest.  Hitchens claimed to be fairly well read, though he probably was guilty of a few misreadings in his lifetime.  For example, he admired the works of Dostoyevsky – a writer whose primary theme was religion and who was a defender of the Russian Orthodox Church (the church Hitchens was so happy to see Lenin overthrow).  Also, as a student of history, Hitchens seemed to miss that history lesson beginning in 1917 (or maybe even 1789) where attempts to remove religion from our lives, under whatever guise, have been no less injurious than inquisitions performed by any sect. 

We know quite a bit about Hitchens’ personal life.  We know that he admired George Orwell above all other writers.  We know that he smoked and drank too much.  We know that his mother committed suicide with her lover in Greece.  We know that he was married twice, and that for a number of years he didn’t speak to his brother (a born again Christian).  He was said to possess an extraordinary memory.  And, probably, Hitchens was not a particularly happy man. 

Hitchens publicly pronounced that he didn’t want to contemplate God or prayer from his deathbed.  This was somewhat due to his stubbornness, but it was also his own personal business.  Cancer of the esophagus is not the way any of us want to go and Hitchens had the right to deal with his impending death in any manner that he pleased.  Still, I hope the suffering was somewhat bearable for him - with or without religious faith.  

December 20, 2011

© Robert S. Miller 2011