Wednesday, November 24, 2010

TOUGH GUYS DON’T DANCE (1987): Modern Tale of Morality

 
Norman Mailer’s bravado marred almost everything he wrote.  Judging by his essays on the space program or the presidential campaigns, Mailer can be brilliant when writing about man’s intellectual pursuits.  Unfortunately, he can be insulting when writing about instinctive behavior such as violence or sexuality.  He refuses to identify with women or with homosexuals.  And when he praises black males, it’s usually reserved for pimps, drug addicts, gamblers or felons.  Gerald Early, a black sports writer, once complained about how little Mailer had grown in his understanding of race relations between the time that he wrote The White Negro during the 1950s and The Fight (concerning the Ali/Foreman match) in the 1970s.  In the earlier work, Mailer states that it was “no accident that psychopathy is most prevalent with the Negro.”  In the latter work, he speaks of the “pride Blacks took in their skill as pimps.”  Mailer was once arrested for stabbing his second wife.  When assisting Jack Abbot, the author of The Belly of the Beast, to get out of jail on parole, Abbot was once again arrested – this time for murder.  Mailer has also praised the intellect of mass killers such as Gary Gilmore and Charles Manson.
 
Mailer is a publicity hound that, in the past, desperately wanted to be identified as the greatest writer of his generation.  As an insecure twenty-six year old, he penned the novel Naked and the Dead.  As uneven as that novel was, he has not been able to write one since that was nearly as good.  The Deer Park, The Executioner’s Song and Ancient Evenings were Mailer’s attempt to write that epic novel, but in all three cases he failed.  Mailer has a terrific feel for the small nuances.  He generally has no feeling whatsoever for the big picture.  Mailer is now in his mid-eighties and there’s no reason to believe that the great novel he wished to write will ever be forthcoming.  So why take the man seriously at all?  For one, despite all of the hallucinogens that he ingested, his mind is still in tact and he can speak from an incredible breadth of experience.  For two, Mailer has always had the courage to not shy away from controversy.  And three, he is so uncomfortably aware of his own limitations that he is forthright about the struggles he has had to go through to keep himself from shattering to pieces.  Because of this, Mailer is the only one who could have written Tough Guys Don’t Dance.  And he’s the only one audacious enough to think he could actually direct the movie himself.
 
Tough Guys Don’t Dance starts out strange enough.  A loser named Tim Madden (Ryan O’Neal), after binging on some concoction of drugs, wakes up in his ex-wife’s house with a new tattoo on his arm and finds his girlfriend’s head wrapped up in his stash of marijuana beside his car that is parked outside.  This creates quite the dilemma for him because he can’t remember if he was the one that actually decapitated her.  Along the way we discover that there are more heads.  This is both a relief and a problem for Tim.  Though Tim was never quite convinced that he committed any murder, he couldn’t give a plausible alibi even to himself.  Thus he feels less guilty knowing there were too many heads that had no connection to his person.  Unfortunately, he has no way to prove that he’s not the murderer so it really looks like he’s on the rap for all of the heads.  For the remainder of the movie, he plays the part of private investigator (for himself) to discover what actually happened. 
 
Meanwhile, his father, Dougy Madden (Lawrence Tierney), is a bit concerned about him.  His father is a tough man and been through a large number of scrapes.  He’s a bartender who has associated with professional fighters and mobsters.  The only thing that was ever going to stop him was the cancer he was now dying from.  The father does not understand his flaky son, but he would do anything he could to straighten him out.
 
We also have a number of flashbacks, the most important concerning Tim’s ex-wife, Patty (Debra Sandlund).  Patty was rich and not too particular about people she slept with either before or after the marriage.  Patty’s previous husband, Wardley (John Bedford Lloyd), was completely odious to her and at one point she asked Tim to murder him.  (Since Tim couldn’t even commit a murder under these circumstances, it stands to reason that he probably could not have committed any later murders.)  There are so many other flashbacks wrapped in subplots (adding up to several murders and at least two suicides) that it would be impossible to mention them all.
 
Finally, we have the Chief of Police, Regency (Wings Hauser), who is not your normal law and order man.  Regency is involved in wife swapping, various big time drug deals and a number of sex parties.  He also appears to be a serial killer.  Let’s just say that, though the plot does get confusing at times, he is probably the one responsible for all of the heads.  When things are looking bad for the sheriff, he simply takes himself out.  With no one to point the finger at and with Tim potentially facing the charges for several murders, Tim and Dougy decide to (as in Dougy’s words) “deep six the heads” to destroy all of the evidence.  (Tim and Dougy take a boat out into the ocean and dump all of the heads there.)
 
Mailer is, of course, open to criticism for all of his lunacy, but this time he has shown that many of his critics are in a rut.  Movie critics may decry cliché-ridden plots and storylines (something this movie defies in everyway), but they secretly disdain anything that departs from the Hollywood script and will nitpick about a movie that does just that.  Most movie reviewers say that the production of Tough Guys Don’t Dance looks amateurish.  They will acknowledge that the acting of Tierney and Sandlund and Hauser is magnificent (O’Neal comes across almost strangely conventional).  However, they will criticize the confusing plot, the poor use of camera angles, the violence and the number of characters that just disappear - only to hide the fact that these same critics don’t know what to make of this movie.  Mailer and the cast poke fun at the pansy critics.  Long accused of being a Hemingway clone, the bluster that Mailer brings to the screen is so vital and rare that the so-called macho posturing seems fresh.  This is an old fashioned detective movie - with most of the characters on drugs.  This movie is also a coming of age story for a messed up young man under the tutelage of his tough and immaculate father.  The father could just as well have been Detective Phillip Marlowe (played perfectly by Bogart in The Big Sleep) - now grown old and who is coping with his cancer stoically.  There is an actual connection between the father and son that is personal and real.
 
Tough Guys Don’t Dance, released in 1987, even makes the Tarentino movies seem tame.  Mailer, of course, is not known as a filmmaker and it does show in this unpolished movie.  But without all of the imperfections, the singular storyline, and the sheer nuttiness, this movie would never have been so fascinating.  It’s the energy and the fact it contained a couple of characters I liked that gives it an appeal that most similar and later movies completely lacked.
 
January 24, 2007 
© Robert S. Miller 2007

THUNDER ROAD (1958): Moonshining and Individualism

Thunder Road, which was first released to the theatres in 1958, was one of those pet projects by a major network star.  Robert Mitchum, wrote the story Thunder Road, was the executive producer of the movie, played its lead character, and even wrote the theme song for the film.  Thunder Road is a story about rebellion, and the defying of the powers that be.
 
Robert Mitchum plays Luke Doolin, a bootlegger, recently back to the states from the Korean War, who outdrives and outfights his rivals and the feds while engaged in running moonshine throughout the Harlan County area in Tennessee.  James Mitchum (Robert’s actual son) plays Robin Doolin, the younger brother of Luke. Robin idolizes Luke to such a degree that he wants to be just like him – despite the fact that Luke is risking his life every night he’s out on the road.  Many of those also engaged in bootlegging in the county (outside of Luke’s immediate family including his mother and father) are envious of Luke.  Luke’s success has brought the attention of the feds and the mob down upon the county.  Many blame Luke’s antics for their inability to any longer make a living off of the moonshining business.  Luke also has the attention of the beautiful local girl, Rozanna (Sandra Knight).  When Luke’s not ignoring her (he only has eyes for the worldly singer, Francie Wymore, played by Keely Smith), he treats Rozanna like a kid sister who is better left at home with her parents.  Even so, the attention that Rozanna dotes upon Luke makes every other young man in the county jealous.
 
A new FBI agent has been assigned to the county by the name of Barrett (Gene Berry).  Barrett is not so much interested at catching Luke as he is in putting away Carl Kogan (Jacques Aubuchon), the gangster who does business out of Memphis.  Kogan wants to take over the entire bootlegging industry for Harlan County, but Luke’s success is preventing this from occurring.  While other moonshiners merely resent Luke’s dominant share of the business in the county, Kogan wants it all for himself, even if it means having people killed.  However, Kogan appreciates a good thing when he sees it.  Kogan offers Luke a job as a driver with his organization, though not understanding that Luke is a one-man show.  Luke shows his appreciation for Kogan’s offer by bludgeoning him.  Luke has now made a real enemy.  From this point forward, Luke gets in a number of scuffles with Kogan’s henchmen.  When Kogan kills a treasury man, Barrett then tries to lure Luke over to his side.  However, Luke is not to be taken in.  Luke is not interested in cooperating with anyone.  Because Kogan tried to trick Robin into joining his organization, Luke becomes enraged and tries to take personal revenge.  But Luke’s one last run is a disaster. Kogan’s men place a spike strip upon the road causing all four tires of Luke’s car to puncture.  Luke’s car then rolls several times and Luke is killed.  Luke’s death, though, does give the feds the ammunition to arrest Kogan.  And so Robin and Rozanna sit out on the porch and wait while the hearse brings the body of Luke back home.
 
When understanding something about Mitchum’s background, one understands why this movie had such an appeal for him.  Mitchum’s father was killed while working on the railroad.  Mitchum was then later expelled from school.  After that, he lived in the slums of New York, subsisted on wages he received as a ditch digger and semi-professional boxer, and for a time worked on a chain gang.  He made his way to California and worked for years as a stagehand and was given a few parts in movies.  After finally impressing his peers with roles in Thirty Seconds over Tokyo, The Story of G.I. Joe, Out of the Past, and my personal favorite, Blood on the Moon, it appeared as if his troubles were over.  However, in 1949 at the age of 32, Mitchum was convicted for possessing marijuana.  No longer carrying the penalty it did back then, this arrest could well have ended his career.  Fortunately for Mitchum, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office decided to drop all charges, but Mitchum’s reputation was tainted.  When Mitchum died exactly one day before Jimmy Stewart in 1997, the marijuana bust was used to contrast Mitchum’s character with that of the more “wholesome” Stewart.
 
Mitchum’s career did not end with his arrest, however.  He went onto play two of the greatest villains in movie history in Cape Fear and Night of the Hunter.  He played the soldier or officer in several films during the 1960s.  More telling was the role he played in Sundowners where he’s the free spirit forced to settle down because of family circumstances.  Mitchum, himself, became more sedate in his roles as he grew older, and the rebellious spirit that so marked his younger years began to disappear.  In his last years, he did cameos in Scrooged and the remake of Cape Fear - as he was no longer the leading man.  It was only as a younger man that he would ever have dreamed up a project like Thunder Road.
 
Thunder Road was still extremely popular in the drive-in theatres down south some twenty-five years after the movie was released.  Apparently, it resonated well with males in their twenties or even thirties who badly wished they could emulate the leading man.  Mitchum brought in Arthur Ripley, an outsider in Hollywood, to direct the movie.  Ripley’s task was to keep a quick pace to the movie and to keep Mitchum from becoming too fanatical about the entire filming project.  Thunder Road certainly suffers from a lack of funds that would have given the film a more polished look, and often the slang sounds as contrived and hokey as it did in the movie The Wild One starring Marlon Brando.  Thunder Road is better than the many movies that imitated it, however, because Mitchum is so believable in his role.  Mitchum, as he did in almost all of his best films, has a screen presence.  And Aubuchon as Kogan, Trevor Bardette as Vernon Doolin (Luke’s father), Frances Koon as Sarah Doolin (Luke’s mother), Sandra Knight as Rozanna, and especially James Mitchum as Robin make up an adequate supporting cast.  (A number of the other characters probably had no acting experience whatsoever.)   And, allegedly, Mitchum had been working on getting the film made for a number of years.  Mitchum actually was given Treasury Department advice and cooperation concerning the details of the moonshining business.
 
As Luke constantly reminisces about some time in the past before he went off to the war and life became too complicated, so too did Mitchum seem to long for a time when people like Luke Doolin would have been left alone.  Probably because of the theme of conscious isolation, a movie like Thunder Road would not appeal to many audiences outside of America.  Recently, I heard about a study conducted by the University of Chicago contrasting American attitudes concerning collectivism with other nations.  This study concluded that Americans are challenged in their capacity to understand other points of views.  The Chinese, the study went onto say, are much more able to comprehend other people’s perspective because of the collectivist bend of their upbringing.  (I guess I’d question whether it is their ability to see someone else’s point of view or their compliant attitude that makes the Chinese collectivists.  This was a nation that not long ago killed or allowed to starve some thirty or forty million people.)  In any case, Luke was by every definition of this study an American.
 
Thunder Road was the model for many anti-establishment movies to come some twenty years later like Bullitt or Easy Rider.  Mitchum was Hollywood’s earliest “anti-hero” long before the term “anti-hero” was even used – and later overused.  Luke Doolin was a troublemaker with no aspirations to lead or follow, and he didn’t seem concerned about the point of views of his neighbors.  Luke was selfish, stubborn and often rash.  He definitely was inviting problems upon his own community by the way he lived his life.  Thus, Luke was American in his anti-authoritarianism.  It should also be said that he was courageous, unique and capable.  He was more than just a useful tool for the authorities to bring down the mob.  Rather than submit to fate, he was active in trying to bring down anyone who tried to prevent him from doing as he pleased.  And ultimately, only a type of character like himself with all of his flaws could have succeeded in doing just that.
 
July 31, 2007
© Robert S. Miller 2007

THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007): Oil!

A number of reviews of There Will Be Blood make mention that this movie was loosely based upon the Upton Sinclair novel called Oil!  It’s ironic that Sinclair’s screed against Capitalism is now being marketed in bookstores across America as the inspiration for a major motion picture.  However, we are fortunate that the movie is only loosely based upon the novel.  The carnival-like atmosphere that the movie succumbs to in its last half would probably have been sacrilege to someone with Sinclair’s sensibilities.  Director Paul Thomas Anderson put together a movie that with its excesses and eccentricities almost matches his earlier movie, Boogie Nights.  The direction the plot of the movie takes is almost impossible to predict, and after seeing the previews for this movie I would never have guessed it was going to contain so many comic touches.
 
Daniel Day-Lewis extravagantly plays up the role of Daniel Plainview, a character whose vices surpass those of any robber baron in history.  To be fair, he starts out in the movie as a human being.  As an oilman, he first strikes crude in 1898 just after John D. Rockefeller had retired from Standard Oil.  After Daniel’s partner is killed in a work related accident, Daniel adopts his partner’s infant son and names him H.W. Plainview (Dillon Freasier).  Daniel dotes on H.W. and refers to him as his partner.  We then skip ahead to around 1912 when H.W. is approximately ten years old.  A tip by Paul Sunday leads Daniel to some property in California owned by the Sunday family where oil is believed to be located.  (Daniel pays Paul $10,000 in cash for the information and we never hear from Paul again.)  We then meet the rest of the Sunday family.  Most significant among them is Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), the son of Abel who owns the property.  Though Eli claims to be a preacher and faith healer, his true talents lie in hucksterism.  Eli understands what Daniel is looking for and Eli tries to bargain with him.  Daniel offers the Sundays $5,000 for mineral rights and the right to drill on their land.  (Daniel never actually pays the $5,000, but he does use the promise to pay as leverage to keep Eli in line.)  Daniel then makes the pitch to the remaining citizens of the community that he can also find oil on their lands, and that he is (as he later proves) the only one who can accomplish this.  The derricks on the Sunday’ land do strike oil, and Daniel understands that for the first time he is in a position to compete with Standard Oil, itself.
 
Unfortunately, during the oil drilling, H.W. is injured in an accident and loses his sense of hearing.  Daniel, unsure how to deal with the boy’s handicap, puts H.W. on a train and ships him out east (in essence, abandoning him) so that Daniel does not have to think about him anymore.  Now H.W., even as a young lad, had always been devoted and loyal to the man he calls his father.  In fact, at this point in life he may have been the only person who Daniel shared any human warmth with.  Shipping H.W. off was an action that Daniel would later regret.  In the meantime, a stranger showed up in California who identified himself to Daniel as his half-brother, Henry (Kevin J. O’Connor).  Daniel, having missed the companionship of H.W., found himself confiding in Henry his deepest and most misanthropic thoughts.  But Daniel, while at a campsite with Henry and after making arrangements to create a pipeline that would take oil all the way from the Sunday property to the ocean, discovers that Henry was faking his identity and was not related to Daniel at all.  Daniel then shoots Henry in the head and buries him.  Another person does find out about the murder, however.  That person is William Bandy (Colton Woodward), and Bandy coincidentally (there are always coincidences in movies) happens to be a parishioner in Eli Sunday’s church.  Daniel then makes a deal with Bandy by agreeing to become a member of Eli’s church.  Daniel is not so much worried about Bandy as he is in Eli discovering what Daniel had done.  So Daniel, who up to this point has had only contempt for Eli and his religious practices, suddenly “converts” and, in a hilarious scene, is humiliated by Eli in front of the entire congregation for Daniel’s abandonment of H.W. (this was Eli’s way of making up for many past humiliations Eli had to endure at the hands of Daniel).  Soon after this, H.W. is returned to California along with a tutor who is to help H.W. deal with his deafness.
 
We then jump ahead to 1927 (when the novel Oil! had been published and also shortly after the Teapot Dome scandal became public information).  H.W. (now played by Russell Harvard) married Mary Sunday (the only member of the Sunday family who we could call normal) and decided that he wanted to move to Mexico to start drilling oil there.  Daniel, now incredibly rich, sotted and beyond all redemption, feels betrayed by what H.W. is planning on doing (mostly he feels threatened by H.W. becoming a major competitor).  Daniel insults H.W., tells H.W. the truth about who H.W’s real father is, and drives his son away.  It is at this inopportune moment that Eli Sunday shows up.  Eli, always a pathetic human being, has had some success as a pastor, but he’s still prone to greed.  Eli informs Daniel that William Bandy has just passed away and had willed the Bandy’ land to the church that Eli leads.  This makes for an interesting twist.  Eli is convinced that there is still oil under the Bandy’ property and does not understand that Daniel’s drilling in adjoining properties has drained all of this oil away.  In other words, Eli thinks he can sell the land to Eli for $100,000 (and the additional $5,000 that Daniel still owes).  Eli also fails to understand how dangerous of a man Daniel has become because Daniel no longer believes in anything, and he also underestimates Daniel’s cunning.  Daniel feigns interest in the property and says he will consider the offer if Eli will admit he’s a fraud and that God does not exist.  It doesn’t take much for Eli to say this because Eli will say anything to get the money.  After Eli says what Daniel asked him to say, Daniel only then tells Eli that there is no oil left to buy.  After several minutes of taunting the hapless Eli, Daniel then in darkly comic fashion takes a bowling pin and beats Eli literally to death.
 
There Will Be Blood, like Treasure of Sierra Madre, is about the total destruction of a human being by the vice of greed.  There’s little subtlety in this morality lesson, though the focus is on competing greed of the two major characters.  Daniel only hides his greed when necessary, and is secretly ashamed of caring for anyone.  On the other hand, Eli hides his greed in a cloak of piety.  The assumption in the film is that unethical business practices go hand-in-hand with outward (though not necessarily sincere) displays of piety in order to make the business practices appear respectable.  But here, the businessman and evangelist secretly abhor each other because neither side wants to be dependent upon the other.  Both sides want to have control.  In the film, Eli never was much of a match for Daniel.  Eli’s only weapon was to try to use Daniel’s conscience to control him.  However, by 1927 Daniel had no conscience left.  (In fact, Daniel has become at the end of the movie a prototype of all evil tycoons on film in that he’s simply too bad to be true.)
 
Whatever differences there may be between the film There Will Be Blood and the novel Oil!, many commentators look upon the release of There Will Be Blood as an opportunity to revive the memory and the message of Upton Sinclair.  Sinclair, of course, was one of the key figures of American Socialism during the first half of the twentieth century.  Upton Sinclair and his admirers did liberally toss around the phrase “unbridled individualism” in their critique of Capitalism, though the phrase can be interpreted in different ways.  To a Capitalist, “unbridled individualism” would equate to liberation and freedom of choice.  To a Socialist, the phrase refers to cutthroat competition of the most extreme kind.  If one considers Daniel to be representative of “unbridled individualism,” it’s difficult not to understand Sinclair’s aversion to its practice.  But even giving this phrase its most evil connotation as Sinclair does, there still is an issue that needs to be resolved: who are the privileged few ordained to hold the reigns to prevent unbridled individualism – the Communists, Socialists, Monarchists, the Compact Majority or the Christian Right?  Upton Sinclair likely wanted to personally hold the reigns himself.  If this seems unfair, let me say a few more unflattering things about the man.  Upton Sinclair was an opportunist in the same way that Eli Sunday was an opportunist in There Will Be BloodThe Jungle, Sinclair’s most famous novel, was ostensibly written by him to correct the abuse of labor in corporations, but it’s only remembered now for its sensationalistic descriptions of Chicago stockyards.  The Cup of Fury is painful reading in its moral denunciations of those who drink alcohol.  Sinclair, by the way, along with the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, supported prohibition.  Proclaiming himself a pacifist, Sinclair supported Wilson’s decision to send troops to Europe during the First World War because, as Sinclair claimed, the defeat of Germany would mean the end of German militarism (too bad that he was wrong).  Sinclair changed his party affiliation to Democrat when he ran for the position of Governor of California because he knew he’d receive less votes if he happened to be labeled a Socialist.  Most damning, Sinclair Lewis in his novel It Can’t Happen Here satirized Upton Sinclair’s Utopian vision of America as dangerous demagoguery and a formula for tyranny where “freedom of the masses” was merely useful jargon since, to Upton Sinclair, “freedom was just a damn silly bourgeois superstition.”
 
Interestingly, There Will Be Blood probably owes more to Babbitt and Elmer Gantry, two novels written by Sinclair Lewis, than it does to Upton Sinclair’s novel, Oil!  Babbitt satirizes the modern businessman and Elmer Gantry satirizes evangelicalism.  In either case, Lewis was pointing the finger at a corrupt culture rather than a political system that needed to be overhauled.  And There Will Be Blood is a character study more than an indictment of a system of economics in that it only effectively points to the destruction of two individual souls.  Plainview lost all feeling of human warmth when he became obsessed with the drilling of oil, and Reverend Sunday lost all genuineness in the pursuit of wealth and power.
 
There are a number of attributes to this movie.  Daniel Day Lewis, Paul Dano, and Dillon Freasier as the young H.W. are outstanding in their roles, though both Lewis and Dano at times come extremely close to appearing as caricatures than real people.  Despite some reviewers criticizing the movie for leaping from one period to the next without much of a transition, the storytelling technique is superb (for a Hollywood movie).  For example, the detail concerning the oil drilling during the first half of the movie does help make us understand the motivations of Daniel as a character.  The musical score, which admittedly has been talked about too much by commentators, does set a mood.  And the overall product is wilder than one I ever imagined.  Reviewers who have commented upon the length of the movie (2 hours and 39 minutes) or who have expressed regret that there are no major female characters (presumably to give the movie a touch of lurid romance) must truly be in short supply of things to say. 
 
Like No Country for Old Men, the only other deserving Oscar nominee for 2007 Best Picture (I have not yet seen Juno), There Will Be Blood says much about what’s negative in our culture and it says it in an unflinching manner.  But also, like No Country for Old Men, it says virtually nothing that is positive.  This is a failing in both of these movies as neither movie suggests an alternative answer.  Whether There Will Be Blood was influenced most by Upton Sinclair or by Sinclair Lewis, neither writer had the power to move readers the way great writers like Victor Hugo or Charles Dickens could.  Hugo and Dickens had vision and real human empathy.  Hollywood executives, so inundated in revenue, have like Plainview lost all focus.  And that’s why the most powerful and positive of movies continue to be made elsewhere.
 
January 28, 2008
© Robert S. Miller 2008

SWEET LAND (2005): An Immigrant’s Dream

The farm my mother grew up upon was remarkably similar to those seen in the movie Sweet Land.  Sadly, the positive role of the family farm, the country church and the immigrant may now be a part of the American past.  The sheer cost of running a farm has now made ownership of one largely prohibitive for most families and as a result farms are more and more being run by corporations.  The loss of a rural populace has made the demise of the country church inevitable.  And the only role of the immigrant in rural America anymore is as a migrant worker and never as a landowner.  That the immigrant will ever again play an important part in our economy is largely improbable since most of the tasks they could perform are being outsourced to other nations.
 
In Sweet Land, Olaf (played by Tim Guinee as a young man) is a young farmer in Minnesota that has emigrated from Norway.  Olaf goes to the railroad station with his friend Elvin Frandsen (Alan Cumming) to pick up his mail order bride.  Olaf is under the assumption that he is picking up a good Norwegian girl, and only later does he discover that she was raised in Germany.  Since World War I has just ended, the prospects of a successful and happy marriage with a German girl are small.  Olaf meets the young Inge (Elizabeth Reaser), his bride to be, whose belongings consist of a couple of bags and a large phonograph record player that we assume that she has carried upon her lap all the way over from Europe.  Inge knows virtually no English, and Olaf cannot communicate with her in the German tongue.  It’s only through the intervention of Minister Sorrensen (John Heard), who is in charge of the rural Lutheran Church that Olaf and other farmers in the area attend, does Olaf learn the truth about his fiancé’s immigrant status.  This makes for a number of difficulties.  What paperwork Inge can provide does not indicate whether she has entered America legally or whether she had ever been involved in espionage as a German citizen.  What the paperwork does indicate is that she was considered a member of the Socialist Party in Germany.  Though Inge never gives any indication during the movie of having any political leanings whatsoever, she immediately arouses suspicion among the entire rural community.  That and the fact she likes to dance and makes black coffee with too many beans arouses the minister’s indignation to the point that he refuses to marry the young couple.
 
Olaf, though sometimes slow to comprehend and being a man with little imagination, is still a decent man.  He allows Inge to sleep at his house while he sleeps in the hayloft in the barn.  In all things, he is respectful to the longings and privacy of Inge.  And though Olaf has a falling out with his church that also results in his temporarily losing the friendship of his neighbor Frandsen, Olaf is extremely shrewd when it comes to the business of farming.  Unlike Frandsen, he refuses to do business with the bank run by Harmo (Ned Beatty).  As Olaf says to Harmo when the latter first meets Inge, banking and farming do not mix.  While Olaf has seen the magnificent potential of the new farm machinery, he also understands that the price of the new mechanizations often leave the farmer too badly in debt in hopes of ever owning the farmland free and clear.  Olaf and Inge farm his entire plot of land virtually by hand.  Yet with his wisdom, Olaf still manages to make the most foolish and yet noble decision of any character within the film.  Olaf makes a bid of $7,000 upon Frandsen’s farm rather than allow his estranged friend’s land from being foreclosed by the bank.  Since Olaf does not actually have the $7,000 to back this bid up, it then puts his own farm at risk of foreclosure.
 
The goodness of Olaf is in great part due to the influence of Inge.  Inge, being the beautiful person that she is, comes to dominate the entire story.  The few words of English that Inge learns to speak throughout the course of the movie are spoken with great intelligence and passion.  Inge turns out to be feisty and alive regardless of how seemingly isolated she is because of her inability to speak the English language.  She becomes a source of refuge for Frandsen’s wife, Brownie (Alex Kingston), as the two make and then consume one of Brownie’s pies.  Inge, at one point losing her patience with Olaf, makes Olaf understand that he must have dreams as even “duckies” have dreams.  Finally, she makes the minister understand that, whatever her status with the law or the church may be, she and Olaf are married because she feels it in the heart.  The minister’s legalistic interpretations of religion are no argument for what Inge feels and says.  It is primarily because of the impression that Inge makes upon those around her that the church and Olaf’s neighbors come up with $7,000 to prevent Olaf’s farm from being foreclosed.
 
Towards the end of the movie, we see the elderly Inge (Lois Smith) with her elderly and now somewhat deranged neighbor, Frandsen (Paul Sand), and also with Inge’s son.  Though likely forbidden by law, Inge is determined to bury her late husband, Olaf, on the same land that he had farmed for more than forty years.  Inge refuses to abide by any nonsensical convention up until the very end.  Likewise, a few years later, Inge’s son and young granddaughter bury Inge’s casket next to that of her husband.  Thus, the two immigrants end their long journey that began for the both of them in Europe and ended on a rural farm in southern Minnesota.  Probably, most of the farm land will eventually end up in the hands of developers.  We never know for sure if this is the case, but we learn that this will be the decision facing the son that, upon the death of Inge, has inherited the land.
 
On its face, Sweet Land is a simple story about complicated social conventions.  Sweet Land, at least among the movies I have seen, I believe to be the best movie to be released in 2005.  In fact, I would be tempted to say it has been the best movie released during the last decade.  The movie is full of symbolism from the bank to the church to the phonograph record player to pie to geese and to the land itself.  Yet none of the symbolism ever diminishes the film’s realism.  Nothing in the film is beyond the realm of believability.  And though the film in the end tells a tender story, it is never a film where the sentimentality is overstated – though one could see while watching the film how this could likely have occurred.  The dozen or so words of English that the young Inge learns throughout the film are all she really needs to speak.  Olaf, too, is a person of few words, though he does know how to speak English.  What’s most impressive about his character is that he does grow through the process of the movie.  Likewise, Frandsen, as unreliable as he is, has a human side that makes him one hundred times more appealing than the odious Harmo, the banker that sees no worth in anything that does not involve the exchange of dollar bills.  Even the dogmatic Minister Sorrensen succumbs to decency in the end because his services are so dependent upon the survival of those that work the land.
 
Yet what a sad movie Sweet Land is in the respect that we can see an America that is now probably lost.  This was our fault.  There was no need to place farmers at the mercy of politicians or to lower the price of a bushel of corn to the point where the farmer was priced right out of the market.  That corn, which used to be a staple of the American diet, is now being marketed for the production of ethanol.   Unfortunately, the promise of new profits from the corn will not benefit the farm houses that are now largely abandoned.  We no longer have these great entrepreneurs that worked the land.  Especially, we will never again have the kind of farmer that harvested the crop by the use of horses or mules.  The children of farmers are now moving to urban areas to find employment and will have less contact with their neighbors living thirty feet away than their parents did that lived more than a mile away from the next closest home.  Whether banking and farming does or does not mix, the two in any case have now become completely intertwined.  The film Sweet Land only gives us a foreboding of what it was that farmers like Inge and Olaf would have had to face when doing business with banks because Inge and Olaf at least were able to remain upon the land.  Not all of our ancestors would have that same kind of luck.
 
Sweet Land is 111 minutes in length, was an independent film directed by an Egyptian immigrant by the name of Ali Selim (which seems especially unlikely when one considers it takes place on a Midwestern farm and involves European immigrants), was based on a short story by a Minnesota writer named Will Weaver, and contains marvelously restrained acting that would be required in a movie about a bunch of stoic farmers.  But beyond telling a story that was deliberately intended to be moving, it also communicates a theme that necessitates the need of maintaining a sense of self and a need of sometimes violating social convention to avoid spiritual starvation in a hostile land where one could very easily die from feelings of isolation.  During the months of January and February, wind chills of fifty or sixty below are not uncommon among the Minnesota plains.  Survival is dependent upon hard work and good luck.  One’s social life might revolve around potluck suppers in the church basement.  Assistance may only be forthcoming from those that one meets on Sunday mornings.  As Sweet Land shows, neither the farms, the churches nor the communities surrounding them would ever have survived without the decency of those that contributed towards these institutions.  And it’s possible that greed, small-mindedness and self-righteousness have made this kind of life impossible and just about disappear.
 
December 23, 2008
© Robert S. Miller 2008

SICKO (2007): Michael Moore and National Health Care

Michael Moore’s take on National Health Care in Sicko, like just about any issue he takes on, is never completely wrong.  He just has a tendency to lay it on thick.  When he reports on statistics like infant mortality or life expectancy figures, I wish that he would give the actual statistics and a source from where the statistics are taken.  As it is, the numbers he does produce are suspect.  And when he becomes flip, it does nothing to make his argument seem any more convincing.  However, when he puts an actual human face upon a tragedy, he does not need to editorialize.  It’s these suffering human beings that he shows which generally give his films the most significance.
 
Moore begins his film, Sicko, by showing an elderly couple forced to move into their daughter’s spare storage room because medical costs have for all practical purposes bankrupted them.  He then goes on to show a variety of other individuals in a similar dilemma.  Moore travels to Canada, France, England and finally Cuba to show that this would never occur in those other countries.  For each nation he makes the claim that their citizens outlive those in America, and that their infant mortality rates are lower than those in the United States.*  Moore discusses the cases of a number of individuals who died or were otherwise injured because an insurance company denied their claims.  He also shows a variety of people from other countries with similar illnesses or symptoms that had received treatment for free.  When speaking to a number of displaced Americans in France, he learned that pregnant women even had their laundry taken care of at the expense of the government.  The implication that Moore makes is that the media and the American government distorted the conditions claimed to exist in these other countries, and that his filming indisputably proved that such problems actually do not exist.**  In the end, Moore takes a number of individuals including rescue personnel injured or sickened by conditions during 9-11 first to Guantanamo Bay and then eventually to Cuba where they received treatment that they could not receive in America.  All of the patients’ had their health dramatically improved due to the universal health coverage of the Cuban government.***  (Michael Moore asked ChÄ— Guevara’s daughter to render her opinion on the differences between the Cuban and American healthcare systems.  He could just as well have put the question to Fidel Castro and garnered the identical answer.)
 
Moore claims to have received e-mails or letters from more than 25,000 Americans dissatisfied with our current health system.  Some of these Americans show up in Sicko, and most are burdened by financial hardship.  He also interviews a number of citizens from foreign countries who are remarkably well to do and thus satisfied with the systems for their respective country.****  It’s impossible to know from just watching the film if these individuals interviewed are a true sample of the population of any country.  Moore uses his camera selectively.  He undoubtedly had no intention of producing or directing an unbiased movie to begin with.  He used the film footage in the U.S. and on foreign soil that backed his argument, and he discarded whatever countered it.
 
Probably the strongest argument for National Health Care Moore never uses: the wealthier the nation, the more that is generally spent upon the health care system.  But separating out what money is spent on health providers by the governments of respective countries, and what money is spent due to the contributions of private donors requires further study.  Further study is something Moore is probably unwilling to do.  Moore is not the unbiased sociologist who withholds judgment until all of the facts are in.  He is slipshod with the truth and likes to point the finger at convenient targets.  It’s interesting that through the use of videotaped conversation showing Richard Nixon in a cabinet meeting, Moore somehow comes to the conclusion that the start of our current health system came to being through the initiative of Nixon, himself.  Nixon is a disgraced figure and favorite target of those on the left, but Nixon was not solely responsible for the setting up of our health system.  National Health coverage has been discussed and advocated on a serious level since as early as the 1930s and certain programs were implemented at that time.  Significant innovations were made to our healthcare system through legislation passed during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.  And even accepting that Nixon was the architect of our current “infamous” system, there have been six Presidents since his time who have had the opportunity to modify, if not completely gut, the system that is in place.
 
The best portions of Sicko remind me of scenes from Roger & Me where we can see some very real devastation on the lives of people who the system did not take care of. The film coverage of those suffering under our current system is undoubtedly authentic.  In a “for profit” type of medical system, certain individuals without the resources to fight the system will be hurt when their health needs go counter to the financial needs of large insurance companies.  Impediments will be put in the way of such individuals through denial of claims for a variety of reasons including: (1) disclosed or undisclosed prior medical conditions which effectively cancels their coverage; (2) treatments that are considered too experimental to be covered; (3) the downgrading a dire diagnosis so that a condition is no longer considered life threatening – thus giving the insurance company an out to not provide money for the care; (4) coverage that was somehow dropped for individuals who were under the impression that they would be covered because of difficulties in understanding the policy, etc.  So long as the executives of these insurance companies do not have to look at the cases too closely, they can sleep well in their expensive homes.  Moore is perfectly correct in pointing out the amount of money the insurance and pharmaceutical companies are spending for lobbying costs (including contributions that have been made to the campaign of George W. Bush) to make sure that the present system is not modified.  And his argument is extremely effective when he shows the incomes that CEO’s of insurance companies and pharmacies make, and then juxtaposing that to the costs that the sick or injured person spends for drugs and medical care.
 
Sicko (a miserable name for a documentary as it negates the seriousness of the message being advanced) comes close to being non-partisan (Hillary Clinton is also criticized for accepting campaign donations from the insurance industry) and is certainly not the worst documentary ever made.  Moore is an excellent storyteller and, as in all of his films, he presents us with people we care for and he singles out the villains.  Perhaps because he has been so heavily criticized in the past for humiliating various individuals while having the camera stuck in their face, he refrains in Sicko from asking embarrassing questions to these very individuals that he wants to vilify.  He, instead, uses a couple of insiders to the medical profession to bring out various observations that the ordinary individual would not be privy to.  An insurance examiner and doctor, who both made a great deal of money by denying patient’ claims, were now conscience stricken because of the damage that they had done.  (Their testimony was much more damning than the many meaningless conversations Moore held with citizens of other countries whose familiarity with any healthcare system was limited.)  When Moore merely reports the facts without being overtly manipulative, his documentary style works.  It’s when he tries to do more (and it’s understandable why he is trying to do more because he does not deal in trivial subject matter) he simply cannot resist the temptation to skew the argument in his favor.  Sicko would have been better if Moore had first just presented the problem, and than sought out the solution to the problem – instead of already having his mind made up going in.  Today, there are even many conservatives who are convinced that the healthcare system is broken.  Think how much more convincing Moore’s argument would have been to them if he would have argued his case factually.*****  Moore needs to be more careful with the truth.
 
* Michael Moore knows, or should know, that the definition used in reporting infant mortality rates is different for each country.  Forty percent of infant deaths occurred within one day of birth, and many nations do not even include this in their reportage of infant mortality figures. The United States does include these infants in their statistics.  Other nations (including Belgium and France) do not report infant mortality if the infant is born lifeless in less than 26 weeks of gestation.  Again, the United States includes these in their figures.  In fact, the United States reporting on infant mortality may be the most stringent of any nation in the world. 
 
** Moore asks the question, why don’t Americans like the French?  He shows the French embracing and laughing outdoors in the public squares of Paris.  Moore, of course, does not indicate that French unemployment is three times higher than the United States, or that per capita income for the French nation is thirty percent less than it is in America.
 

*** Obviously, in repressive nations like China, Cuba, and the late Soviet Union, not all of the facts are being reported accurately, and independent investigation can only go so far in negating the reportage distortions.  The former Soviet Union, for example, reported that there were twenty-four times more the number of centenarians living in their country than in the United States.  So what about this reported figure?  The per capita income for individuals in Cuba is little more than $1,500 per year (that’s a figure that I don’t think was made up by the Cuban propagandists).  With such an income disparity, I highly doubt the Cuban figures touted by Moore showing that Cubans greatly outlive Americans to be accurate. 
 
**** To prove that the French are not overburdened with taxes, he asks an upper middle-class couple about their major expenses.  They mention the mortgage, the furniture, even the vegetables in the refrigerator.  They make no reference to taxes!  The obvious implication (based on this one solitary couple) is that the French are not concerned about their tax rates.  Moore never mentions how much the French actually pay, so we are left to guess at the figure.  The average French citizen pays anywhere from forty to sixty percent of his gross pay for their national income tax.  In the United States, we pay twenty-five to thirty-five percent to the federal government on average, and another five to ten percent to the state government.  There is also in France a 19.6 percent Value Added Tax (a complicated alternative to a national sales tax) in existence.  In the United States, we pay a four to six percent sales tax.  The French tax rates are not the highest in the world, but on average they probably pay twenty percent more in taxes than we do in America.
 
***** Michael Moore is getting sensitive.  When criticized for his selective fact finding by both the local and national media, his response has been to blame the media for not getting it right on the Iraqi War.  He may be correct on the war, but that does not mean that his statistics on National Health Care are any more valid.  He has now won two Oscars and has previously been invited to attend the Republican and Democratic National Conventions.  He’s no longer putting his house in hock to pay for the making of his movies.  Therefore, he can afford a statistician to make sense of the numbers that are being reported to him and are being used in his movies.
 
July 17, 2007
© Robert S. Miller 2007