Film Review: Long Way North

"Long Way North"
** 1\2 (out of ****)

[Note: This review was originally published in the weekly newspaper, Chicago News in the December 16 - 22, 2016 edition.]

There is great artistry in hand-drawn animation that unfortunately American movie goers have been deprived of as the majority of today's animated movies are done with CGI. Animation fans will enjoy the traditional style on display in the French movie, "Long Way North" (2016).

As has been the trend for the past few years, traditional animated movies are being made outside the U.S., including "Song of the Sea" (2014), "Chico & Rita" (2010), "Phantom Boy" (2016) and any number of movies from the great Japanese animator, Hayao Miyazaki - "Spirited Away" (2002) and "Howl's Moving Castle" (2004). But the French have an impressive track record as well and "Long Way North" looks just as good as their best. Unfortunately, the movie is not a complete success.

It is 1882 and we are in St. Petersburg, Russia. Our hero is a young 15-year-old aristocrat named Sasha (voiced in the English dub by Chloe Dunn) who idolizes her grandfather (Geoffrey Greenhill), a great explorer, who went out on an expedition to the North Pole to conquer it for his homeland and never returned. The incident has placed a scar on the family's reputation. With the same zest and determination found in one of Miyazaki's heroines, Sasha believes she has found the answer to the whereabouts of her grandfather and the course he charted. Now all she has to do is find someone willing to travel to the North Pole with her.

If  the only animation you have seen was by Pixar and Dreamworks, "Long Way North" will seem rather plain and simple to you. The story deals exclusively with human characters. There are no talking animals. No songs sung. No pop culture references. No sexual innuendos or subtle adult humor. The dialogue is basic and direct (which may also be due to this version being dubbed in English), as are the character's motivations.

"Long Way North" is cliché and predictable - privileged young woman learns the value of hard work and important life lessons in the process. A young smart-alec male will be challenged by the natural elements and mature into a man, proving his masculinity. This contributes to a lack of three-dimensional characters and the best elements of Disney animation; precocious, loveable characters, enduring morals, heartfelt sentimentality and an ability to create humor that both adults and children will respond to.

However, the movie has its defenders, receiving much critical acclaim and was nominated in the best feature category at the Annecy International Film Festival. The director, Remi Chaye, making his directorial debut, previously worked on the animation for another French movie, "The Painting" (2011) and the French / Irish movie "The Secret of the Kells" (2009).

Still this nautical story never seems to set sail (forgive the pun) and is really split in two halves. The first half establishes Sasha and her personality, showing her to be a young girl filled with family pride, who deep down has a sense of adventure in her, while the second half focuses on the expedition through the North Pole and the harsh weather conditions. These scenes may prove to be too realistic for small children as characters fight over a shortage of food supplies and one character is in critical condition. At this point Sasha takes a back seat as the landscape and supporting characters become more prominent in the story, making Sasha no longer a driving force in the movie and more of a reactionary character.

"Long Way North" doesn't always go in the directions some audiences may expect it to and that may make it seem less than emotionally rewarding, leading one to question, who was this movie intended for? It is hard to imagine families taking pleasure watching this movie repeatedly, in the same way children enjoy "Frozen" (2013). In fact "Long Way North" may be the anti-"Frozen". You can see how the two movies could have blended together.

"Long Way North" is a somber, tender movie, but one that doesn't pack an emotional wallup. This tale of family pride and self-discovery doesn't always give audiences what they may expect even though it is a pleasure to look at.

Film Review: Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid

"Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid"

   *** (out of ****)

Comedy legend Carl Reiner died Monday, June 29th at the age of 98.

To pay tribute to this master comedian, I wanted to write a final review. Deciding to take a cue from Reiner himself, I chose his favorite movie that he directed, "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" (1982), a send-up of 1940s  American film noir. Given that my blog is dedicated to classic cinema, it seems like a perfect choice.

Born in the Bronx in 1922, Carl Reiner had his first taste of fame in the 1950s appearing with Sid Caesar on the classic sketch comedy shows, "Your Show of Shows" (1950 - 1954) and "Caesar's Hour" (1954 - 1957). Reiner also helped write the shows, which at one time or another included writers like Mel Brooks, Neil Simon and Larry Gelbart. 

His success continued into the 1960s  when he and Mel Brooks collaborated on what would become an iconic comedy album, The 2000 Year Old Man. Reiner took on the role of the straight man (something he did often opposite Sid Caesar) as the interviewer and Brooks as the title character. In 1961, Reiner created "The Dick Van Dyke Show", based on his days of writing for Caesar. Originally titled "Head of the Family", it was supposed to be as a star vehicle for Reiner, but in the end went to Dick Van Dyke. Reiner recast himself as the star of the show within the show, Alan Brady.  The series ran until 1966.  

Starting in the 1960s and through the late 1990s, Reiner began directing films. His feature film debut was "Enter Laughing" (1967), based on his 1958 autobiographical novel of the same title (adapted for the stage in 1963). In the 1970s, he directed the cult classic, "Where's Poppa?" (1970)  starring George Segal and Ruth Gordon.  As  well as more mainstream movies like "Oh, God!" (1977)  starring comedy legend George Burns. The Oscar nominated screenplay was written by Reiner's old co-writer from his Sid Caesar days, Larry Gelbart. The decade ended with Reiner starting a new collaboration with bright new stand-up comic, Steve Martin. In total, the two men would work together on four movies. Their first effort was "The Jerk" (1979) and was followed by "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid".

I suppose of the 15 comedies Carl Reiner directed, "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" would be near the top of my list as his best movie. What makes it so special are the technical aspects of the filmmaking. Long before it was done in "Forrest Gump" (1994) and slightly beating out "Zelig" (1983), directed by Woody Allen (who also wrote for Sid Caesar in the 1950s), "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" uses classic movie scenes seamlessly incorporated into a modern day story.

Steve Martin stars as his own 1940s private detective, Rigby Reardon. He is hired by Juliet Forrest (Rachel Ward) to investigate the death of her father, a noted scientist, philanthropist and cheesemaker, John Hay Forrest, whom she believes was murdered. Rigby's investigation requires him to interact with Alan Ladd, Ray Milland, Barbara Stanwyck, Humphrey Bogart, Veronica Lake, Kirk Douglas, Cary Grant and Joan Crawford among others.

This was accomplished by taking scenes from famous movies featuring these actors. A total of 18 movies were chosen including such classics as  "Sorry, Wrong Number" (1948), "The Big Sleep" (1946), "Notorious" (1946), "The Postman Always Rings Twice" (1946), "Double Indemnity" (1944) and "White Heat" (1949). Then the lighting crew, the cinematographer, costume and production designers had to match the look of those movies, creating continuity so that Martin appears to be in the same scene exchanging dialogue. 

Obviously a movie like this requires a lot of research. According to Reiner, he, Martin and co-writer George Gipe had a vague idea of the plot and then watched countless movies looking for moments they could use. The original scenes had to be over the shoulder shots that couldn't contain dialogue too specific to the particular movie, and it needed to help advance their story.  In "The Bribe" (1949), Charles Laughton addresses a character named Rigby (played by Robert Taylor), and because of that Reiner knew their character would also need to be named Rigby. In fact much of "Dead Men" takes its cues from "The Bribe".

The plot doesn't make much sense and isn't altogether compelling, a complaint Siskel & Ebert had for the movie in their thumbs down review, but that kind of misses the point and it is not the real appeal of "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid". It is a one-joke movie that would be most appreciated by truly devoted movie lovers. They will take pleasure in being able to guess which movie clips are being used, and their smooth integration into the plot will cause those viewers to smile and acknowledge the craft that went into making the movie.

This makes the real star of the movie not Steve Martin or Rachel Ward but cinematographer Michael Chapman. Although Chapman worked again with Reiner on his next comedy, "The Man With Two Brains" (1983), Reiner's third Steve Martin collaboration, Chapman may be best known for his Oscar nominated work on Martin Scorsese's "Raging Bull" (1980), also shot in black and white. His other credits include "Taxi Driver" (1976), "The Last Detail" (1973), "Personal Best" (1982), "The Fugitive" (1993) and "The Story of Us" (1999) directed by Carl's son, Rob Reiner.

Some of "Dead Men's" humor comes from contrasting sensibilities of the 1940s and modern day (1980s). Through various narrations, Rigby  kind of, sort of sounds like the detectives from the noir movies using 40s slang, but at the same time parodies it with modern vulgarities, which obviously wouldn't have been allowed in the original movies.

The humorous contrast is further exploited in the overt sexual tone. One example is a running gag where Rigby touches Juliet's breasts when she falls down, and when caught in the act, says he is only adjusting them.  Another is when Rigby mentions a prior case, "The Murder Case of the Girl with the Big Tits". There are also not so subtle sexual innuendos. Rigby is shot in the arm multiple times which necessitates Juliet to suck the bullet out of his arm. These scenes begin with a close-up of Juliet's lips. Classic movies had their share of innuendos but nothing as overt as that.  

There is a sense of having fun with the integrated clips. In one scene between Rigby and Lana Turner, Rigby apologizes for the last time they were together and leaving her at the corner of Schwab's drugstore. The joke, for the younger people reading this, is that (according to legend) that is where Turner was standing when discovered. In a scene with Charles Laughton, Rigby tells him he looks like the Hunchback of Notre Dame. Because the dialogue can't always line up, sometimes Rigby is called by different names, which he passes off to a character's drunkenness. Finally, Juliet gives us her version of the famous, "you know how to whistle" scene with Lauren Bacall from "To Have and Have Not" (1944).

Similarly to "Young Frankenstein" (1974), what makes "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" work are the good intentions of those involved. Respecting the original source material and wanting to get as much right as possible, the movie has a score written by the Hungarian film composer Miklos Rozsa, who worked on many of the classic movies used here ("The Bribe", "The Killers" (1946), "The Lost Weekend" (1945) and "Double Indemnity"). The costume designer was Edith Head, who practically worked on every movie made from the 1920s until 1982. This was her last movie and was dedicated to her. 

Ironically, Steve Martin revealed that he did not want to watch any of the classic noir movies prior to shooting. He was concerned he would end up doing a Humphrey Bogart impression. Depending on how you look at it, he could be the weakest link in the modern acting ensemble. Because Martin didn't want his performance to be nostalgic and channel actors like Bogart or Robert Mitchum (suspiciously absent) he seems out of place. The contrast in style however is meant to create the humor. Rachel Ward on the other hand could have fit into one of those 1940s movies. She's not doing an impersonation (as far as I could tell) but captures the spirit of the female roles of the time period. Meanwhile Carl Reiner, at one point looking like Erich von Stroheim, gives us the broad 1940s Nazi movie villain.

After Martin and Reiner's collaboration came to an end with "All of Me" (1984) co-starring Lilly Tomlin, it was tough times ahead for Reiner. Nothing he did for the remainder of the 1980s had much of an impact, though I do love the nostalgia of "Bert Rigby, You're a Fool" (1989), an old-fashion 1930s-ish Hollywood musical. In the 1990s, he took a stab at movie parodies (which Caesar's TV shows were known for and celebrated) but "Fatal Instinct" (1993) felt more like an  "Airplane" (1980)  knockoff  than anything else.  At age 75, Reiner decided to retire from filmmaking after giving us "That Old Feeling" (1997), a minor effort inspired by the great 1930s screwball comedies.

Reiner however remained creative in the last years of his life. He wrote several autobiographies; I Remember Me (2012), I Just Remembered (2014) and Too Busy to Die (2017). Some younger movie fans may remember him from his acting roles in "Ocean's Eleven" (2001) and its sequels. For me, he was the best thing about those movies. His last feature movie credit will be for his voice-over work in "Toy Story 4" (2019) as Carl Reineroceros.

Unfortunately, unlike his contemporaries Mel Brooks and Woody Allen, as a director Carl Reiner was never celebrated by the public nor critics as a great comedy filmmaker. Believe it or not, he was never nominated for an Academy  Award. The Academy didn't even make him a recipient of their lifetime achievement award. None of his movies were nominated for best picture. However, this is not to say that he was not celebrated. He was the winner of 11 Emmy awards either for his writing or acting. He won one Grammy, shared with Mel Brooks, for their comedy album, The 2000 Year Old Man in the Year 2000, and received the Mark Twain Prize for  American Humor.

Perhaps with his death, the general public will take a second look at his movies. Sadly, I didn't do much to help keep his comedies fresh in the public's mind. I only reviewed three of them despite Reiner being an important figure to me and an inspiration. When I was younger, dreaming of becoming a filmmaker, I would say to myself that  I want a career like Carl Reiner's.

"Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" may be a good place to start in the Carl Reiner movie cannon. This is a well made, stylize movie showcasing Reiner's directing ability. Next, move on to the dark comedy, "Where's Poppa?" then "Oh, God!", "All of Me" and "The Jerk". Reiner was a national treasurer who will be sorely missed.

Film Review: Gone with the Wind (Revisited)

"Gone with the Wind"
**** (out of ****)

After more than 80 years "Gone with the Wind" (1939) is still a romance capable of sweeping us away.

I decided to revisit this iconic  American film, winner of eight  Academy Awards (including best picture), in the midst of the controversy concerning the on-line streaming site HBO Max and their decision to remove the movie from their line-up. It was in reaction to the social environment created by the death of George Floyd and police brutality protests and an op-ed John Ridley, the screenwriter of the film "12 Years a Slave" (2013) wrote, criticizing the film. "Gone with the Wind" is back on HBO Max, with an introduction (that I have not seen) explaining how the movie does not address the issue of slavery.

For years  "Gone with the Wind" has been a target of token social justice warriors who feel the movie is racist and perpetuates racial stereotypes and therefore should be forgotten. In these arguments  "Gone with the Wind" is unfortunately lumped together with D.W. Griffith's epic silent movie, "The Birth of a Nation" (1915). It is unfortunate because Griffith's movie is an instrument of hate (I will revisit that movie as well). It is unfair to describe "Gone with the Wind" the same way and / or put it in the same category.

It is true "Gone with the Wind" does not provide an accurate account of slavery. It also doesn't tackle a great many other important social issues; abortion, gay marriage, immigration, transgender rights or why people are so adverse to using their turn signals  while driving. What's my point? It's not a story  "Gone with the Wind" could tell within its time period. Expecting a historically accurate depiction of slavery from a movie made in 1939, at the very least, shows an ignorance of film history. Between 1934 - 1968 there was a motion picture production code put in place, known as the Hays Code. Its purpose was to enforce guidelines showing American decency and morality. One of the guidelines prohibited "perversion", which was defined, among other things, as dealing with homosexuality and interracial relationships. Within this environment, how on Earth was Hollywood going to make a movie depicting slavery in a realistic light?! How many movies made in the 1930s or 1940s present an accurate depiction of slavery? Even "Santa Fe Trail" (1940) about abolitionist John Brown doesn't do that. (Don't worry kids, it's not streaming on HBO Max).

Since token social justice warriors want to discuss accuracy of time periods, lets put aside film censorship and mention societal conditions of 1939 America. It was an America deep in racism and segregation. Heck, America 2020 is divided and racist. If there is much room for improvement today (despite whatever good ol' Southern boy, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may say) how much better do you think things were in 1939? The African - American actors in the cast weren't even allowed to attend the movie's premiere. In this environment, what kind of appetite would there be for a movie depicting slavery accurately?

Does the movie perpetuate racial stereotypes? Yes. Unfortunately that is a scar on American cinema, the representation of all minorities. African - American characters in particular were often placed in menial jobs. Many movies left their presence out entirely. It is a sad reflection of the times. That is not an excuse but a reality. To only place blame on  "Gone with the Wind" for this sin is not fair. If historically accurate introductions are required for this movie than they should be required of all American movies from the 1930s onward. Is that what we want? Do movie lovers really need to be reminded of the time period and social conditions that existed during a movie's release? Or was HBO's decision a knee-jerk reaction forced on by pressures of political correctness?

Watching "Gone with the Wind" again, it is unquestionably a story with strong Southern sympathies, preserving the myth of the "Lost Cause" - a belief that glorifies the Confederacy's defeat as heroic and honorable. That by itself however doesn't make the movie "racist". I think that is a misnomer. I can't believe I have to do this but racism is defined as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".  A more accurate description would probably be the movie engages in Confederate or Southern propaganda. Observe the movie's opening quote, which describes the "Old South":

"Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow..Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and Slave...Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered. A Civilization gone with the wind..."

Though remnants of this way of thinking exist today, (what did you think Confederate monuments represent? Don't we still perceive Southerners as being chivalrous?) its sentiment may feel foreign to today's younger generations. The matter-of-fact quality of the statement seems rather audacious. It can make "Gone with the Wind" a bewildering experience. It truly does represent a mindset gone with the wind and creates a dichotomy in our perception of the South - Southern hospitality clashes with a defense of slave ownership.

It is perhaps these elements of Confederate propaganda token social justice warriors object to the most. Essentially movies like "Gone with the Wind" and "The Birth of a Nation" (and the novels they were based on by Margaret Mitchell and Thomas Dixon Jr. respectively) contend that the Old South was a place of tranquility. Master and Slave had an agreeable arrangement. One, dare we say, based on mutual respect and friendship. Of course this is all poppycock (excuse my language) but again I ask, what were you expecting? Society was not ready for a gruesome depiction of slavery. Some people today may not be prepared to watch such a movie.

Why should we differentiate between  "Gone with the Wind" and "The Birth of a Nation"?  Because  "Gone with the Wind" is about more than the Civil War. At its heart the movie is a romance. It uses the old cinematic device of having a historical event merely serve as a back drop for the two lovers, i.e. "Casablanca" (1942), "Doctor Zhivago" (1965). Whereas  "The Birth of a Nation", while it does have a love story, is first and foremost a story about the Civil War and the following Reconstruction era. It deliberately skews history to fit into its revisionist narrative. Both romanticize the South but  "The Birth of a Nation" is the one with the racist political agenda.

"Gone with the Wind" is very much a story of its time (1930s) as much as the Civil War's. The movie had its premier in December of 1939 as  America was beginning to come out of the Great Depression. War had begun in Europe in September of '39. Here is a movie where characters speak of an inevitable war. Although the Depression led to great unemployment, women in the workforce actually grew 24%. In many ways this is reflected in the movie's lead female character, Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh).

In fact, if  "Gone with the Wind" is anyone's story, it is Scarlett's. While Hollywood couldn't tackle issues like slavery, it did take on social causes. For example a few years after this movie, Hollywood would release  "A Gentleman's Agreement" (1947), an Academy Award best picture winner, which addresses anti-Semitism. In  "Gone with the Wind" we get an independent, strong, complex female character. That wasn't always the norm. With an increase in female participation in the workforce, marriages declined. There were a lot of Scarlett's in the Depression, single women that had to fend for themselves. Female audiences could probably relate to Scarlett. Does any of this matter to token social justice warriors?

As  "Gone with the Wind" begins, Scarlett is a young and innocent coquette. She has no shortage of beaus to choose from yet she has an obsession with Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard). Ashley never tells Scarlett he loves her but he never tells her he doesn't either. Even after it is revealed he is going to marry his cousin, Melanie Hamilton (Olivia de Havilland). Scarlett interprets Ashley's cowardly indecisiveness as encouragement. Her time will come with Ashley if only she waits her turn. The inevitable war breaks out, upending Scarlett's life as  Ashley enlists.

Scarlett quickly becomes the object of Rhett Butler's (Clark Gable) affection. However the lingering thought that one day Ashley will be hers, causes Scarlett to miss out on a life of happiness with Rhett or any man. She marries three times though never for love (once out of spite and twice for money). While the title, "Gone with the Wind", may refer to Margaret Mitchell's delusional interpretation of the South, it can also refer to Scarlett's childhood and innocence. Scarlett proves to be a survivor. In a man's world she is able to take charge of her life. Vowing to never go hungry again (a sentiment Depression era audiences could relate to), she becomes a successful businesswoman by any means necessary. For those looking for historical accuracy, bear in mind, a woman like Scarlett couldn't have functioned as she does in 1860 America. Remember, women didn't have equal rights to men at that time (they couldn't vote or own land). She is absolutely a "modern" woman.

Scarlett can also be a symbol of American entrepreneurship. One interesting scene comments on the employers relationship to labor and the cockeyed Southern justification of slavery. Scarlett decides to get cheap labor by hiring convicts. Ashley objects to this because the men (all white) will be exploited. Some are old and sick, while others will be denied food until their work is done. Ashley would rather hire free slaves. Scarlett calls him out. asking, how is this type of free labor any different than the slaves Ashley's family owned? All Ashley can say is it was different, and he would have freed them after his father died if the war hadn't first. You see, Scarlett has no romantic ties to an old Southern way of life. She has no great affection for the days when she could own a slave. If she desires to go back in time, it is only for personal selfish reasons, such as reclaiming her figure.

Although however progressive Scarlett's character may seem, there is one area that the production code and social norms could not allow to be too advanced: sex. Scarlett may commit the indignity of marrying three times, but two of those marriages are loveless. However strong Scarlett's desire for Ashley may be, the two never have an affair. "Gone with the Wind" is as much about sexual repression as anything else. Scarlett and Ashley don't give in to their carnal desires. Melanie is seen as a saintly figure. The child she and Ashley have may have been an immaculate conception.

The movie must treat Scarlett's desires the same way it would any other sinful behavior. She must be punished. "Gone with the Wind" engages in some gender stereotypes token warriors don't seem to care much about now (both presidential candidates have been accused of sexual harassment thus making it awkward for token warriors to discuss). One scene has Rhett telling Scarlett she needs kissing, badly. "You should be kissed and often, and by someone who knows how." Later in the movie, during a drunken nighttime argument, Rhett carries Scarlett in both of his arms, up several stairs to a bedroom, before cutting to the next scene. We know what happened. Rhett had his way with her and his earlier remark was a variation on the old belief that all an unhappy woman needs is a strong man to sleep with her. And wouldn't you know, in the very next scene Scarlett is in bed happy, singing to herself.

What really makes  "Gone with the Wind" the magnificent masterpiece it is, and one of the greatest cinematic achievements of the 1930s, are the two performances given by Gable and Leigh. No other actors could have played the starring roles. Has Gable's commanding screen presence and charisma ever been more effectively used and integrated into one of his roles? Has Leigh's beauty been more radiant? Leigh displays a great emotional range.

The supporting roles are filled with some well known character actors and some actors that would go on to fame.Thomas Mitchell as Scarlett's father, Ann Rutherford as Scarlett's sister, George  Reeves (TV's first Superman) as one of Scarlett's beaus, Harry Davenport as a family friend and doctor, Victor Jory (whom I personally shall always remember from the 1940 movie serial, "The Shadow") and Hattie McDaniel as Mammy, the O'Hara family servant. It was of course the role McDaniel won an Academy Award for in the best supporting actress category, making her the first African - American actor to win an Oscar.

The movie also has some memorable visuals. One of the best may be when Scarlett walks among the dead and injured soldiers from the Battle of Atlanta. It seems to be an endless parade of bodies, as the camera pans further and further back ending with the image of the Confederate flag flying in the left hand corner of the frame, signifying the death of the Confederate. Then there is the burning of Atlanta sequence, which still remains thrilling. And finally some bookend images of the O' Hara plantation, Tara. All of these images filmed in glorious Technicolor.

If one name can be associated with  "Gone with the Wind", as the driving creative force behind it, it would have to be producer and studio executive, David O. Selznick. While the movie is exceptionally well made and photographed, it doesn't have the distinctive touch of a particular filmmaker's hand. That is due to many directors being brought on to the project. The first director attached to the movie was George Cukor. Allegedly Cukor and Gable clashed on-set, causing Cukor to be replaced by Victor Fleming, who was working on "The Wizard of Oz" (1939) at the time. Fleming received the solo directing credit for the movie however Sam Wood also directed scenes. It has been said it was Cukor who got the most out of Leigh and de Havilland.

That  "Gone with the Wind" portrays an inaccurate view of the South and doesn't represent today's values, may have something to do with the men behind the camera. While I am not comfortable hurling out accusations calling people racist, what I can tell you is the men that made this movie were Republicans (Selznick, Fleming, Wood and Gable). If the Republicans of yesterday were anything like the Republicans of today it would explain a lot.

Whatever one may feel about the movie's plot and handling of its characters, I find the movie has a sweeping effect that always manages to captivate me with its effortless ability to intertwine humor, romance, action and melodrama. It feels like a complete story. I also have a sentimental attachment to it. My grandmother loved it. She would tell me how she worked as an usher in a movie theater when this was released. She saw it countless times and would repeatedly tell me about the crush she had on Clark Gable. I heard my grandmother say more nice things about Gable than my grandfather.

Right now the prevailing wind is against  "Gone with the Wind". That wasn't always the case of course. Yes it received 13 Academy Award nominations, winning eight in competitive categories and two honorary, but it is also the highest grossing American film of all time when adjusted for inflation. The film was on both lists, compiled in 1998 and 2007, by the American Film Institute celebrating the 100 greatest movies. I would say it is among four perennial classic American movie favorites, with the others being "Citizen Kane" (1941), "Casablanca" (1942) and "Singin' in the the Rain" (1952). In time the controversies will subside and it won't seem like an act of defiance to admit you like the movie. If anything, the controversy may have brought more eyeballs to the movie. I have no fear the movie will retain its place as an iconic piece of American filmmaking. When it was reported HBO Max pulled the movie from its site, sales increased on Amazon, placing it at #1. True movie fans are able to acknowledge any historical inaccuracies and enjoy the romance and adventures of Rhett and Scarlett. We didn't need the controversy and the new introduction. That was the work of token social justice warriors and Bandwagon propagandists. To them I say: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

See A Movie, Save The World - Token Liberalism In The Age Of Modern Propaganda

If I were to ask a group of Americans, is there such a thing as "American Propaganda", I believe a majority would say no. Propaganda is a dirty word. It is an evil word. It is something other countries engage in. Here in America, we are the "truth tellers". To say America is the greatest country on Earth is just good ol' plain spoken truth.

When we think of propaganda in movies, what comes to mind? If you are a film student or devoted cinephile, you will point to Soviet propaganda and movies by Sergei Eisenstein ("Strike" and "Battleship Potemkin", both released in 1925), or Nazi propaganda in German cinema and documentaries directed by Leni Riefenstahl ("Triumph of the Will" (1935) and the short film "Victory of the Faith" (1933). What about propaganda in American movies? Do you think that exists?

Lately I have been thinking about propaganda, the state of cinema and what exactly the objective of cinema is. Social unrest and recent protests reacting to the death of George Floyd initially sparked these thoughts, then the decision by HBO Max streaming site to remove "Gone with the Wind" (1939) and a new diversity requirement set forth by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences provoked me further.

If you read my blog often, you will notice that I have discussed trends in cinema usually when compiling my year end top ten lists or best of the decade lists. I have increasingly written about the politicization of film within the last 15 years plus. Ever since 2004 and the box-office success of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", movies have been political tools used to critique George W. Bush, the War on Terror, the Iraq Invasion, failings of the Capitalist system and now Donald Trump. It has gotten to the point that in order to analyze movies, one must keep up with current events. Sometimes I fear my movie reviews come off as political essays. Everything is politics.

When you add it all up - Removing "Gone with the Wind" from streaming sites, diversity requirements, political documentaries and social / political "message" movies, aren't these a form of weaponizing movies, using them as propaganda? Before we answer that question, first lets answer what is propaganda? Propaganda is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions". But because of the villainous nature of the word "propaganda" we have replaced it with other terms or descriptors. No one wants to be accused of using propaganda, but what do the terms "left-wing media" or "right-wing media" mean? We may not use the word "propaganda" but what does the political right and Donald Trump mean by "fake news"? What does the political left mean by "corporate owned media"? Corporate owned media means that a corporation owns a media outlet. By itself that isn't nefarious. The implication for all of these terms is media manipulation - purposely presenting information in a flattering way to one particular viewpoint. Donald Trump may cry "fake news" when something negative is written about him, but notice how quickly he will bring to his follower's attention to media praise. Media isn't "fake" or bad when it is positive towards Trump.

And media manipulation isn't bad when movies champion political and social causes we care about, right? But isn't that propaganda?

My fear is that we are entering a time when movies are becoming merely propaganda tools. What should the objective of cinema be? There have always been "message movies" and their intent was largely to hold a mirror to society and allow the viewers to walk in the footsteps of other people. That cinema showed us the world we live in. It's objective was to make us change our behavior by confronting our flaws. I am afraid now movies are showing us the world we want to live in and present it as our reality. That is a significant difference. I'm not just talking about art-house "message movies" either. It is also your Hollywood "popcorn entertainment". Most recently, I wrote a review of the latest Star Wars movie, "The Rise of Skywalker" (2019). I wrote that it was a movie for today's woke millennial generation. For the first time it featured a lead female Jedi, a matriarchal society, racial equality, zero race tension, and even sexual orientation diversity. A token liberal's dream! If you are reading this and your reaction is, "So what? That is what society should strive for!" Fine. But is it the responsibility of movies to guide us in that direction? Isn't it an example of social conditioning and propaganda?  We hold our movies to a higher standard than we do our politicians.

I am not arguing the societal objectives, only the means to reach them. I believe cinema is important. It is the greatest of all art-forms, but I am slightly bothered by this political trend in our movies and our inability to acknowledge what is happening.

Perhaps we do acknowledge what is happening but don't say it out loud because it suites our interest. The power of movies and the influence they can hold over the masses doesn't merely date back to 2004. I have already referenced Soviet and 1930s German film examples. On a minor scale, I'll give you an example of movies' influence on our lives. In "It Happened One Night" (1934) there is a scene where Clark Gable takes off his dress shirt and is not wearing a t-shirt underneath. Allegedly, after men saw this, sales of t-shirts plummeted. On a more serious note, the U.S. government realized the persuasive power of movies during WW2 with the prime example of the U.S. commissioned, Frank Capra-directed documentary series, "Why We Fight" (1942 - 1945). Why did Charlie Chaplin make "The Great Dictator" (1940)? Why were songs like "Hot Time in the Town of Berlin" sung by Bing Crosby in 1943? I'll give you a one word answer, propaganda.

So I ask again, what should the objective of cinema be? Should it be to promote socially liberal causes? If you believe so, why? HBO Max removes "Gone with the Wind" because it doesn't reflect today's values. It promotes racial stereotypes, its critics shout. Film schools won't even screen "Birth of a Nation" (1915). I know because I was a film major in college. The instructors say they won't screen it because it is racist. Some students are fine with that and couldn't care less about seeing it. People who have never seen these movies will cite them as examples of Hollywood's racist past. So we banish the movies to the dustbin of history by allowing them to go out of print. Erasing our film culture.

The original intention of my blog, twelve years ago, was to introduce college film students, and other younger people, to the history of cinema. I believed younger people would love the Hollywood classics, if only there was someone to bring the movies to their attention. After all, you can't watch a movie if you don't know it exists. But I always had to deal with murmurs of my generation's claims of sexism and racism in those movies. "Why should anyone watch them? Why waste my time writing and talking about them? They are out of date. They don't reflect our values of today." True. They don't reflect the values of today, but film majors should still watch those movies because the cinematic techniques used in them are still used today. Many movies of today repeat plots from movies of the 1920s - 40s. To know those movies, gives you a deeper, richer understanding of cinema. As for the values, how can a movie from 1928 reflect the values of 2020, 2021, 2022...etc? We can, however, look at the movies and arts from those eras as time capsules, telling us the way we were. Their existence should not be banished.

That is not the approach of today's generation. Because they don't know much about life before the time of their birth, they are amazed, horrified even, to discover unpleasant truths about  America's past culture. Last year, the woke millennials went after deceased singer Kate Smith, wanting her rendition of Irving Berlin's "God Bless America" banned from sporting events. Why? They discovered she sang a song from 1931 called "That's Why Darkies Were Born". The song most definitely does not reflect today's values and should not be recorded by any singer in our modern era, but it was a popular song back in the day and many artists recorded it. I won't tell you who because I don't want anymore dead artists to be the targets of token liberalism. The song was forgotten and faded from pop culture, but oddly, because of the controversy, young people looked it up. And that puts me in an awkward position. I kind of feel like a gatekeeper. I grew up with my grandparents and watched movies from the 1920s - 40s. I listened to the music of that era too. I know things about that culture many of you don't and never will. I am now afraid to tell you about them and have considered ending this blog. Everything you find unpleasant can't be eliminated. You weren't aware of the existence of these things and the world kept on turning and you lived your life completely unaffected by it.

What gets my goat is political corrective measures (eliminating past pop culture and left-wing propaganda in movies) has seemingly replaced demanding social change from our politicians. Case in point, what the heck is Joe Biden going to do to right the wrongs of our current problems? The man actually told donors that there would be no fundamental changes. People had the opportunity to vote for a candidate that spoke of revolution. A candidate that spoke of dramatically changing the system as we know it. What happened? People voted for Joe Biden or didn't vote at all.  Media propagandists said the goals of Bernie Sanders were either not achievable or too expensive or both, and it was parroted by the public. So there you have it. It is easier to damn "Gone with the Wind" for not representing today's values than it is to demand significant change to our political system.

Going after movies from the 1930s, to me, is like going after low hanging fruit. The current approval rating for Congress stands at 31 percent, up from 17 percent in August 2019. Do you know what the re-election rate is for members of congress? It has been as high as 98 percent and usually hasn't dropped below 90. Instead of demanding change from our representative leaders, lets go after the movies of the 1930s! Instead of demanding gender pay equality, lets make movies with strong female leads! Instead of more female CEO's, lets put a woman's face on a twenty dollar bill! (Which, did you hear, is not going to happen during the Trump administration?). Instead of confronting institutionalized racism in our system, lets pull "Gone with the Wind" from HBO Max. Lets make movies pushing the left-wing agenda the politicians won't enact. In short, lets perpetuate propaganda that appeases the masses enough to stop them from making serious change.

If we want to have a national conversation about past culture not reflecting today's values (which is rather obvious), that's fine, but that's not the deeper conversation to have. Values are ever shifting - movies and TV shows from five or ten years ago don't even live up to today's standards. (Hell, Herr Chancellor Trump is in the White House.) I don't see the value in lambasting Hollywood movies from the 1930s, and then not demanding social and political change today. People are protesting in the streets, but contrast that with Joe Biden as the Democratic Party's nominee (nothing will fundamentally change). I understand the need for minorities to be represented in the media, but that doesn't solve the deeper problems. Cinema today is propaganda, and is used as a tool to promote societal changes that our current political system is not enacting. We're eliminating the culture past that contradicts our current beliefs to solve problems, letting a trip to the movies replace political action. Is this what cinema is? Do we care? At least today, Super-Man can be played by a woman since we haven't elected a female president. 

Film Review: Have Rocket, Will Travel

"Have Rocket, Will Travel" 

* 1\2 (out of ****)

The Three Stooges are lost in space in the sci-fi comedy "Have Rocket, Will Travel" (1959).

Between 1934 - 1959 Columbia Pictures released 190 Three Stooges comedy shorts, many regarded as masterpieces of physical comedy; "Men in Black" (1934), "Hoi Polloi" (1935) and "Disorder in the Court" (1936) among them. Syndicated for television in the late 50s, a new generation of children would discover the Stooges, to the disappointment of mother's everywhere.

With a resurgence of fame, the team capitalized by releasing six feature-length comedies between 1959 - 1965. The first released was "Have Rocket, Will Travel". Though borrowing its title from the popular television western, "Have Gun, Will Travel", the movie also capitalizes on the science fiction craze of the 1950s and the Space Race between the United States and the Soviet Union. The movie would also introduce the newest Stooge, Curly-Joe (comedian Joe DeRita), named so because of his rotund physique, similar to Curly Howard.

The rather basic set up involves the Stooges (Moe, Larry and Curly-Joe) playing a trio of inept janitors who accidentally launch into outer space, headed toward Venus.

After another failed rocket test (four in total) the National Space Foundation is considering closing down the laboratory of Dr. Ingrid Naarveg (Anna-Lisa), the first female scientist at the foundation. The problem is with the fuel the doctor is mixing. Meanwhile another scientist, Dr. Ted Benson (Robert Colbert) is in love with Ingrid and is disappointed she prioritizes science over love (examining this sexist undertone would have been far more interesting than anything seen on-screen).

Slightly out of step in movie like this, the Stooges aren't portrayed as the best friends of Benson and aren't interested in playing cupid, bringing Ingrid and Benson together. Instead the Stooges feel sorry for Ingrid after she is in jeopardy of being dismissed at the foundation. Being the experts that they are (they aren't) they decide to create their own fuel for the rocket. Discovered by their upset boss, Mr. Morse (Jerome Cowan), the Stooges hide in the rocket and before they know it, are on course for Venus. In another strange choice, Benson isn't that concerned about the Stooges and tells Ingrid she shouldn't be either but instead should focus on their love.

Once the Stooges land on Venus they encounter special effects worse than those seen in "One Million B.C." (1940) as a giant fire breathing tarantula chases them and they rescue a talking unicorn.

Besides these brief moments, the movie has nothing for the Stooges to do. Oddly, their first instinct after landing isn't to immediately head back for Earth. Instead they want to roam around the planet in the name of science and record their findings. For some reason this also includes the boys breaking out into song.

This leads to a meeting with an evil robot, that has destroyed the people that created it. It now rules the planet by itself but has grown lonely. The robot plans to create three more robots, in the image of the Stooges. These three evil robots are then instructed to kill the Stooges.

For a science fiction comedy there isn't much science fiction or comedy in "Have Rocket, Will Travel". There is nothing inventive about the movie. True, it is essentially a "B" movie but the lack of creativity behind it makes "Flash Gordon" (1936) and "Buck Rogers" (1939) look like "Star Wars" movies. Those movie serials also had "B" movie production values and like this movie, were meant to have a kid friendly appeal.

Ultimately the movie feels like exactly what is was; a rushed production (shooting lasted 13 days). Only being concerned with quickly releasing a Three Stooges product, the movie's writer, Raphael Hayes, couldn't concern himself with a coherent plot. The movie is an unnecessary, elongated Stooges' comedy short. Hayes spent the majority of his career writing  for television shows, none of which were comedies. One of his movie screenplays was nominated for an Academy Award, "One Potato, Two Potato" (1964), a story about an interracial marriage. The comedy in the movie must have been left to the Stooges to come up with.

In an example of how little plot there is, and a lack of comedy, the last nine minutes of the movie completely changes course and turns into one of those Stooge comedies where they mix with high society. They even borrow / steal a gag directly from "Hoi Polloi", as Curly-Joe has a spring stuck to the back of his pants. This serves absolutely no purpose. It is just meant to expand the running time. Could it be it was meant to re-enforce Curly-Joe is the new Curly Howard?

With a running time of 76 minutes, the movie is probably 40 minutes too long. The Stooges accomplished just as much in their science-fiction comedy shorts; "Space Ship Sappy" (1957) and "Outer Space Jitters" (1957) both with Joe Besser as the third stooge, and neither particularly good.

Going back to the sexist, a woman shouldn't concerned herself with a career but with a man, story-line, nothing about Ingrid and Benson seem believable as a couple. Nothing Ingrid does suggest she is in love with Benson. Why couldn't the Benson character have been a supportive friend or boyfriend? Better yet, eliminate the character! The whole idea of Ingrid wanting a career instead of love could have been its own movie. You can't explore the dynamics of this scenario in a Three Stooges comedy.

With only an Ingrid character, she could solely focus on a way to rescue the Stooges. This would allow the character to prove her worth as a scientist and impress the foundation. As the movie stands now, there is no plan discussed to rescue the boys. Ingrid seems to have followed Benson's suggestion to forget about them. With friends like these, who need enemies? It makes Ingrid and Benson two unlikable characters.

At this point I should confess I am not, nor have I ever been, much of a Three Stooges fan. My mother was one those that didn't like me watching them. Because of that, I never really warmed up to their comedy. As a child I preferred the comedy of  Laurel & Hardy, the Marx Brothers, Abbott & Costello (whom the Stooges would recycle gags from) and Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. Even though the Stooges were on TV fairly often, I would only watch them when my mother wasn't around or with my father.

Despite that confession, I can still appreciate when the Stooges do something funny. So while I didn't have high expectations for "Have Rocket, Will Travel", the movie was actually more disappointing than I thought it would be. I have seen the other Stooge comedies from this period; "The Three Stooges Meet Hercules" (1962), "Snow White and the Three Stooges" (1961) and "The Outlaws Is Coming" (1965), so I knew what to expect but this fails miserably.

Even though the Stooges are much older, and naturally have slowed down their comedy, a mishap like this is partly due to the people behind the camera. The movie was directed by David Lowell Rich, who like Hayes spent the majority of his career in television. Neither one of these people show any inkling of understanding comedy. Understandably neither worked on the other Stooges' movies. Incredibly however, Rich and Hayes collaborated again on "Hey Boy! Hey Girl!" (1959), a Louis Prima / Keely Smith vehicle.

When filming their comedy shorts, the Stooges had talented writers and directors working with them; Ray McCarey (Leo's brother), Felix Adler, Clyde Bruckman and Del Lord. That is no longer the case in these feature-length comedies. Plus, the Stooges' style of comedy seems better suited for two-reelers.

Movies like "Have Rocket, Will Travel" are curiosity pieces. These movies shouldn't serve as introductions into the comedy world of the Three Stooges. You watch stuff like this, and their cartoon series, after you've seen all of their Columbia shorts. The one thing this movie accomplishes is, it makes "Abbott & Costello Go To Mars" (1953) look good.

In the end, a movie like this leads me to say, Have Stooges, Won't Laugh!

Film Review: Life Stinks

"Life Stinks"
** 1\2 (out of ****)

Things are rotten for Mel Brooks in "Life Stinks" (1991).

"Life Stinks" begins with a shot of a limousine driving. We don't immediately see who is being driven inside the limo but we do hear a business report being listened to on the radio. The reporter states the country is going through a recession. Unemployment claims have increased while the price of gold is up. At this moment the limo drives over a puddle and splashes nearby homeless people. The opening credits begin with the movie's title, Life Stinks.

It didn't take much, but Brooks and his gang of writers (Rudy De Luca and Steve Haberman) instantly set up central conflicts and the mentality of the characters. It is a world where the rich get richer (the price of gold is up) and the poor get poorer (unemployment rises). The rich have no regard for the poor (the splashed homeless people) and the poor feel their lives stink. Its message never goes out of fashion and feels eerily timely. Today, Wall Street has had steady gains while Labor Statistics reveal unemployment rates near 15% (14.7%). The highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression.

"Life Stinks" isn't one of Brooks' movie parodies although its premise - a wealthy man gives up his resources to live among the homeless - recalls Preston Sturges' classic "Sullivan's Travels" (1941). In Sturges' comedy a movie director (Joel McCrea) wants to become a serious artist and stop directing musical-comedies. His next movie will be about human suffering. However, in order understand the plight of the poor he must live among them. In "Life Stinks" a wealthy real estate developer, Goddard Bolt (Brooks) bets a rival developer, Vance Crasswell (Jeffrey Tambor) he can survive the mean streets of L.A. for thirty days in exchange for a slum district each man owns a percentage of and has plans to rebuild.

This type of material doesn't naturally lend itself to comedy, especially Brooks' wild, vulgar humor. But "Life Stinks" tries to find a balance between comedy and heartfelt sentiment. As difficult as it is to believe, Mel Brooks  kind of wants to direct a "message movie" - a commentary on poverty in America. This from a man who once directed a movie where a horse gets punched in the face.

To solidify Goddard Bolt's contempt for the poor, Brooks presents him in the most unsympathetic terms. He literally walks all over the poor when he steps on the hand of a worker waxing a floor. When his lawyers inform him 6,000 acres of a Brazilian rain forest would need to be cut down for one of his developments, Bolt doesn't bat an eye. He jokes that the natives won't want to live there anymore because of a lack of shade. When told a development in Florida would require tearing down a nursing home, Bolt suggests doing it at night, to avoid bad press.

And so it goes. The poor are merely a nuisance to the rich. They are an easily disposable obstacle interfering with their business deals. As Bolt shows off an urban scale model of a new development area, he flicks one of the figures representing the homeless into a trash bin.

Seemingly contrasting Goddard Bolt's heartless businessman veneer, Vance Crasswell is a man who understands the working class because he came from nothing. Bolt says he did too. His father left him with only five million - nothing! (kind of sounds like Donald Trump, perhaps an inspiration for the character.) But beneath the Columbo-ish homespun simplicity, Crasswell is just as deceitful (maybe more so) as Bolt. It is Crasswell's idea to bet Bolt he can't last on his own living homeless.

Once Bolt accepts the bet and is left to his own devices we reach the crux of Brooks' story. What makes the poor, poor? Are they ignorant or just plain lazy? "Life Stinks" argues neither is true. They are victims of circumstance. They have ingenuity but lack resources and a social network. Their fathers' didn't leave them with a five million dollar head start. That is the only advantage the rich have. If it were truly an even playing field where would Donald Trump, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet be? Where would their first meal come from? How would they find shelter from the rain?

Goddard Bolt may have been a billionaire but he struggles to make a dollar in the slums. Knowing about stocks and real estate won't help him survive. He dances for money. Nothing. He attempts to clean car windshields. Nothing. He seeks shelter in a church but it is closed. He sleeps under cardboard and is urinated on. 

In a way "Life Stinks" hints at a nature vs nurture argument  ("Trading Places" (1983) anyone?). The homeless aren't homeless because they want to be but can adapted to their environment and can survive. A rich man placed in this same environment has a difficult time adjusting. They have went through life with a silver spoon in their mouth and aren't unaware of the harsh realities of living poor. Playing the stock market doesn't make you a survivor.

Brooks however creates a 1930s Hollywood movie version of poverty. The destitute characters in "Life Stinks" are a kind of happy-go-lucky community. Bolt makes friends with the man who urinated on him, Sailor  (Howard Morris, Brooks' old friend from his Sid Caesar days), Fumes  (Teddy Wilson) and a potential love interest, crazy bag lady Molly  (Lesley Ann Warren).

"Life Stinks" may have been set in 1991 America but its heart is in 1930s Depression-era Hollywood. Brooks, born in 1926, was too young to really know of the horrors of the 30s. He lived in poverty but like most people, probably didn't realize he was poor. The movies of the era may have shaped his view on the issue more than his reality. As is typical in a Brooks movie, there is a song and dance routine, this time to Cole Porter's "Easy to Love" between Bolt and Molly. It hits at the problem with "Life Stinks". It is a romanticize version of poverty. Characters find time to dance. They aren't in any real danger.

For a movie that wants to champion the downtrodden, "Life Stinks" doesn't really have very much to say on the issue. Brooks is sympathetic towards the poor but how does society overcome the stigma of poverty? Bolt may now know of their struggles but once he goes back to his old life, what will he do? Besides Bolt, there is never a moment when characters show kindness to the poor and begin to see them as real people. Because of that the movie lacks the poignancy of Charlie Chaplin's (the only other comedian I can think of that has masterfully dealt with this subject matter).  

At best, the movie makes half-measured gestures and goes on auto-pilot. The movie lacks depth and doesn't have a strong voice. Brooks & Company are never able to find big laughs. Over his career Brooks has gained a reputation as one of the funniest men in Hollywood. Nothing in "Life Stinks" scores high on the Brooks laugh-a-meter. I smiled, on the inside, watching the movie but nothing here is memorable. It very well may have been Brooks' intention not to make a laugh riot but he has no insight. The movie never becomes a stinging critique of the capitalist system. 

One of the funnier moments in the movie comes near the end. Bolt, by now suffering a nervous breakdown, encounters a delusional man (Rudy De Luca) who believes he is J. Paul Getty. Bolt and the man get into a Three Stooges style confrontation arguing who was richer. It comments on the ego of the rich. The mansions, the yachts, the vacations, what is it all for? It is all a game of one-upmanship. The confrontation serves as a kind of mirror to Bolt and Crasswell. Life is just a game between them, signified by the very nature of their bet. They have their own battle of one-upmanship. Crasswell wants to be just as rich as Bolt. That is about as hard hitting as "Life Stinks" gets.

The movie has a negative reputation which proceeds it. Regarded as one of Brooks' worst, people usually joke "Life Stinks...and so does the movie". Yet, it has endured and acquired a kind of cult status. I know more people that have seen this movie than some of Brooks' better comedies. Mention the title to people and they will know what you are talking about.

Not known for social commentary, Brooks would appear to be the wrong choice for a movie such as this but Brooks actually made a better movie about class distinction and the poor. His second directorial effort, "The Twelve Chairs" (1970) was based on a piece of Russian literature, set 10 years after the 1917 Russian Revolution. Brooks hits his targets and is able to find humor in the quest of its two main characters searching for a hidden fortune. There are even those that cheer the movie as Brooks' funniest. It is proof positive that Mel Brooks could have been a very good director. Brooks should have used his own movie as an inspiration instead of Sturges'.

"Life Stinks" isn't necessarily a bad movie. I admire the commentary it attempts to tell. Its heart is in the right place but doesn't do justice to the issue. What is in the future for its characters? I guess all they can do is "Hope For The Best, Expect The Worst"!

Film Review: Star Wars - The Rise of Skywalker

"The Rise of Skywalker"
*** (out of ****)

Is The Force with the latest "Star Wars" adventure, "The Rise of Skywalker" (2019)?

"The Rise of Skywalker" is a "Star Wars" adventure for today's woke millennial generation. It is a story marred in meaningless, leftist gender identity politics highlighting women in roles of leadership, societal inclusion of African-Americans (displaying their heroism) and teaching us the importance of (I think I am going to puke) feelings.

Yet, despite this bombardment of political signaling, there are times I enjoy "The Rise of Skywalker" even more than the previous two adventures - "The Force Awakens" (2015) and "The Last Jedi" (2017). While one half of the movie is social conditioning, the other half is basking in nostalgia. Being the old sentimental fool I am it was the nostalgia I responded to most.

Basking in nostalgia is something the movie's director, J.J. Abrams has been harshly criticized for by some movie fans. In addition to this movie, Abrams has also directed "The Force Awakens", "Star Trek" (2009) and "Super 8" (2011) his nostalgic tribute to Steven Spielberg (who was one of the movie's producers). Some feel Abrams uses nostalgia to shield poor storytelling and to elicit emotions within us that his stories can't earn on their own. Maybe they have a point.

Now before some readers leap to the conclusion that I am a rabid right-wing Trump-supporting conservative, I assure them I am not. I actually take great offense to a former reality television host in a position of leadership in our government. But I cannot blind myself to the messaging of a movie."The Rise of Skywalker" is one more example of liberal identity politics masquerading as solutions to larger social and economic issues.

For example, women demand equal pay for equal work but what can our poor helpless legislative body do about it? They can only pass the laws which have been written by the lobbyist of giant corporations. So instead of any meaningful change lets put Harriet Tubman on a twenty dollar bill. The media and various female political groups will champion the gesture (which is all it is) as a step forward and will chant "progress"! What a significant moment in the representation of women. Hooray! "They" will feed you just enough crumbs to keep you content and distracted by the illusion of change.

And so because we live in a #MeToo world, nearly had a female president (who was thwarted by sexism - not her weak policy positions or poor campaigning), demand equal pay for equal work and have an over sexualized media objectifying women, lets have a female led "Star Wars" movie and chant "girl power". What a significant moment in the representation of women! Those other issues will take care of themselves in a long but reasonable amount of time. Remember, change is only possible in incremental stages!

This third trilogy (are we supposed to group "Star Wars" movies in installment of trilogies?) revolves around Rey (Daisy Ridley), a young woman whom the force is strong with. In "The Rise of Skywalker", as an attempt to build up her greatness, it is said every Jedi before Rey is inside of her. This results in a nostalgic voice-over of previous characters.

Heavily burrowing elements from the "Luke Skywalker Trilogy", Rey will learn uncomfortable truths about her past and her identity. Can she rise to the occasion? Meanwhile, dealing with his own dual identity crisis, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) must decide which side he will land on in the battle between good versus evil. It too results in nostalgic references to the first trilogy.

In the now famous opening scrolls (isn't like a hit of adrenaline when we see it appear on-screen with the music playing behind it?) we learn Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) is still alive. He holds sway over Kylo Ren, whom he wants to influence Rey to join the dark side. Kylo Ren and the Emperor are aware of Rey's true identity, practically stealing a moment from "The Empire Strike Back" (1980).

It is suppose to lend itself to a moral game of cat and mouse between Kylo Ren and Rey. Kylo Ren desperately hunts Rey down but is able to "Force bond" (long distance virtual telepathy) with her, luring her to the dark side with promises they will rule together. Is it Rey's destiny? She is tempted to take Kylo Ren's hand. She has even had vision of joining the dark side. Can Rey fight off these temptations and exercise her free will?

These moral questions aren't very captivating here but not out of place in a "Star Wars" movie, which has always had a religious undertone to it. It is somewhat fitting however that one of the screenwriters is Chris Terrio, who I was impressed with back when he directed "Heights" (2005). He also wrote "Batman v Superman" (2016) and "Justice League" (2017). Both of those movies tried inserting morality to the legend of superheroes.

The flip side of Rey's predicament is Kylo Ren. Can Kylo come back from the dark side? Once on the side of good he fell to the temptation of evil. Can he be redeemed? Bare in mind the title of the movie is "The Rise of Skywalker". Kylo Ren is the only character, between the two, with Skywalker blood. He is the son of Princess Leia (Luke's sister) and Han Solo (Harrison Ford). Is the title a reference to him as well?

The political woke signaling and nostalgia create a deliberate clash at the center of  "The Rise of Skywalker" symbolizing "old" vs "new". For the "Star Wars" franchise it means creating a path for new characters to emerge as  heroes while fading the original characters from the "Luke Skywalker Trilogy" into the dustbin of history.

The nostalgia comes in various forms, from the return of Lando Calrissen (Billy Dee  Williams), to the presence of Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia Organa (Fisher died in 2016. The entire performance consist of archival footage.), shots of the Death Star, shots of Luke Skywalker's home from "A New Hope" (1977), the appearance of the Ewoks, Darth Vader's destroyed mask and cameos by Harrison Ford and Mark Hamill.

However the politics the movie tries to enforce becomes overwhelming. Some of the social criticism of George Lucas' "A New Hope" was its lack of ethnic and racial diversity in the cast and the fact it seemed like females are not capable of acquiring the "Force". And so adjustments had to be made to quell these complaints. In "The Empire Strikes Back" we get the first  African-American character, Lando Calrissen. In the Anakin Skywalker prequel trilogy the cast of characters were more diverse. And now, finally, a woman is a strong Jedi warrior.

"The Force Awakens" also created an additional African-American character for the franchise, Finn (John Boyega), a stormtrooper turned good. His appearance also brought us the first sight of blood in a "Star Wars" movie, something many people made a very big deal about.

"The Rise of Skywalker" creates a matriarchal society (to liberals delight!) as Princess Leia reigns supreme. Women may only make up five percent of Fortune 500 CEOs (a real statistic) but by gum we have Princess Leia! After Leia's guidance and wisdom, Rey is the resistance's best hope to stop the First Order (congruently this last Democratic Primary season saw a record number of women vying for the party's nomination to lead the resistance).

A new  African-American character is added to the "Star Wars" universe, Jannah (Naomi Ackie), another stormtrooper turned good. She leads an army of ex-stormtroopers that have rebelled (from what I could tell, all women). Why? Because of the power of feelings. They felt what they were doing was wrong and changed their ways. By the end of the movie it is even suggested a new series may be built around her. Can you imagine a black, female Jedi! Would that not be token liberal heaven? Meanwhile the college graduation rate for black females is behind that of white and Asian women.

At the end of the day women save us and restore order. There is nothing wrong with creating movies that have strong female characters. Nor is there anything wrong with creating strong African-American characters. That is not my complaint. I am the guy that says movies are a reflection of our world. What I am complaining about is the pandering, the shallow guise of social awareness. It is overwhelming political correctness that creates a kind of liberal utopia. Not to leave anyone out, there is even a moment when two female characters kiss. It is all a far cry from the homage to 1930s & 40s movie serials ("Buck Rogers" and "Flash Gordon") that "Star Wars" originally intended to be.

I understand it is difficult to create social change. There are forces at work fighting against it. But do we honestly feel the best way to enact these changes is through the movies? Are we saying art dictates society? If that is true, are we not than using movies as social propaganda? Why can't our elected leaders actually take leadership positions and demand change? Is it because voters fall for the political pandering of token gestures? Voters seem to accept and defend the "incremental change" argument.

If "The Rise of Skywalker" wouldn't hammer us with liberal social conditioning it could have been a very fun movie.

Best Of The Decade: 2010s

Lets all go to the movies!

You don't hear people say that any more, do you? People that keep track of movie theater attendance report the numbers have been on a decline. The year 2014 saw the worst attendance since 1995 according to this article, and in 2017, attendance hit a 25 year low. Surprisingly, 2018 saw a decade's long best. You can guess which direction the numbers are going in 2020 (we are doing this year over again, right?).

"Experts" say the decline is due to streaming services (I say laziness and a generation that has forgotten how to interact with one another). Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO GO, ROKU, APPLE TV etc. People want to watch movies from their homes and on their phones. Heck, they don't even want to leave their homes to go grocery shopping! Technology and the Internet have been the greatest cause for the systematic decline of social interaction. Nothing good has come of it.

What will happen to the movies? Will movie theaters still exist? I'm not being a drama queen or overly dramatic, but how we watch movies has changed over the years. Once upon a time people watched movies in beautiful, lavish movie palaces and drive-ins. Now we watch them in shopping malls. With COVID-19 destroying our lives as we know it, will movie theaters shut down for good? Now we have no choice but to stream movies. Is this the future? Variety reported AMC Theaters might file for bankruptcy (click here) although shareholders later refuted the story.

This all leads me to reminisce about the best movies of the past decade!  Some wisenheimer will say it's not a new decade, that the decade doesn't begin until 2021. You are correct! Congratulations!

Many critics compiled their lists of their favorite movies made between 2010 - 2019, to commemorate the beginning of the 2020s. It wasn't an easy task for me. Unlike when I made my list of the best movies of the 2000s - I was able to instantly pick ten movies. I am not a braggadocios person. You will never read me highly praise myself, but the list I made was the best you will find! My list included "Muholland Dr." (2001), "Match Point" (2005), "Traffic" (2000), "Moulin  Rouge!" (2001) and "The Pianist" (2002). These movies stood with me. I was not able to get them out of my mind. I talked about them with friends. There was a true consensus these movies were meaningful. Each of them were celebrated upon their release and showered with critical and commercial acclaim, scooping up various awards and nominations.

I can't however say I really feel the same way about the movies of the past decade. Sure, some movies stood out and lingered in my head. But, I couldn't really think of ten individual titles worth celebrating. Instead, movements or blocks of movies entered my mind. For example, there has been a rejuvenation in horror movies. Over the last ten years so many great ones have been released. In particular, I am a great admirer of the "Conjuring Universe". So, do I simply choose "The Conjuring" (2012) to represent the entire resurgence in horror? I can't leave off the other titles! But, I can't have horror movies dominate the list.

So much has happened in our country over the past ten years. America went from having the first African-American president to the first former reality television host. We went from a Harvard Law graduate and former U.S. Senator, to thinking so little of our country and the role of presidency, that historically speaking, the most unqualified person was elected. The first time ever the occupant in the White House did not have prior legislative or military experience. A man that doesn't know how the legislative process works. One that can't articulate ideas or policy positions ("I am going to repeal and replace Obamacare and replace it with something terrific". WTF?)

And in the time between Barack Obama and Chancellor Trump, so much in our movies have changed and served as a reflection of our society. The two biggest social / political events that have found their way into our movies included the economic collapse brought on by George W. Bush and deregulation policies championed by Republicans (and again by Trump) in 2008 and Bush's War on Terror and the Iraq invasion. Think of how many movies have been made dealing with these two topics; "Zero Dark Thirty" (2012), "Redacted" (2007), "Fahrenheit 9/11" (2004), "The Big Short" (2015), "Inside Job" (2010), "W." (2008) and  "Too Big to Fail" (2011) just to name a few.

I previously commented on how angry our movies have become when I made my list of the best movies of 2019. That has been because of our politics which have not served the needs of the people. If you think that is me spewing my political beliefs, explain all the social unrest. Why are people angry at their government? Because of the color of the curtains in the White House? This decade saw violent protests. From the rise of the TEA Party in 2010 to the Charlottesville protest in 2017. With cable news hosts yelling at guests, to Trump egging on violence during his rallies. It is all around us and in our movies.

Each year when I would make a top ten list I would try to find a common theme among the movies and the year in general. In 2019 I noted it was anger. In my top ten list for 2010 I commented the theme was connecting. For the top ten films of 2011  it was death, longing and lost. Rather fittingly, in 2012, it was about moving forward. The films of 2015 were anger as well. You could see Bernie Sanders and Trump coming along. When will the anger end? When will society and the movies reach their tipping point? When will "The Purge" (2013) become reality?

The decade also gave us our sad goodbyes and a shift in filmmaking. The masters of the craft are leaving us and a new breed is moving in. There was a time when a best movies list would feature titles directed by Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, Robert Altman, Stanley Kubrick, Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa and Francois Truffaut. Many of these great men have died. My lists now are comprised of young filmmakers. Sometimes after one successful movie they are not heard of again. The death that hit me the hardest was Greek director, Theo Angelopoulos (pictured left), a filmmaker I had often referred to as the master of imagery. He died in 2012 from a car accident. Sadly, his name never meant much to the American art-house crowd, but his movies have had a profound affect on me.

Then there was Claude Chabrol (1930-2010). Once called "the French Hitchcock", Chabrol directed what historians cite as the first film of the French New Wave moment, "Le Beau Serge" (1958). Many of those lovely French radicals of the New Wave movement have left us too including Jacques Rivette (1928-2016) and Alain Resnais (1922-2014). There were the great filmmakers from Eastern Europe: Andrzej Wajda (1926-2016) put Poland on the cinematic map; the great Miklos Jancso (1921-2014), one of the leading filmmakers of the exciting Hungarian New Wave of the 1960s & 70s (whom I wrote a tribute about in the Hungarian newspaper the Budapest Times); and the Czech New Wave's Milos Foreman (1932-2018). Do yourself a favor and watch his  "The Fireman's Ball" (1967). The oldest living filmmaker, Manoel de Oliveira (1908-2015), died at 106. He was Portugal's greatest director. Italy lost one of her great filmmakers, Bernardo Bertolucci (1941-2018). No filmmaker has been able to combine sex and politics quite like him. And finally, the man that introduced me to Iranian cinema, Abbas Kiarostami (1940-2016). A brilliant but critically divisive filmmaker. I don't know if (but surely hope not) the magic of "The Wind Will Carry Us" (2000) or "Close-Up" (1990) will ever wear off me.

With those men gone, the young American and international filmmakers dominating the decade were Alex Ross Perry, "The Color Wheel" (2011), "Listen Up Philip" (2014) and "Queen of Earth" (2015); Trey Edward Shults, "Waves" (2019), "Krisha" (2016) and "It Comes At Night" (2017); and Jeremy Saulnier: "Blue Ruin" (2014) and "Green Room" (2016). None of these films have made my list but pay attention to these filmmakers. They are the future. On the international scene, we have the Palestinian filmmaker Hany Abu-Assad, "Omar" (2014) and "The Idol" (2016); Turkish filmmaker, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, maybe the next master of imagery with titles like "Once Upon A Time In Anatolia" (2012), "Winter Sleep" (2014) and "Wild Pear Tree" (2019); and Germany's Christian Petzold with "Transit" (2019), "Phoenix" (2015) and "Barbara" (2012). These are the international filmmakers to celebrate. I'm sure my next decade's list will include all of their films.

For the best movies of this decade I had to try something different. More often than not, I will only list one individual film title, but there will be instances when I include a group of movies that share a similar genre or are connected in some other way (subject matter). I believe all of the movies referenced are in some way socially significant and of course, entertaining!

Here are my favorite movies of the decade!

1. I, DANIEL BLAKE (2017; Dir. Ken Loach) - The financial bailout of 2008. Occupy Wall Street. Bernie Sanders. Jeremy Corbyn. The 1%. The Fight for 15. Income Inequality.

In a period of time that has seen so much social unrest consume us how could I not choose "I, Daniel Blake"? This British movie directed by that old liberal lion, Ken Loach, won the Palme d'Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival (no Oscar nominations however). The story, revolving around the struggles of the working class and how the system takes advantage of them, actually caused a social movement in Britain. Oddly enough, it was ignored by American sheep (movie critics). Practically none of them put it on the top ten list when it was released. I called it the best movie of 2017! I haven't come across one list to include it among the best of the decade. Is the movie's message so powerful that it scared the establishment?

Loach has another movie out this year, "Sorry We Missed You" (2020), a harsh commentary on the gig economy and the ways these companies exploit workers. It too is not being pushed by the sheep.

2. THE BIG SHORT (2015; Dir. Adam McKay) - The disastrous consequences of the financial bailout are still with us (we will wait and see what happens with this new COVID-19 handout to the corporations). "The Big Short", which I called the best movie of 2015, tries to put names and faces to the most significant moment of our recent history.

McKay made a career directing Will Ferrell comedies: "Anchorman" (2004), "Step Brothers" (2008) and "Anchorman 2" (2013). "The Big Short" was his attempt at "respectability". A more serious endeavor meant to humor and inform us. The bet paid off, with the movie earning five Academy Award nominations. McKay tried this technique again in "Vice" (2018). The results were a bit mixed.

3. MIDNIGHT IN PARIS (2011; Dir. Woody Allen) - Although Woody Allen is now a victim of today's token liberalism, this 2011 film was one of Allen's highest grossing movies in decades. For a while, going to see a Woody Allen movie became the thing to do.

A bitter-sweet story revolving around the universal truth that things were better in the good ol' days. For Allen's hero in "Midnight in Paris", that time was Paris in the 1920's. Through the magic of movies, the lead character is able to transport himself back to that era and mingle with his favorite literary heroes.

Allen won an Academy Award for his screenplay. It was also the first time I placed a Woody Allen film at the top of one of my year end best lists. A truly unforgettable film that touches me.

4. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET (2013; Dir. Martin Scorsese) - Like "The Big Short", this Scorsese gem served as a commentary on the financial bailout. The subject matter however was Jordan Belfort, a stock market manipulator from the 1990's.

Though criticized as too vulgar, I found it fresh and exciting. Scorsese combined his storytelling techniques from "GoodFellas" (1990) with Oliver Stone's "Wall Street" (1987).

At its center was an amazing performance from Leonardo DiCaprio, for which he was nominated for an Academy Award. Scorsese earned his seventh nomination for directing.

5. INCEPTION (2010; Dir. Christopher Nolan) - The brainteaser of 2010 and one of the year's most talked about movies.

DiCaprio (again) stars as a man that can enter our dreams and affect our thoughts. Talk about the battle between fantasy vs reality! The special effects and gimmick story-line distracted many from what was essentially a story about a man trying to connect with his father.

One of Nolan's best. Nominated for eight Academy Awards, it won four.

6. AMERICAN SNIPER (2014; Dir. Clint Eastwood) - Clint Eastwood's socially and politically divisive war picture was based on real-life NAVY SEAL sniper Chris Kyle's memoir. The political left hated the movie because Eastwood did not take the opportunity to criticize the Iraq war. Combined with that, others said Kyle made ugly statements in his memoir.

None of this bothered me as I felt the criticism was misguided. I placed the movie in the number two spot in my year end list and wrote, "not since Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" (1987) have I seen a movie which shows the dehumanization of war as compellingly."

7. DOCUMENTARIES - INSIDE JOB (2010; Dir. Charles Ferguson) / CITIZENFOUR (2014; Dir. Laura Poitras) / THE LOOK OF SILENCE (2015; Dir. Joshua Oppenheimer) / FAHRENHEIT 11/9 (2018; Dir. Michael Moore) - Along with cable news, documentaries have become a political weapon of choice. The definition of documentaries has changed drastically over the years. Once identified with National Geographic or PBS, documentaries have now become polarizing political essays.

The decade featured so many great documentaries that I honestly couldn't settle on one to be declared "the best". Instead these four are representative of the political issues that have plagued this country over the last 10 years: the financial bailout (Inside Job), government surveillance (Citizenfour), political revisionist history (The Look of Silence), and the whole rotten political system as a whole (Fahrenheit 11/9).

"Inside Job" - Directed by Charles Ferguson, is the academic version of "The Big Short". It explained what collateralized debt obligations (CDO) and sub-prime mortgages are and provided details on exactly how the financial system is rigged. Ferguson was even able to interview major figures to get them to defend their actions and the system as a whole.

"Citizenfour" - Scarier than any piece of science fiction, Laura Poitras' documentary features former NSA employee Edward Snowden, as he explains the current magnitude of massive government surveillance (right now, someone from the government knows you are reading this) while the U.S. government chases after him.

"The Look of Silence" - A sequel to Joshua Oppenheimer's genre defying "The Act of Killing" (2012), both documentaries are about the Indonesian mass killings of 1965 - 1966, a politically motivated genocide aimed at killing all communists. It was later revealed the U.S. knew what was going on and supported these actions.

"Fahrenheit 11/9" - Michael Moore looks at the making of a president (pay attention to the credit sequence) and how America has fallen so low to elect a former reality TV host. Moore examines how the government, in conjunction with the media, has let the country down.

8. THE CONJURING UNIVERSE / HORROR - THE CONJURING (2013; Dir. James Wan) / THE BABADOOK (2014; Dir. Jennifer Kent) / LIGHTS OUT (2016;  Dir. David F. Sandberg) - For me, the Golden Age of horror movies was with the classic Universal movies made in the 1930s featuring Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, the Werewolf and the Mummy. However, one could make the case that we have entered a new golden age of horror. Has there been a time when horror movies have been as easily accessible and as good? I've put more horror movies on my top ten lists this decade than any before. All three of these movies made my top ten lists.

"The Conjuring" - Was this the movie that started the resurgence in horror movies? Maybe. This James Wan movie was a massive box office hit in 2013 and gave way to an entire universe of movies. It was reminiscent of the classics from the 1970s. 

"The Babadook" - When reviewing this Australian movie directed by Jennifer Kent, I wrote "The Babadook works on a psychological level and tries to be about more than its scares. It dares to tackle some larger issues." That is what the great horror movies do. "The Babadook" was actually about the trauma of motherhood and a metaphor for the idea of "feeding the beast".

"Lights Out" - The directorial debut of David F. Sandberg, whom I immediately called a great new talent, directed the horror movie of 2016! Essentially, it is a variation on our fears of the dark.

Sandberg has gone on to direct "Annabelle: Creation" (2017), another addition to the "Conjuring Universe", and a movie I placed on my year end top ten list. He switched gears in 2019 and directed the DC comic book adaptation of "Shazam!".

9. INTERNATIONAL CINEMA - CERTIFIED COPY (2011; Dir. Abbas Kiarostami) / WALESA: MAN OF HOPE (2013; Dir. Andrzej Wajda) / LIKE SOMEONE IN LOVE (2013; Dir. Abbas Kiarostami) / CHILD'S POSE (2014; Dir. Calin Peter Netzer ) - A decade that gave us so many great international films also provides me a last chance to celebrate Andrzej Wajda and Abbas Kiarostami.

I have noticed that the last few years have seen a decline in great international films. There was a time I wanted to avoid having ten English language dramas on my year end movie lists and would try to mix it up with international films (at least three). That has become increasingly difficult for me lately, but in the first part of the decade the masters were still alive and made it a much easier feat.

"Certified Copy" - The first non-Iranian film Kiarostami directed was also one of his most widely celebrated, earning a Palme d'Or nomination at Cannes, and Juliette Binoche winning the best actress award for her engaging performance.

In my review I wrote "Certified Copy" (2010) is another example of filmmaker Abbas Kiarostami's genius. "Here is a delicate film which balances fact and fiction, reality and fantasy in a meditative, poetic masterful way."

"Walesa: Man of Hope" - Unfortunately this Andrzej Wajda masterpiece never found distribution in the U.S. I saw it at the Chicago International Film Festival and called it the best movie at the festival.

Telling the story of Lech Walesa, a union activist that became Poland's president (1990 - 1995). It was the movie Wajda was born to direct.

"Like Someone in Love" - Another Kiarostami masterpiece and another of his non-Iranian films (it was made in Japan). Like "Certified Copy" this is a movie about identity and relationships and asks us to question the definition of "relationships".

"Child's Pose" - A damning commentary on the divide between the Haves and the Have Nots. Directed by Calin Peter Netzer, "Child's Pose" was a continuation in the great rejuvenation of Romanian cinema.

A child is killed in a car accident. The driver comes from a wealthy family while the child came from a poor one. Will justice be served? Can the wealthy get away with murder?

The film is forgotten but I recognized its greatness immediately and placed it on my top ten list of 2014.


10. HUNGARIAN CINEMA - THE TURIN HORSE (2012; Dir. Bela Tarr) / THE NOTEBOOK (2014; Dir. Janos Szasz) / WHITE GOD (2015; Dir. Kornel Mundruczo) - Why differentiate between international and Hungarian? Hungarian cinema has long been neglected in the U.S., lacking distribution. Something changed in the last decade as more and more Hungarian movies were released: "Sunset" (2019), "1945" (2018), "On Body & Soul" (2017) and the Academy Award winner, "Son of Saul" (2015), the first Hungarian film to win the best foreign film Oscar since Istvan Szabo's "Mephisto" (1981).

"The Turin Horse" - Master Bela Tarr's final film before retiring was his greatest achievement since "Satantango" (1994). I called it a fitting conclusion to his career. A bleak look at the meaningless nature of our lives, as we serve the roles designed for us.

"The Notebook" - Janos Szasz's study on the correlation between our environment and violence was set during WW2 in the Hungarian countryside. Two young brothers lose themselves in their quest for survival, culminating in a bleak but powerful message.

"White God" - Using dogs to symbolize the working class and the downtrodden, Kornel Mundruczo's social commentary (fittingly dedicated to Miklos Jancso) tells the story of what happens when the poor revolt against their oppressors.

Released in the U.S. in 2015, the movie foreshadowed the mass movement led by Bernie Sanders, while also warning of the rise of right-wing groups in Europe.