Watching The Movies: 1917

2019 was a year of good movies, but I suspect that 1917, which saw limited release on Christmas Day, will be one of the standouts.

There really haven’t been that many WWI movies. The Great War has been overshadowed by its mid-century sequel so much that I could only think of Flyboys (2006), All Quiet On The Western Front (1979), and The Young Indiana Jone Chronicles (1992). I suppose we could add the 2017 reboot of Wonder Woman to the list as well if we want to move from the war movie genre to superhero flicks.

1917 is definitely a war movie, however. The story centers around an urgent mission undertaken by two British Tommies, the British version of American “GIs” or “grunts,” in April 1917. Lance Corporals Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) are tasked with getting a message to another British unit in time to stop an attack from meeting certain disaster. One of the soldiers they are attempting to save is Blake’s brother. The pair must travel across no man’s land, the area between the opposing trenches, and German lines to fulfill their quest. In some ways, the movie reminded me of Saving Private Ryan (1998) with its journey across a battlefield to save a life.

To some extent, WWI is a footnote in American history. The war began in 1914, but the US didn’t get directly involved until April 1917. The war ended about a year and a half later on November 11, 1918, a date familiar to modern Americans as Veteran’s Day. In those 19 months, the US lost 116,516 soldiers with more casualties due to the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic than combat. Compare this to about 7,000 American dead in the War on Terror.

In contrast, the other belligerents suffered about 10 million dead soldiers and another 10 million or so dead civilians in four years of fighting. The war devastated an entire generation in Britain, France, and Germany. WWI was a blend of modern weapons like machine guns, gas, tanks, and airplanes and old tactics like mass charges across open ground. The result was a bloody mess. By the end of the war, much of Europe, France in particular, was devastated by the fighting, the combatants were broke, and Russia was embroiled in a communist revolution.

But 1917 doesn’t focus on the big picture. The movie is centered on the two infantrymen and their quest. [I don’t plan to include plot spoilers so read on even if you haven’t seen the movie.]

I had heard the cinematography of 1917 was spectacular. After watching the movie, I can vouch for this.

1917 is filmed in one-shot style in which there is only one obvious cut, a transition from day to night. Otherwise, the viewers stay with the characters as they make their journey. This is different from most other films and lends to a feeling of immersion into the story.

The journey begins in a pastoral camp and continues through the trenches, a staple of the battlefields of the Western Front. From the dizzying and claustrophobic maze of trenches, the two Tommies move across a hellish landscape that includes the no man’s land, as barren as the lunar surface but filled with bodies, and a gutted and burning French city where German soldiers lurk like demons. Death is omnipresent in this world and one can only imagine what it must have been like for the soldiers who lived in it for months or years on end.

One of these soldiers was Alfred Mendes, the grandfather of writer-director Sam Medes. 1917 is not based on a true story, but it was inspired by the war stories that Lance Corporal Mendes told his children and grandchildren in his later years.

Even though 1917 is rated R, it is not inappropriate for older kids. It is suspenseful and dramatic and violent but the scenes of violence are no worse than you would see on network television. There is profanity in the form of F-bombs and some coarse joking, but much of this is almost unintelligible if you aren’t accustomed to the various British accents. Depictions of dead bodies could be disturbing.

One complaint about the film was the typical war movie complaint that the enemy soldiers don’t shoot well. Leaving the theater, my daughter commented that the Germans shot about as well as stormtroopers did.

1917 is a gripping war story, but it is also an anti-war movie. It reminds us that the soldiers who fight wars also make up the majority of the victims, along with the civilians who inhabit the areas being fought over. War is sometimes necessary because mankind is too often in the habit of being evil, but war is always a waste.

Originally published on The Resurgent

'Knives Out' Review

I walked into “Knives Out” expecting a fast-paced murder comedy based on watching the trailer for the movie. That is not what I got.

That isn’t to say that “Knives Out” isn’t worth your time. I and my teenage son both thoroughly enjoyed the film despite it not being what either of us expected.

The movie centers around the suicide of a murder mystery novelist, Harlan Thrombey, played by Christopher Plummer). As the police attempt to close the case, a private detective, Benoit Blanc, played by 007 alum Daniel Craig with a syrupy Southern accent, shows up after being hired by a mysterious client. Blanc probes the family relationships and turns up a number of possible motives that the star-studded family had for wanting Harlan dead.

Unexpectedly, the plot centers on Harlan’s nurse, Marta, who comes from a Hispanic immigrant family. Ana de Armas, who is a Cuban immigrant in real life, is a newcomer whose first big English-speaking role seems to have been in 2017’s “Blade Runner 2049.” Immigration policy figures into the plot as Marta’s mother is revealed to be an illegal immigrant. The knowledge that members of her family could be deported understandably affects Marta’s actions, even though she is herself what one of the other characters refers to as an “anchor baby.”

Immigration also figures into an uncomfortably awkward scene in which two branches of the family argue over immigration policy. Donald Trump is not mentioned by name, but the flower-child sister-in-law, played by Toni Collette, makes a Hitler reference and mentions children in cages. Harlan’s son-in-law, Richard, played by an unrecognizable Don Johnson, argues that even illegals with good hearts should have consequences for breaking the law. The situation becomes even more awkward when he asks Marta for her opinion on the issue and praises her family for immigrating “the right way.” The two branches of the family trade partisan barbs such as calling each other “Nazis” and “social justice warriors.”

Although the scene isn’t particularly pleasant, neither is it unfair. The arguments of both sides are true to form and could be taken from pretty much any internet discussion or comments thread on the subject. The discussion could probably have been taken word-for-word from any number of family discussions around the country over Thanksgiving and Christmas. The movie is evenhanded in its disdain for both political wings and the film is not a vehicle for attacks on Republicans or the president.

If there is a political message to the film, it is about the humanity of immigrants. The film doesn’t preach, but Marta and her family come across as sympathetic. To some, that will contrast with how they often see immigrants portrayed as murderers, drug-dealers, and criminals. Marta represents the silent majority of immigrants who are hardworking and law-abiding. While some immigration hardliners may not appreciate this compassionate portrayal of illegal immigration, it is relevant to the plot.

While the movie is not the slapstick comedy that I expected, it is darkly humorous. There were laugh-out-loud moments but the core of the movie is the investigation into Harlan’s death. If you want a more consistently funny murder-comedy, go watch “Clue,” the 1985 movie based on the popular board game starring Tim Curry and a plethora of ‘80s stars.

But that doesn’t mean you should skip “Knives Out.” While it isn’t laugh-a-minute, it is worth your time if you like the mystery genre. The movie is more like an episode of “Columbo” or “Murder She Wrote” than “Police Academy.”

There are no complaints about the craftsmanship of the movie. The acting is excellent on all levels and its fun to see the aging Johnson, Collette, and Jamie Lee Curtis, as well as Chris Evans playing the parts of spoiled rich brats. It is Craig and de Armas who steal the show, however.

“Knives Out” is a good movie. It is thought-provoking and keeps you guessing to the end. I thoroughly enjoyed it and recommend it but know going in that it is not a lighthearted romp. With numerous plot twists, it’s also a good movie to see in a theater rather than watching on Netflix or Hulu in a setting with distractions.

In the end, “Knives Out” is a classic example of the mystery genre with a sense of humor.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Watching The Movies: ‘Midway’ Is Fitting Homage To Heroes

I grew up on the 1976 version of the story of Midway. I didn’t see it on the big screen but, for years afterward, whenever it came on television, I’d always try to watch. As a history buff, I eventually read Gordon W. Prange’s weighty “Miracle At Midway,” which is the definitive account of the battle. If you’re interested in the details of the battle and don’t have problems lifting heavy objects, this is the book you should read. When I saw the previews for the new retelling of the story of Midway, I knew I had to see it and Veteran’s Day seemed like the perfect day to do it, together with my kids.

If you are even a casual student of American history, you know how the battle turned out so I’ll skip the usual warning about spoilers. Instead, I’ll say that the movie takes time to set the stage for the battle, unlike 2017’s “Dunkirk,” which drops viewers into a firefight within seconds. Even though the Battle of Midway occurred only six months into America’s involvement in WWII, those were a busy few months so you might want to forego the extra-large theater Coke if you don’t want to miss anything.

The movie begins with a prelude set in 1937 in which Edwin Layton, then assistant naval attaché in Tokyo met with Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. In real life, the two men met several times but the movie gives a Japanese motive for the Pearl Harbor attack four years later. Yamamoto tells Layton that the US shouldn’t interfere with Japanese access to raw materials. When President Roosevelt froze Japanese assets in July 1941 in retaliation for the Japanese invasion of Indo-China, Japan lost access to 88 percent of its imported oil and the stage was set for a confrontation between the two powers. At least in part, World War II was a war for oil.

“Midway” spends a fair amount of time on the attack on Pearl Harbor and this is appropriate. Modern Americans who have grown up the era of America as the sole superpower probably cannot imagine the fear that Americans felt in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and for good reason. The defeat at Pearl Harbor was not an isolated occurrence in late 1941 and early 1942. American and British outposts across the Pacific were falling like dominoes. The Philippines, including the fortress island of Corregidor, Wake Island, and Guam all fell quickly as well as British Hong Kong and Singapore. At that stage in the war, the Japanese had better ships and aircraft than the Americans and more of them. The faulty American torpedoes depicted in the movie were a real problem that had to be overcome… quickly. Given the shockingly fast string of victories, the Japanese must have seemed invincible.

The graphic depiction of the disaster at Pearl Harbor is much more effective than the 2001 movie that focused on the sneak attack. Although the attack represents only a fraction of the movie, the desperate struggle for survival on what had been a peaceful Sunday morning is among the most disturbing parts of the movie. The skin on a sailor’s hands is burned off and others fall into pools of flaming oil. The human cost of the disaster hits home when the devil-may-care Lieutenant Commander Dick Best (played by Ed Skrein) finds the badly-burned body of his Naval Academy roommate in a makeshift morgue.

From Pearl Harbor, “Midway” walks the viewer through other milestones of early 1942 including the Doolittle raid on Japan in April. The backstory makes the movie somewhat long but is valuable in describing the situation leading up to Midway. For what it’s worth, my children paid rapt attention throughout the whole two-plus hour film, plus long movies mean that you get more entertainment time per ticket dollar.

In a movie where virtually every character is hero, one man who stands out is Commander Edwin Layton (played by Patrick Wilson). Layton was the intelligence officer who blamed himself for the Pearl Harbor attack and who made it his mission to ensure that another such disaster never happened. Although neither Layton nor Best are listed in the cast for the 1976 movie, both figure prominently in the new version. Charlton Heston’s character from 1976 film, Matt Garth, is based in part on Layton.

Layton is central to the telling of the story of how the US Navy cracked the Japanese code, at least partially. Navy codebreakers were able to pinpoint the target of the Japanese attack and turn the enemy offensive into a trap (cue Admiral Ackbar). Codebreaking is difficult to depict onscreen but both movies handle it well, although the focus of the 1976 version is on Commander Joseph Rochefort, the eccentric cryptologist played 40 years ago by Hal Holbrook and this year by Brennan Brown. Both men put distinctive spins on the character, but I’d like to imagine that Brown’s is closer to the truth.

It is interesting to note that Layton wrote an account of breaking the Japanese code that was not declassified until the 1980s. His book, “And I Was There,” was published by his co-authors in 1985, a year after his death. If you’d like to read the book, as I was thinking of doing, be prepared to either pay up or visit the library. It retails on Amazon for $87.

The actual battle scenes do justice to the technological and impersonal violence of battle. Midway was only the second naval battle in history in which the opposing ships were never within sight of each other. The fighting was conducted entirely by airplanes from both fleets as well as the submarine USS Nautilus, which fired torpedoes at the Japanese fleet but missed. Special effects have come a long way since 1976 and CGI is put to good use in the new movie.

While many of the details of the battle are depicted on screen, their importance may not be apparent to viewers not already familiar with the battle. That, however, is a problem of the medium rather than the movie itself. Motion pictures just don’t lend themselves to pointing out arcane trivia without becoming clunky.

As an example, Ensign George Gay (played by Brandon Sklenar in 2019 and Kevin Dobson in 1976) is depicted in the water cheering on the attacking Americans after being shot down in the first wave of torpedo attacks on the Japanese. What the viewer is not told is that Gay’s Torpedo Squadron 8 from the USS Hornet lost every aircraft that morning and Gay, picked up after 30 hours in the water, was the only survivor of his squadron. Torpedo 8’s sacrifice was not in vain, however. Their low-level attack brought the Japanese Zero fighters down to the surface, allowing the American dive bombers to attack from high altitude relatively unmolested.

It is also difficult to communicate through the movie just how easily the battle could have gone the other way. Lieutenant Commander Wade McClusky (played by Luke Evans in 2019 and Christopher George in 1976) and his flight of bombers were running very low on fuel as they searched for the Japanese. McClusky’s decision to order his flight to turn in a direction that turned out to be the correct one allowed the Americans to spot the Japanese destroyer Arashi, which was returning to the fleet after attacking the submarine Nautilus. The submarine’s missed shots ultimately led the American bombers to the Japanese fleet for a devastating attack. The sequence of seemingly random events inspired the title “Miracle At Midway” and is held by many to be evidence of God’s hand on America.

The part of the new movie that had the most profound effect on my children was the depiction of Aviation Machinist Mate First Class Bruno Gaido (played by Nick Jonas). Gaido was absent from the 1976 film and his exploits in the new version had my kids doubting that he was real. A brief Google search later, we determined that Gaido was indeed real as was the incident for which he was given a battlefield promotion by Admiral “Bull” Halsey (played by Dennis Quaid this year and Robert Mitchum in 1976). There were no surviving witnesses to the death of Gaido and his pilot, Ensign Frank O’Flaherty (Russell Dennis Lewis), but the movie depiction may actually be cleaner and quicker than his real-life end.

The cultural difference between the two warring nations is underscored by the fates of Layton and Ryusaku Yanagimoto, captain of the Japanese aircraft carrier Soryu. Where Layton’s superiors gave him the chance to learn from his mistakes at Pearl Harbor, Yanagimoto chose to go down with his ship and deprived his country of his future service.  

In a time of smart bombs and hypersensitivity to casualties on both sides, “Midway” reminds us that things were very different not so long ago. In the fight for survival that was WWII, it was not uncommon for entire units to be virtually wiped out. At Midway, entire squadrons were sacrificed for one or two hits on a carrier. Midway was a victory, but the cost was horrendous.

As with any movie remake, there will be the inevitable comparisons between the versions with proponents of each waging a keyboard assault on the other. I’m not going to do that. They are both fine films and each has points in its favor. My recommendation would be to watch and enjoy them both. In the screening that I watched on Veteran’s Day, veterans, including active-duty soldiers in uniform, were well represented. At the end of the movie, the crowd applauded. A war movie probably can’t get a better endorsement from people who have been there and done that.

Although the movie is not perfect (and what movie is?), it is a fitting vessel to carry the story of the miraculous American victory to a new generation, especially one that has been raised on Hollywood fare that typically depicts the United States as an evil empire. If “Midway” inspires Americans to look more deeply at American history, it will be mission accomplished.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Romantic Comedies Are Really About Sexual Harassment

Looking back on 2017’s sexual harassment denunciations and purges, I realized that what Hollywood preaches is not what it puts on screen. Like railing against gun violence while making a mint off violent movies at the same time, what Hollywood movies say about sexual harassment is very different than what Hollywood figures say in the post-Weinstein era.

Under many of the definitions going around these days, the women of romantic comedies are actually victims of sexual harassment. While these women are not physically abused or raped, they are subjected to unwanted attention from men. The EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment includes the phrase “unwelcome sexual advances” which would describe the plot of most romantic comedies.

Think about the romantic comedy genre. These movies typically have a plot where boy meets girl, boy falls for girl, girl can’t stand boy, boy persists despite being rejected by girl and boy finally wins girl. If the man in the movie persists after being rejected and told “no” then isn’t that sexual harassment by definition?

If merely pursuing a woman who doesn’t fall into your arms at first sight is sexual harassment then a great many men – and also a great many women – are harassers. Who knows how many happy marriages are built upon behavior that many now seek to criminalize? I’ve heard many stories of couples who didn’t hit it off at first, but who eventually fell in love and created a happy life together.

There are limits of course. It is clearly wrong for a man in a position of power like Harvey Weinstein to force women to have sex with him in order to work in Hollywood. It’s also wrong to grab the butt of a stranger or fondle someone’s breast uninvited.

When the unwanted activity involves mere words and flirting, the lines are less distinct, however, and even in cases of consensual sex, there can be a gray area. Rebecca Reid of the UK Metro recently wrote that, as a teen, she “had a threesome, also because I didn’t want to be rude.” Many of the women who had sex with Weinstein also gave consent in order to get work. Is consent still consent even if given under duress? Don’t women also have a responsibility to say “no” if they don’t want to have sex? If a woman says “yes” and means “no,” how is a man to know the difference unless he has the ability to read her mind?

There seem to be two solutions to the problem. One way is to criminalize romantic comedies. We could simply make it illegal for people to have any unwanted contact. The result of this strategy would probably be lots of lonely people as men become afraid to woo women for fear of being sued or arrested or having their reputations ruined.

A second solution would be a return to traditional sexual values in which couples wait to have sex until marriage. Without the expectation of casual sex, fewer men would harass women and fewer women would be compelled to have sex out of politeness. It would also help men and women find more fulfilling and longer-lasting relationships.

In spite of jokes about unhappy marriages, for many Americans married life is our Hollywood ending. Rather than going through life alone, we grow old surrounded by people we love. That is our happily-ever-after.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Gays On Film Flop Despite Increased Presence

Have you heard of ABC’s epic miniseries, When We Rise? Neither have I, but LifeSiteNews says that the eight-hour show detailing the rise of the gay rights movement was heavily promoted during the Oscars. (Come to think of it that might explain why I missed it.) Nevertheless, the miniseries bombed and placed last among shows on the big four networks and next-to-last overall, coming in just ahead of Jane the Virgin on the CW.

LGBTQ shows were the hot new thing last year. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage across the country, networks bet that the time had come for gay television shows. CNN reported last year that there were more gay and lesbian characters on television than at any time in the past. Overall, 4.8 percent of regular characters fell under the LGBTQ umbrella.

The push for gay characters shows no signs of abating. Earlier this month, Disney introduced its first gay (or at least questioning) character in the new version of Beauty and the Beast. A gay romance has also been confirmed for the new Star Wars movies.

If it seems like homosexuality is more prevalent on television than in real life, you are right. Only 3.8 percent of Americans identify as LGBT per Gallup.

In spite of this, The Advocate bemoans the unpopularity of gay television and movies like When We Rise. Even though Moonlight, another movie that I had never heard of about a gay black boy in Miami, won the Academy Award for best picture in an upset over La La Land, “it had the lowest box-office numbers of all the nominees,” writes Daniel Reynolds.

Reynolds also notes that CBS recently canceled Doubt, “the first network TV show to feature a trans actress (Laverne Cox) in a regular, main-cast trans role.” Reynolds says, “If Doubt were still on the air, viewers on CBS — a network with real red state reach — could have seen Cox’s character, an attorney, strike up a romantic relationship with a cisgender man and help defend a trans victim of violence.” That is not exactly must-see TV for red state viewers.

Polling shows that Americans are increasingly accepting of both homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Pew found that 63 percent now believe that homosexuality should be accepted. Resistance to homosexuality among both Christians and conservative Republicans has declined in recent years. Gallup now shows 61 percent in favor of same-sex marriage with only 37 percent opposed.

How then can we square the flop of gay programming with the increasing acceptance of homosexuality? A clue can be found in Reynold’s lament over the cancellation of Doubt. He seems to view the show as evangelism to red states rather than entertainment.

Americans typically have a live and let live, libertarian attitude to issues like homosexuality. “Let them do what they want behind closed doors if it doesn’t affect me,” seems to be the prevailing attitude. This laissez-faire attitude towards personal sexual relationships does not extend to watching shows and movies about gays that are not entertaining.

There have been two unquestionably successful shows featuring main characters who are gay. Will and Grace, which ran from 1998 through 2006, and Modern Family, which debuted in 2009, were both mainstream hits. These were funny shows that succeeded on their own merits as entertainment and not because they pushed a gay agenda.

With gay viewers representing only a tiny slice of television viewers, producers and writers must be careful not to turn off straight viewers with gay characters and plots. A New York Times list of the most influential gay movies and television shows reveals that most of the entries that were memorable and successful were gay characters and episodes on otherwise straight shows such as the lesbian wedding episode on Friends or the lesbian kiss on Roseanne. Many of the “groundbreaking” shows and movies were notable only as footnotes in gay film history.

Due to the proliferation of cable channels and internet television shows, it is easier than ever before for a show to become successful while appealing to only a small segment of viewers. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, a reality show in which gay men gave straight men fashion makeovers, was successful on Bravo for five years. Girls, a series on HBO, catapulted Lena Dunham from obscurity to minor celebrity status. Even a hit show like Modern Family draws only about 8 million viewers each week out of a nation of 350 million. In contrast, I Love Lucy drew 11 million viewers each week when there were only 15 million TV sets in the entire country.

The lesson for networks is that while Americans are increasingly tolerant towards gays, they don’t necessarily want to tune in to gay romances or shows that preach a gay political agenda. While movies like Moonlight and When We Rise may achieve critical acclaim, it’s the shows that make us laugh and offer an escape from day-to-day life that get us to tune in. 

Originally published on The Resurgent