Monday, March 23, 2015

Mmmmm...that was tasty!

If you are a long time reader, you know I have an on-going love of movies. True, there was a time when I eschewed going to movies in a misguided belief that movies were inherently immoral.  But, once I recovered, I returned to seeing movies, and have discovered many ways of viewing them.

I finished several recent posts on movies that had been nominated for the Academy Award in a particular category, with the winners being awarded a golden statuette nick-named "Oscar."

Since Oscar season is over for a year, I am ruminating on other ways of enjoying movies than just whether or not they are winners.  I got to thinking about all the ways that eating, or food scenes, play an important part in movies. Such scenes are frequently symbolic and in a brief scene will convey something very telling about the characters.

So, herewith a few memorable eating/food scenes from movies.

One of the earliest movies that I remember being enthralled with was Tom Jones (1963), the adaptation of Henry Fielding's novel from the mid-1700s. It is in fact one of the earliest novels that we have in English literature. The plot was basically structured around a series of encounters that the titular character Tom Jones has. I can't attest to whether or not the movie was a faithful adaption. But I do recall one singular eating scene. Tom has met a lusty woman named Jenny Jones. And there then ensues a marvelous scene where the two dine in a roadside, eating crab legs, chicken legs, turkey legs, oysters and so forth. It is a most seductive scene ending, predictably, with them rushing to bed.

Another favorite eating scene comes from Mel Brooks' splendid Young Doctor Frankenstein (1974). Peter Boyle plays Frankenstein's monster; he has broken free of his creator and is now being chased by angry fearful townspeople. The monster seeks refuge, and happens into the humble hut of a blind priest, played by Gene Hackman. The monster is virtually mute, and can only grunt. The priest cannot see, but offers the runaway monster some food--soup. As the monster sits waiting at the table, the monk comes to him and proceeds to ladle out the soup...predictably missing the bowl. It lands on the monster's lap, burning him. He cries out--HMMMMM.  Of course, the monk takes that to be his appreciation for the food...and the scene goes from one misunderstanding to another.

And the final scene which involves food (believe me, I could go on...but I don't want to lose the reader) comes from the movie Five Easy Pieces (1970). The movie stars a very young Jack Nicholson, and while I can't the plot of the movie, or even the point, I certainly recall Jack Nicholson ordering toast.  And, no, I can't describe it.  You will just have to watch it--it's a classic.

Could I go on? Oh, you bet.  But now, I have to go get dinner ready.  We are NOT having any of the aforementioned featured foods.

Do you have a favorite food scene from a movie?  Do tell!

Sunday, March 08, 2015

The Eye of the Beholder

Now that the Academy Awards for 2015 have come and gone, it's time for a little reflection.  Time was that the standard announcement for those handing out the Oscar statue was something like this: ...and the winner for the BEST (fill in the blank) is ...

No more.  Now the announcement is--and the Oscar goes to (fill in the blank.) 

There's a reason for that change. Oh, I don't know if it was mandated or not. But the reason is that the Academy must have come to realize that not always did the best in whatever category win.  Or it depended very much on the standard by which someone was judging whether or not the winner was in fact THE BEST. 

There have been some atrocious choices as "the best" in the history of the Academy Awards. Let's see how you do selecting the winner in some of these match-ups. Pick YOUR winner. (In each case, I list the films alphabetically...so as not to give away the answer.*

1. Brokeback Mountain OR Capote OR Crash

2. Saving Private Ryan OR Shakespeare in Love

3. As Good As It Gets OR Good Will Hunting OR  L.A. Confidential OR Titanic

4. Forrest Gump OR Shawshank Redemption

5. Apocalypse Now OR Kramer Vs. Kramer

6. Bonnie & Clyde OR  In The Heat of The Night OR The Graduate

7. It's A Wonderful Life OR The Best Years of Our Lives

7. Citizen Kane OR How Green Was My Valley

OK . . . I could go on. In fact, many websites DO go on and on and on about the snubs the Academy has inflicted on nominees.  Of course, there are many excellent and beloved actors who never won an Oscar (outright) for a particular performance.  In recent Oscar times here are some of those who have not won: Leonardo DiCaprio (nominated 5 times); Tom Cruise (nominated 3 times...and, yes, he CAN act -- Born on the Fourth of July -- when he wants to); Glenn Close (nominated 6 times); Sigourney Weaver (nominated 3 times); Amy Adams (nominated 5 times).  

What the Academy tends to do is, after years of being snubbed, the excellent non-winners win a special "lifetime achievement" award. Luminaries such as Cary Grant, Bob Hope, Laurence Olivier, Greta Garbo, and Lauren Bacall

The eye of the beholder is the only explanation I have for some of the movies and actors over-looked in this annual celebration of movies.  And also the only explanation for some of those picked as winners.

So here are the ANSWERS: The Oscar went to...
1. Crash;  2. Shakespeare in Love;  3. Titanic;  4. Forrest Gump;  5. Kramer Vs. Kramer;  6. In The Heat of the Night;  7.  The Best Years of Our Lives;  7. How Green Was My Valley.

In looking at these head to head competitors, in virtually EVERY instance, I remember the movie or movies that did NOT win, and those movies are also the ones that movie history has proclaimed.  Look at almost any list of the top 100 Best Movies and you will see Citizen Kane at the top of that list.  And yet it did not win "best picture" in 1941.  

Maybe winning the All Time Best award is better than getting that little gold statue.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Going to the Movies Part 3

Tonight's the night!  So I had better get a move on...

The last two movies that are subjects for my Oscar preparation (and anticipation) are Selma and Unbroken. Now, I hasten to point out that Unbroken is not one of those nominated for Best Picture, or best director, or best actor, etc.  In fact, it was only nominated for cinematography, sound mixing and sound editing. Of course those categories are very important for the people who work in those fields, but--frankly--I don't stay tuned for the winners.

So, why did I pick this pair to compare and contrast. Well, there are quite a few similarities. Both both are about real men, based in 20th century American history; both deal with men of uncommon valor, who have to deal with a presumption of racial superiority.

Unbroken focuses on the life of Louis Zamperini,  Now, were it not for a best-selling book by author Laura Hillenbrand, Zamperini's life, beyond his youth, might have passed relatively unnoticed.  Hillenbrand*, you may recall, is the author who wrote another story of resilience and triumph--Seabiscuit.  Just as Seabiscuit was seen as fertile ground for making a movie, so was her book Unbroken.   Even though the idea of making a movie about Zamperini's life had been kicking around Hollywood for decades, it was mostly likely Hillenbrand's book that jump-started it.  Angelina Jolie, who directed it, had to fight--not to get the movie made, but to be selected to direct it.

After a childhood during which Zamperini was a bit of a miscreant, he discovered he had a talent for running. In fact, he became so accomplished that he was selected for the U.S. track team which went to the 1936 Olympics held in Berlin, the ones infamous for Hitler's domination of the spectacle--and for Jesse Owens' amazing accomplishments as a track star that buried Hitler's notion of racial superiority. Owens won four gold medals--3 in sprint, and one in long jump. Zamperini was a distance runner participating in the 5,000 meter race. He didn't win any medal, but acquitted himself well with running the final lap in record time.

The connection that Zamperini has to 20th century American history was his service during World War II.  He was a bombardier on the somewhat notorious B-24 bombers. These planes were known to be difficult to fly. In fact, the plane he was on was hit by gunfire during an aerial battle and badly damaged. Because of that, he and other crew members were sent to Hawaii to be reassigned. While they were waiting, a call came in to go on a rescue mission for another downed bomber. A crew of 11 was assembled and flew off in another B-24. During that mission, the plane he was on developed mechanical problems and went down in the Pacific near Palmyra Island. Thus began another great adventure of his life. He and his surviving crew mates lashed together several rafts and began drifting across the Pacific Ocean.  

After 47 days of drifting in the Pacific, the raft washed up on Marshall Islands, then under control of the Japanese, some 1837 miles (2956 km,). The two remaining survivors were promptly captured by Japanese soldiers, thus beginning another "adventure." While the movie shows his early life, the youthful troubles he encountered, and his running triumphs, it concentrates on the drama of being adrift and the subsequent imprisonment in Japanese POW camps. During this time--about two years--he and other Allies were cruelly mistreated by prison guards, some of whom were particularly sadistic. One stand-out example, which the movie portrays very convincingly, was a guard the POWs called "The Bird."  He took a particular dislike for Zamperini and never missed a chance to punish him.  It is during these moments in the movie that the viewer experiences full force one of the elements that was evidenced in World War II.  Just as the Germans presumed their superiority due to their "Aryan purity," Japanese soldiers felt superior to their captives whom they degraded and looked down on.

Zamperini's very survival is an indication of his uncommon valor. The movie ends before the final difficulty of his life; Zamperini experienced one other challenge that threatened his survival. Upon his return home after the war, he began to drink heavily.  His life was turned around after his wife begged him to go hear the evangelist Billy Graham.  Based on the message Zamperini heard, he realized he needed to change his life--and he did. Beyond that, he absorbed a central element of Christian thinking--that of the need for forgiveness, even of one's enemies. Zamperini eventually returned to Japan, and sought out his former captors with the specific intent to forgive them.

Martin Luther King, Jr., the subject of the movie Selma, is far better known to most Americans than is Zamperini. Given that familiarity, there is less need to underscore the initially stated similarities: the two stories are about real men, are based on 20th century American history, both deal with men of uncommon valor, and both deal with a presumption of racial superiority. We know many of the basics of Dr. King's life--his rise to leadership in the infancy of the civil rights movement.  In fact, the movie Selma distills many of the details in a single event--the march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965.

Following the Civil War, African-Americans were systematically and routinely deprived of many of the rights the Civil War was intended to help them gain. Chief among those was the foundational right of our democracy: the right to vote. African-Americans were required to register to vote--as we all are today--but for them, the finish line was a moving target. The movie powerfully portrays this in an event involving Annie Lee Cooper (played by Oprah Winfrey). She tries to register to vote, only to be asked a series of questions which she admirably and confidently answers. Then one last question is thrown at her, one so trivial as to be absurd. Not surprisingly she cannot answer, so her application is stamped DENIED.

To redress this and other grievances, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and Dr. King are brought in to Selma to try to galvanize action. Part of the drama of the movie also focuses on the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, which included John Lewis, which had been trying for three years to move voter registration forward.  The means to move voter registration rights forward was to organize a march from Selma to Montgomery, the capital of Alabama, which begins by crossing the Edmund Pettus bridge. 



(credit for photo of the Pettus bridge-- "Edmund Pettus Bridge 03" by Carol M. Highsmith)

The history of this time is fresh to many of us who were adults--albeit young adults--during the 1960s.  Its retelling is essential for younger generations to know that the right to vote was hard won for African Americans.

Other elements of Dr. King's life are woven into the movie--not always in full detail, but enough to give a sense of the man's life, including some of the sadder aspects.  We know that the FBI maintained a file on him, that the then director J. Edgar Hoover seemed to make a special point of spying on Dr. King.  We also know that Dr. King was unfaithful to his wife in a way that very nearly destroyed his marriage.  All these elements are in the movie.

What we see is only a glimpse of is his uncommon valor. We don't see much of time spent in jail--where Dr. King was too often sentenced for his pursuit of basic rights for Americans.  We don't see many of his speeches where the possibility of rioting and destruction was all too present. We don't see his death at the hands of a white assassin.

What we do see graphically portrayed is the visceral deep-seated hatred that too many whites displayed against Africa-Americans. There are very few examples in the movie of whites who were moved to join this basic civil rights fight. But there some.

So, where do the movies differ? Apart from the understandable differences of stories being told about two different men being portrayed, perhaps the singular difference is in the length of their lives. Louis Zamperini, born in 1917, died very recently in mid-2014. Dr. King who was born in 1929 was assassinated in 1968.  And, of course, neither of the deaths feature in the movies.

The movies share one more common aspect--both have been controversial in that challenges were raised to the ways in which the stories were told, and how faithfully history was represented. Some evangelical Christians were upset that Unbroken ended before Zamperini's life-changing encounter with Christianity. And Selma has been controversial in the elements of history either omitted, or recast. There were many more nuances to the civil rights campaign--and at times the movie truncated those events. What has received more press has been the way President Lyndon Johnson was portrayed--as reluctant to get into the civil rights campaign.

A far better treatment of the way these two movies tell history is dealt with by my fellow blogger (and longtime friend) in her blog post: "Pondering History, Torture and Violence."  I commend it to you.

OK--now, off you go. Watch the Academy Awards. And afterwards I just might tell you if I picked any winners.

--------------------------------------------
*Laura Hillenbrand has her own story of struggle and resilience. While she was a student in college, she experienced a sudden debilitating weakness that was eventually diagnosed as being caused by chronic fatigue syndrome. Her life has been marked by her ups and downs with this disease. But despite the severe limitations it places on her life, she has managed to become a successful author.

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Going to the Movies--Entr'acte

(To the novice reader of this blog...are there any?...please note that the blog title suggests that there have been other "Going to the Movies" entries of late. Pray, go back two posts, should you wish to read Going to the Movies, part 1 and Going to the Movies, part 2. Otherwise, after you read this one, wait breathlessly for Going to the Movies, part 4--yet to be written.)

I read a recent article in the New Yorker by James Surowiecki titled "Rethinking the Seasonal Strategy" in which he notes that the predilection of Hollywood, which began in the early 1970s, to release movies seasonally based on the predicted popularity is beginning to break up. Surowiecki notes that "for decades, Hollywood's release strategy has been governed by a simple calculus: summer is for blockbusters, the end of the year is for classy, and the other months are for stuff you fear no one wants to see."

This year's early release in January breaks that strategy--Clint Eastwood's American Sniper had one of the biggest openings when it was released...in January.

But this review is NOT about American Sniper. Truth is, we have not yet seen this movie, and--frankly--I don't know if we will. I am by birth and persuasion a pacifist. Certainly, I watch war movies, and find many of them deeply moving. But I am not sure I am ready for a movie that glorifies the warrior, while taking note and illustrating the deep soul-searing effects war has on that person.

No, this review is about The Grand Budapest Hotel*. (Incidentally, The Grand Budapest Hotel was another one of those movies released "off season" in March, 2014.) And I am treating it alone because it is unlike any of the movies recently released. The only thing I could compare the movie to would be other Wes Anderson's film.  You can see titles of other films he has directed here.  Despite its having been released "off season" The Grand Budapest Hotel is one of the Academy Awards'  nominees for best picture of the year.



The Grand Budapest Hotel is set in the fictional country of Zubrowka in a fictional hotel some time between the world wars-- in the 1920s-1930s.  The title refers to a hotel in the grand old style--sprawling, lovely, evocative of a way of life long past. I think the hotel exterior looks like a fantastic confectionary creation of a cake...which is also what the movie is. 

Summarizing the plot is an exercise in futility. The story is told in flashback by an old writer (F. Murray Abraham) who sits in the lobby of the hotel, His audience is a young writer (Jude Law). In between is a rollicking delightful absurd confusing lovely humorous movie.

I loved the dialogue--rapid fire, intricate, laugh-out-loud lines. To recapture some of the best, I go to IMDB and read them. Bits of the best dialogue in the movie is featured in the previews--but don't avoid the movie thinking you got the best bits in the preview. There's so much more...lines that couldn't be included in the movie previews.

And I loved the characters.  This ensemble cast seems to have everyone currently in the movies these days as well as in television. The lead character--the hotel's concierge Monsieur Gustave H.--is played by Ralph Fiennes with a fine comic touch. Frankly, I would never have thought of him as comic actor--but he is perfect in this role. Many scenes are played with absolute straightness, but the context is so outrageous that the effect is comedy at its best. One such scene--that includes many cameo performances--occurs when Gustave H. calls on the connections of his fellow concierges in hotels all over Europe.

If you haven't seen the movie--or even if you have--you can read a summary of the plot. It helps you make your way through labyrinthine complications, which perfectly suit Europe's pre-World War II's complexities.

I think it is unlikely that this movie will be awarded the Oscar for best movie of the year...but, in many ways it is.  It is not only a comedy, albeit a dark comedy. It is also an insightful glimpse into Europe before the start of the last time the world was seized with war.  This article nails it--The Grand Budapest Hotel is a thoughtful comedy about tragedy.
--------- ----------------------------------------
* In looking back through past blogs, I find that in April, 2014, I speculated that this movie would NOT be picked as an Academy Award nominee.  It's nice to be wrong!

Friday, February 20, 2015

Going to the Movies (part 2)

YIKES...I better get moving. Only two more days before the golden statues start wandering into various stars' hands.

So, next two movies compared and contrasted: The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything.  This is probably the most natural pairing. After all, both are about British men who are real, not fictional. Both men are geniuses. Both men accomplished something that changed human history. And both are products of the 20th century.

Now for some differences.

First, perhaps for those who have not yet seen either movie, I should tell you what they are about.  The Imitation Game centers on the efforts of the Allies, specifically the
British, to break the Nazis' code which was used to send orders to various factions of their military effort.  The Nazis used a machine (code named Engima) to help set the encryption. At the outset of World War II, the Nazis' encryption was seemingly unbreakable. Not only was the encryption device a thing of mastery, but the code used was changed daily.  The Allies, who had captured an Enigma machine, tried mightily to see patterns in the string of letters being sent out, but every day any progress they may have made ended at midnight when the new code was put in place.  Enter Alan Turing, and many others, who were hired specifically by the British war effort to break the code. They were housed at Bletchley Park, in Buckinghamshire, England.  And they were sworn to complete secrecy.

The movie The Imitation Game compresses its story in such a way to make Alan Turing the center. There is justification in that--as Turing was a genius who is today regarded as the father of the computer.  Many other people were involved in this effort--a fact that gets a bit lost in the context of the movie. The secrecy to which people were sworn continued LONG after the end of World War II, and has only recently been given full coverage.  If you haven't read much about this aspect of World War II, do so--it is fascinating reading, worth any thriller novel that any writer could conceive.

The Theory of Everything is based on a book written by Stephen Hawking's first wife, Jane. While Stephen was a young man, in his early 20s, he began to experience muscle weakness, that was eventually diagnosed as motor neuron disease, or what today we call amytrophic lateral sclerosis. Such early onset of this disease is rare. Many things are amazing about Hawking: that he is still alive, decades after the start of the disease, that he persisted in an academic career despite towering odds against him, that he is a published author who continues to write, that he married--twice--and fathered three children.

The movie focuses on these early years, with his courtship of Jane, with his burgeoning academic career, and most obviously with his coping with a life-altering disease. 

So, now the contrasts between these movies. Even though both suffered through circumstances that made their lives difficult, Turing's eventual outcome was ignomy. He was a homosexual in an age that not only demonized that sexual orientation but also declared it illegal. The movie focuses in part on his being persecuted-although some historians challenge the movie's veracity. What is definite is that he died young, at age 42. There is some speculation that his death was suicide. It was not until some years after his death that he was recognized posthumously, with any record of "illegal" acts expunged.


Hawking's circumstance, of course, is that he has a disease which usually results in the person's death within a few years.  He has not only lived, but lived well and been recognized, lionized and given many appropriate awards for his ground breaking work, particularly on black holes.  The movie condenses this recognition into one touching scene where Hawking and his by then ex-wife go to Buckingham Palace where he is honored by the queen for his contributions to science.

Even if these movies were not about real men, it would be obvious that their stories differ in terms of inter-personal relationship. Turing is shown as socially awkward, distanced, and somewhat aloof. Hawking is playful, engaging, and mischievous. Both, of course, are wholly dedicated to their work and push themselves to limits.

These movies are very satisfying to watch, even though they are stories conventionally told, using the kinds of movie techniques we associate with good story telling. You won't leave the theater thinking--wow, what great cinematography, what great effects, what amazing scenes.  But you will leave thinking--Wow! What great men. What contributions to humanity. What triumph of the human will.

Monday, February 16, 2015

Going to the Movies...

…and so begins the annual mad dash to see as many of the Oscar nominated movies before actually Academy Awards ceremony begins.

As with other years, we chose to see some of the nominated films and skipped others. Of course, we may later change our minds and go see some of the nominees.  So, to help frame your reading, here are the nominees for Best Movie; Best Director; Best Actor and Actress; Best Supporting Actor and Actress. Yes, there are other categories but, be honest, do you really care?

BEST PICTURE
"American Sniper"
"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)"
"Boyhood"
"The Grand Budapest Hotel"
"The Imitation Game"
"Selma"
"The Theory of Everything"
"Whiplash"

DIRECTOR
Wes Anderson, "The Grand Budapest Hotel"
Alejandro G. Iñárritu, "Birdman"
Richard Linklater, "Boyhood"
Bennett Miller, "Foxcatcher"
Morten Tyldum, "The Imitation Game"

LEAD ACTOR
Steve Carell, "Foxcatcher"
Bradley Cooper, "American Sniper"
Benedict Cumberbatch, "The Imitation Game"
Michael Keaton, "Birdman"
Eddie Redmayne, "The Theory of Everything"

LEAD ACTRESS
Marion Cotillard, "Two Days, One Night"
Felicity Jones, "The Theory of Everything"
Julianne Moore, "Still Alice"
Rosamund Pike, "Gone Girl"
Reese Witherspoon, "Wild"

SUPPORTING ACTOR
Robert Duvall, "The Judge"
Ethan Hawke, "Boyhood"
Edward Norton, "Birdman"
Mark Ruffalo, "Foxcatcher"
J.K. Simmons, "Whiplash"

SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Patricia Arquette, "Boyhood"
Laura Dern, "Wild"
Keira Knightley, "The Imitation Game"
Emma Stone, "Birdman"
Meryl Streep, "Into the Woods"

Two caveats--first, we did NOT see all the movies from which the nominations are drawn. Second, it comes naturally to me to do analyses using compare and contrast. So, let the lesson begin.

The first pair of movies is Boyhood and Birdman.

WHAT?  I can hear you saying--how do these two movies relate.
Well, here are the comparisons I see.  They are both about life. They both use innovative movie making techniques. They both have a great deal to say about parent/ child relationships. And they both feature relationships that have failed.

Ah, but the differences? That's where the richness of each of these movies comes in.

Where Boyhood is about the beginning of life, and of course on into adolescent years, Birdman is about the end of life.  Or at least a career at its end.

As for technique, you must have heard about Boyhood's approach. Probably one of the most creative techniques ever employed by a director--the story is of seemingly real people (although they are fictitious) over 12 years. And, yes, it was filmed over those 12 years. The actors stayed with the project, so we not only get to see the sweet coming-of-age story unfold (almost in real time), we also get to see all of the characters grow older. We see the changes in their faces, and their bodies, which wonderfully conveys the changes in their lives.

Birdman is a far more compressed time frame, as is the filming technique. Many scenes in the movie are filmed as one long unbroken shot. You get the sense that not much editing was needed. The camera follows the characters around--the setting is a theater on Broadway--until you feel dizzy and lost from all the twists and turns.

As for parent-child relationships, that is the primary theme of Boyhood. We meet the parents of two young children--a boy named Mason, a girl named Samantha, the mother named Olivia, and her ex-husband, the children's father, named Mason Sr.  When they are young, we watch the children bantering and bickering. As they get older their sibling relationship stays real, although there is a bit more love between them.  Understandably, it is the relationship with each parent that is the primary focus. Since the movie is titled Boyhood, it is on Mason, Jr. that the movie concentrates. He and his sister see their father on weekends, primarily, so that relationship is less nuanced. The mother, who has the main responsibility for the children, is working through her own growth--returning to college, getting a job teaching, going through failed relationships. Through all of the twists and turns that seem so much like real life, we watch these people as they move through stages.

Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette are superb in their roles. And Lorelei Linklater (the director's daughter) is a believable young girl as Samantha. But the real star of this story is Ellar Coltrane as Mason, Jr. He is sheer delight to watch.

The parent-child relationship in Birdman is between Michael Keaton, as the father, and Emma Stone as his daughter.  Each of them has experienced failure that is almost debilitating. Keaton, as "Birdman" or Riggan Thomson, the real name of Birdman. Riggan was an actor who had several blockbuster movie roles as a super hero--Birdman. But that time has passed, and we meet him in the present when he is trying to resuscitate his career.  Stone, as Riggan's daughter Sam, has also failed although her youth belies the reason. She has been in treatment for drug abuse, and now seems aimless, having little motivation to do much.  The relationship, as depicted in the course of the story, has a rocky start but slowly moves toward a sweet father-daughter interaction.

The romantic relationships in the two movies are also complex. While the specific reasons differ, in neither movie have the characters established and maintained supportive loving relationships. 

There are several noteworthy scenes in each movie--at least, I have my favorites. I will share just one.

Toward the close of Boyhood, young Mason is getting ready to leave for college. He is with his mother, who has struggled to help get him to this point in his life. Suddenly, her face crumples, and she begins to sob. It seems almost out of character, at first, since she has been so strong. However, her reason is not exactly what you expect.  She has worked so hard--to better herself, to raise her children, to achieve success in a romantic relationship.  Seeing her son, her younger child, getting ready to leave to launch his life, she cries--she sees her life as being at its end. It is both funny and deeply touching.
------------------------------
Next blog post: The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything.



Friday, January 23, 2015

Truth...or Consequences

In the early days of television, there was a popular show called Truth or Consequences.  It was so popular that a town in New Mexico, originally called Hot Springs, changed its name to Truth or Consequences in response to the television show host's offer to air the program from the first town that renamed itself.  

Maybe that fast change of reality was a harbinger of ways in which truth...or consequences (for lack of truth)...would be adjusted in the times ahead.

Recently, the so-called Doomsday clock was readjusted to move the number of minutes to midnight at 3 minutes to midnight.  This "clock" was the product of the scientists on the Manhattan Project as a graphic way to demonstrate how close the earth is to self-destruction.  During its existence, the Doomsday clock has been readjusted 18 times.  Mostly, the clock has been used to indicate the possibility of earth's destruction due to nuclear proliferation.

No doubt the immense over-supply of nuclear weapons still threatens our existence, but this most readjustment included another threat to our planet--"unchecked climate change."

Truth...or consequences...BIG TIME.

Stephen Colbert introduced us to the concept of "truthiness"--which is in HUGE supply today.  In Colbert's brilliance, he staked out ground that it is his right to say what is true because "I don't trust books; they're all fact and no heart."  **

With the recent national election in the U.S., the Senate is now in control with the Republican majority.  That means committee chairs have changed--and the new chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is Senator James Inhofe.  As recently as 2012, Inhofe argued, citing Genesis 8:22, that “God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

I don't even know where to begin with that kind of reasoning.  It is indeed frightening that an elected official who has a major say in what the U.S. policy is in relation to controlling the negative effects of climate change can decide that we don't need to change because whatever is happening with the climate is God's doing.  

In other news, we are experiencing another example of "Truth or Consequences." After years of decline due to near universal immunization against measles, the U.S. is experiencing a startling resurgence of this disease.  The initial outbreak has been pinned to Disneyland where many people intermingle, and measles--a HIGHLY contagious disease--has spread through workers and visitors there. In turn, these people have infected other people, so that now an epidemic of measles is emerging.

Who are the people GETTING measles?--those who are under-immunized or NOT immunized. The main contributor to this outbreak are parents who refuse to have their children immunized. They have decided, using "truthiness", that--even though the facts are that immunizations save lives and immunizations do NOT cause autism--it is their right as parents to deny their children the protection of immunization.  They base their decision, in part, on a doctor from England who in 1998 published a paper that claimed to link the MMR (measles/mumps/rubella) vaccine with autism.  Since that paper was published, we have learned that the doctor MADE UP his data, and he was a complete fraud.


(Source of Graphic: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/just-how-contagious-are-the-measles-anyway/)

So now children suffer, and could die, because someone made up his own facts and asserted a relationship where none existed.

The saddest part of this tendency in humans--to make up their own facts or to deny facts that they wish not to acknowledge--is that SOMEONE suffers.  Children who get measles suffer, people living in areas threatened by rising sea levels suffer, animals faced with loss of habitat and extinction suffer.

It is time to face TRUTH...or suffer the CONSEQUENCES.
---------------------------
** I was tempted to comment on how Fox News has changed people's perception of reality...you know, make the charge and find the facts (if they exist) later...but that's for another time in this blog.