Ken Burns' Prohibition

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  I have always been a fan of the Ken Burns' films, but this one seems so timely.  As we in the USA grapple with the role of government, particularly as it relates to the morality and behavior of its citizenry, the message of this film and in the Prohibition era could not be more timely.  The ironic thing to me is that I think that it touches much more than Burns himself might suspect. 

The thesis of the film is that anytime the government of the United States attempts to regulate the private morality of its citizens, the government will face rebellion and enormous problems.  The film is broken up into 3 episodes, each 90-105 minutes long.  Episode 1, "A Nation of Drunkards", traces the history of what was called the temperance movement.  This was the movement that began in the 1800's which called for making alcohol illegal.  It eventually succeeded when the 18th amendment of the Constitution was passed that limited alcohol's distribution.  Then, the Volstead Act went even farther and made nearly all drinking illegal.  Episode 2, "A Nation of Scofflaws", traces the fallout after Prohibition is finally enacted.  It mainly shows the business opportunities that were created by the law.  It interviews sons and daughters of bootleggers, and gives great insight into what Prohibition opened up the door to.  Episode 3, "A Nation of Hypocrites", traces the downward spiral caused by Prohibition.  It shows the horrible crime in Chicago, the stock market crash of 1929, and the eventual repeal of the 18th amendment in 1933.  Along the way, the film does a fantastic job of showing how this law become a reality (after all, it is hard to believe that at one time you could get 66% of the elected officials in the country to agree to anything, let alone making Schlitz illegal), and why the reality failed.  What intrigues me is what we do with the notion that the government cannot legislate morality.  To me, that phrase is problematic.  To one degree or another, the government has to regulate the morality of some things, the problem becomes whose morality do we legislate and when do we do it?

Ken Burns' films always do a wonderful job of showing the paradoxes that make up the American experience.  In "The Civil War", the paradox was the constant struggle between centralized Federal Power and states' rights.  In "Baseball", the paradox was the struggle between management and labor, as the film focused on the rights of the players versus the powerful owners.  In "Jazz", the viewer is asked to grapple with the fact that the most American of art forms, jazz, was created, nurtured and perfected by a group of people who had been enslaved and made second class citizens.  All of his films seem comfortable to leave some tension, even while they do make moral judgments.  "Prohibition" fits right in with the rest of this films.  For one thing, it reminds us that public discussion of people's private morality is not anything new.  We seem to think that our generation is the first to deal with that, but every generation does.  True, the topics might change over time, but in the end, the basic conflict is remarkably similar.  The other wonderful American paradox that is present in this film is the ongoing struggle between rural America and urban America.  In the 20's, rural America got its way, and urban America would have none of it.

The trick then becomes when does the general welfare of the whole become enough of an issue to legislate something.  Right now, there is a debate raging in the nation because some think that government mandated health care is in the whole country's best interest, while others feel that it is an interference of the government to legislate that people buy health insurance.  It is actually humorous to see the historians speak with such conviction regarding how erroneous prohibition was, because the folks who favored prohibition were making many of the same arguments that are made today regarding health care.  This is not to say that the argument for health care is not valid, but it is to say that we need to be careful to not judge laws too harshly before we see how they work out.  With prohibition, Burns does a fantastic job of giving this law context.  It makes sense how this law came to pass given the nation of drunkards that did indeed exist pre-1920.  But now, we have the luxury of reflection and knowing how the law ended up doing.  I suppose the best thing we can learn from films like this is that we need not cling to tightly to laws, even if we are in favor of them.  A fair person should be able to look at both a laws content and it effectiveness and make a judgment as to whether or not it will stand.

All of this content and historical ruminating would be interesting enough on its own.  But Ken Burns is a filmmaker, and there is an art to what he does.  The voices that he has read the news articles and writings are always great.  In the film, we hear familiar voices such as Tom Hanks, John Lithgow, Samuel L. Jackson and others.  Also, his choice of music is wonderful.  The music infuses the time with so much life.  Burns also does a wonderful job giving us many images of glasses being filled with beer or liquor.  He gives us shots of bars that have clearly been through a long night, and he gives us the sounds of tinkling glass, pouring liquid, and celebratory cheers.  All of these effects made me thirsty.  It was as if the filmmaker was intentionally showing the aesthetic beauty of alcohol to make the viewer yearn for it, all the while reminding the viewer that this human pleasure had been made a federal crime for a time.

The film also does a wonderful job of taking the good with the bad,  There are several interviewees who are recovering alcoholics.  There is even a snippet at the end of the film which depicts the forming of Alcoholics Anonymous, an organization which had its origin right after prohibition was overturned.  Alcohol is a substance that is abused after all, and that truth is not glossed over.  But what Burns does is give us another wonderful meditation on the meaning of freedom and what it means to be an American.  As we now struggle as a nation with health care, abortion, gay rights, gun control, and a host of other topics, let us all remember that we all have our moralities.  We all feel we may have the answer for what could make a better country.  Let us all be humble and reach solutions together.  As I see the increasing dissonance again between the metropolitan cities and the quiet country sides of America, I hope that we can work together, realize that we can't get anywhere separately, and see what we have in common instead of focusing on differences.  If we don't, I fear we could see something again like the craziness of the 1920's.

Les Miserables Trailer

Great looking trailer...

Back to the Future

Few movies define my early adolescence like this one.  It came out when I was ten years old.  I had watched Michael J. Fox on TV ("Family Ties"), and I was excited to see this movie.  When the movie was released, it was a smash hit.  The buzz about it was enough that I got very excited to see it even as a young boy.  I first saw the movie on video, and I loved it instantly.  As a young boy, I didn't appreciate all of its complexities, but I did love the comedy and the action sequences.

Only now do I realize just how special this movie is.  It is part science fiction, part romantic comedy, part screwball comedy, part satire, and wholly entertaining.  Michael J. Fox plays Marty McFly.  He lives in a typical suburb with two pathetic parents in the year 1985.  His father George (Crispin Glover) has spent his life being bullied by a local thug named Biff Tannen.  Biff makes George do all of his work for him.  This situation has caused George's wife Lorraine (Lea Thompson) to turn to the bottle for comfort.  Marty seeks any escape possible from his home life.  This comes in two ways.  First, in his girlfriend Jennifer.  And second, in his good friend Dr. Emmett Brown (a wonderfully zany Christopher Lloyd).  Doc Brown has invented a time machine.  In a remarkable turn of events, Marty uses the time machine and ends up in 1955 during the early stages of his parents' courtship.  However, Marty's presence keeps his parents from meeting, and his own existence becomes endangered.  This is made even more complicated by the fact that Marty's mother falls in love with him instead of his father.  Marty has to figure out a way not only to get the time machine working with 1955 technology, but also to get his parents to fall in love so they can eventually conceive him.  The setup alone is outrageous and entertaining.  The situations that it causes are movie legend.

Since Marty is seeing his parents as young people that are his own age, he has a certain omniscience.  He knows his parents' stories, or at least the ones they have told him.  The truth that he sees is obviously somewhat different at times than what his parents had told him.  Also, there is a certain power that Marty has due to his own history.  So, when he confronts Biff Tannen as a 17 year old, he can feel free to treat him in ways he would never treat his father's friend in 1985.  As he clubs Biff and ends up chasing his car into a truck full of manure, one cannot help but think that Marty takes a lot of satisfaction in pummeling this jerk who has terrorized his father.

But the comedic situation which resonates the most is the Oedipal plot device of Marty's mother falling in love with him.  This creates moments in the movie that are at once hilarious and horribly uncomfortable.  As Marty attempts to play matchmaker for his own parents, the situations in which he finds himself make for one tight spot after another.  While all this is going on with his parents, Marty also has to work with Doc Brown on a way to get him back to his own time. 

Movies like this are small miracles.  Robert Zemekis directed this film, and he does an amazing job of pulling all of the subplots together to make a coherent single story.  This is done in a way wherein the action never lets up, the characters are believable, and the climax of the film actually brings you to the edge of your seat.  Since the movie tells such a timeless story, it holds up well even though the movie's time setting is a big part of it.  The movie is able to be timeless but still capture a moment in time.  Even though the movie ended up having two sequels (which were both good I might add), they don't hold a candle to the original.  This is one of those pieces of movie magic where all of the pieces came together in a very special way.

Trailer Tuesday: The Great Gatsby

This film that will come out in December is based on what may be my very favorite novel.  The trailer looks promising...especially director Baz Lurhmann's vision of Roaring 20's New York.  I am so excited to see this adaptation that I began reading the novel again tonight...