20 Feet From Stardom

I have always been entertained and fascinated by anything about the history of Rock and Roll.  This documentary (which just won the Oscar for Best Documentary a few weeks ago) not only is about Rock and Roll, but it tells a great story as well.  It examines the lives and careers of several people (mostly women) who have served as background singers to major stars.  Some of the people we hear from are people whose voices we have heard for years, but we have not had a name and a face to match the voice.

The principle character in this film ends up being Darlene Love, who ended up becoming a star in her own right, after years of being not only a background singer, but also being used by Phil Spector for her voice, all the while pushing other a "artists" who lip synced using her vocals.  Darlene Love has gone on to be a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and has become a legend as a solo artist.  The other singers about whom this film focuses all have had varying levels of success with solo artistry, and the movie does a good job of showing their different stories.

Merry Clayton rose to fame being the female vocalist on the Rolling Stones "Gimme Shelter".  She tells a funny story about how she sang the vocal with curlers in her hair.  Anyone who has heard the song and the words of her vocal can get a chuckle out of the notion that she sang the words with curlers in her hair.  Merry dreamed of having a solo career, but despite several efforts to make her dream come true, her solo work never sold albums.  She seems to be fairly comfortable in her own skin, but one cannot help but see some of the disappointment she still feels about not having more success with her solo career.

The most interesting person that I learned about in this movie was Lisa Fischer.  As is the case with everyone in this film, her vocals are familiar to me (she has worked with Sting, and now, she tours permanently with the Rolling Stones, and has for years), but I did not know her story.  Fischer was able to make it as a solo artist.  She won a Grammy in the early 90's for her solo work, but she opted instead to work in relative obscurity as a background vocalist.  She explains at one point in the movie that one of the reasons she does what she does is that she wants to be able to go to restaurants and not be recognized.  Fischer comes across as someone who is quite comfortable in her own skin.  She has tasted fame and glory, and is comfortable using her amazing voice in a way that takes the spot light off of her.

Judith Hill (a fellow Biola Eagle) rose to fame by working side by side with Michael Jackson on "This Is It."  She was working closely with him when he died, and the movie uses her in a way that is different from the other artists.  Since she is still young (the age when the other singers were doing their most famous work), she is at the stage where she is figuring out where she wants to go with her career. She wants a solo career, because that has been her dream.  Since she presently is pursuing that, the viewers don't know the end of her story.  Her story ends up reminding us that this dynamic is current as well.  As long as the need for background singers remains, there will be highly skilled people who can fill that role.  Furthermore, as long as the role of background singer remains, there will be singers who dream of being in the lime light.

I have written before on this blog about the fact that the best documentaries are not so different from other kinds of movies.  They tell a story that is every bit as engaging as fiction, and they use real life to tell their story.  The artistry that is brought to this film is effective because it gives us real people whose life has real drama.  Though we might not view these singer's plight as the tragedy that they do, their humanity shines through and we do feel sympathy for them.  The movie allows us to walk a mile in their shoes, and anytime we can do that, it is a credit to the film maker.  I walked away from this film feeling genuine sympathy for the singer's who have been ignored.  There is a great scene wherein Darlene Love talks about hearing one of her most famous songs on the radio while she was cleaning a house.  She had begun cleaning houses to make ends meet, and when she heard "Christmas (Please Come Home)", she realized she wasn't doing what she was supposed to be doing.  To me, it wasn't that cleaning was beneath her dignity.  It was more that she had been given a voice and an opportunity to use it that others would die for.  To see her go back to her craft and pursue it was great, and her story makes up a major part of the heart of this wonderful story.

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.

U2: From the Sky Down

    This is another documentary that proves that this genre of film is only at its best when it tells a story well, just like any other kind of film.  The film bills itself as a behind the scenes look at the making of U2's "Achtung Baby".  If it were that, it would be woefully incomplete and unsatisfying.  However, if one takes a look at what this film is really about, the viewer will find a very captivating and satisfying story.  It is a reflection not only on the artists who make up the band U2, but it also has a lot to say about art itself.

    "The Joshua Tree", U2's seminal work, came out in 1987, when I was 12. The album was everywhere.  I heard some of its songs without having the album because they were so inescapable.  I remember my dad listening to "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" on the car radio, and us discussing the song.  The album went on to win the Grammy for best album and catapulted U2 into super stardom.  At this point, the band members were in their late 20's, and they were learning to deal with this level of fame.  They were very earnest, and their political beliefs and sympathies were on full display at their shows.  As the 80's drew to a close, it was clear to them that if they did not go in a different direction soon, they might become boring, both to themselves and to their fans. 

    The band decided to go to Berlin and try something new.  They were under the influence of European electronic rock, and they were looking for a new direction for their music.  As they begin, they are unable to find a way forward together.  The drummer and the bass player feel that they shouldn't change things, since they have had so much success.  The lead singer and guitarist seemed frustrated that they could not communicate their vision to their band mates.  Old recordings coupled with interviews with the band members and the producers give us a structure to the narrative of the making of this album.  When things seem the most hopeless, the band begins to play around with a bridge for one of its songs, and they use that bridge to write another different song.  The original song became one of their biggest hits ("Mysterious Ways"), while the song that came from the bridge went on to become not only one of their classic works, but one of the great rock ballads ever ("One"). 

    But there is more to it than that.  Here, we see a story of 4 coworkers who are at odds and they come together to build something beautiful.  In the last couple of months, I have been listening to the song "One" a lot.  It is a beautiful song, mainly because it is honest about the fact that people are not unified.  We are "One" people, but since there is so much that divides us we are not the same.  However, we must work together to find a way forward.  This is a different kind of idealism.  It is an idealism born out of realism.  The story of the writing of "One" parallels what the band is going through, but it also makes a bigger statement about humanity.

    The film also boasts some wonderful moments about the artistic process.  The highlight of the film is the band members listening to the "One" sessions, and commenting on what is going on in the recordings.  These moments show us a lot about how U2 writes their songs.  For those of us who love U2 as a band, these moments provide some great texture.  They give us a picture to go along with the phrase we see on all of U2's albums ("All songs by U2").

    I have read some criticisms of this movie.  One is that in trying to show how they escaped taking themselves too seriously, the band members take themselves too seriously.  I think that criticism is unfounded.  For example, if someone were making a documentary of my life, part of what they would see is that I take my job in groceries seriously.  It may seem that I take it too seriously, but in my world, groceries play a big role (I work at Trader Joe's, for those of you who don't know).  So here, the seriousness with which they discuss their work may not necessarily be pomposity, but simply an acknowledgement that they take their craft seriously, but maybe not themselves.  Having seen and heard much of their work, it would seem that the band members that make up U2 still acknowledge their egos, but also have a gift for self deprecation.  They seem to be some of the most down to earth rockers you will find, in spite of the egos that are clearly on display in this film. 

    In the end, as I mentioned above, the movie tells a great story.  This documentary has a classic dramatic structure.  There is a conflict, a crisis, a climax and a resolution.  These are the elements that make up any good story, and they are on full display here.  To see this story is touching.  It is good to remember that these 4 musicians who have so much still have to work very hard to accomplish something in their line of work.  In that way, they don't seem that much different from me, or anyone else.

Into Great Silence

"Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper."
---1 Kings 19:11-12

The film maker Philip Groning uses this quote from the history of Israel as bookends to his extraordinary documentary. This is the 52nd entry on this blog. I have covered films from many different genres, and in several different languages. The more I watch movies, the more I become convinced that there are certain artistic statements that can only be made with film. While some feel the written word is the ultimate form of expression (and it is amazing), we must not forget that it is only a medium...it is not art itself. With each type of art (be it painting, music, film etc), there are certain things that can be captured that simply could not be caught any other way.

And so, we turn to this extraordinary work by Philiip Groning. It is so simple, yet so profound. The film maker lived in the Grande Chartreuse monastery in the French Alps for 6 months, and captured the lives of its residents on film. The film has no score, no written dialogue, and no special effects. It simply records the lives of the monks: the sights, sounds, and rituals. As such, the viewer can approach this work from a number of different angles. For the secular viewer, one could watch as the quiet lives of these men are recorded, and marvel at the simplicity of their lives, and the beauty of their surroundings. Groning's camera shows us a vast spectrum of nature. It shows us the majesty of the French alps, the quiet of a brook, the lines in an old man's face, and the meditative world that is the monastery. For the believer, this film can be one of two things. One, it could be a simple act of challenging our devotion to God and how much do we meditate on his work. One of the devices that Groning uses to to intersperse different prayers over a black screen during the film. This dovetails nicely into the second thing this film can be for the believer. The film itself can be an act of mediation on God and on his creation. The viewer can see men, young and old, eating together, worshiping together, living together. We can also see them conversing, walking in the mountains, and even enjoying some sledding on a nearby slope. The film takes a certain discipline to watch, and I think that is why this film can be a meditation in and of itself. As we see the discipline these men have over their lives, we are challenged to sit through it for a mere 2 and a half hours.

Silence and meditation is something which is lacking in my life. This film made me think of ways that I could taste this gift. I once read the great abstract expressionist painter Mark Rothko explain his paintings as webs of meditation. This film acts this way. It not only documents its subjects, but it allows us to come close to actually living along side them and practice along with them. The patience and commitment that it took to make this film is noteworthy. The hours and days it must have took in order to simply catch a second of magnificent beauty is noteworthy. If possible, it seems that the way to best experience this film would be in a movie theater. Only there would the viewer truly be able to be immersed in this world with all its sights, sounds and experiences. I was able to get a copy from my local library, and I watched most of it while jogging on my treadmill. It was a good way to experience the film since it takes a certain discipline for me to get on the treadmill.

This is a profound work. I love what it says about its subjects. It gives us a very honorable picture of these men who have devoted their lives to prayer and meditation. But this film also says a lot about film. It shows us another angle about what movies are, and the possibilities that lie within the art of cinema.

It Might Get Loud

I have already put down my thoughts on one of Davis Guggenheim's films ("Waiting for Superman). While the last one was a controversial and emotional film, this film is a great breath of fresh air. It reminds us why we spend so much time listening to music and finding out about the artists who make music. We do it because the stories behind people are fascinating, and when the person whose story is being told is someone whose art we love, we are immediately interested.

The film depicts the life stories and musical philosophies of three musical giants. They each represent different generations as well as different approaches and inspirations. The common thread that they share is the instrument that has become the passion of their life: the electric guitar. In depicting these three artists, we gain a new appreciation for what makes each of them unique. We also are entertained as we watch professional musicians' appreciation for other practitioners of their craft, and we get to see them play together.

The three guitarists who are the subject of the film are Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin, The Edge of U2, and Jack White of the White Stripes. The diverse backgrounds of these three alone could warrant a film. Jimmy Page grew up in working class England. The Edge grew up in turbulent Dublin Ireland in the 60's and 70''s. And Jack White came of age in a Mexican neighborhood in Southwest Detroit. Each of them give their story, and how they ended up coming up with the style with which they are now synonymous.

To me, what makes a great documentary is also what makes a great film of any other type. The film needs to tell a story and tell it in a way that engages me. There is a lot more to my philosophy of film watching, but a lot of it does come back to those two factors. In these two ways, this film works very well. It is about these three individuals, but it is also about what inspires all of us. For each of these musicians, inspiration was vital. Each of them get a chance to play some of their favorite music for the film, and we can see how it affects them. In my book, the most entertaining line comes from The Edge. The line is a reflection after seeing the film "This is Spinal Tap" for the first time, and on what he views as the excesses the 1970's. He states, "I didn't laugh. I wept." Here, we see that The Edge's story has to do with a different kind of inspiration. In part, he was inspired to do something different than what was going on rather than being inspired to do something similar.

At the end of the film, and interspersed throughout the film, the three of them sit in a studio and reflect on their work. It is fun to watch the Edge teach Jimmy Page how he plays "I Will Follow". And when Jimmy Page reflects on the construction of "Stairway to Heaven", you watch the two younger guitarists sit in awe of the guitar god.

Whether you love rock guitar or not, this is a great movie. That fact illustrates why it is great movie. If a filmmaker can take a subject, and then engage audiences with varying levels interest, that filmmaker has truly accomplished something.

Conan O' Brien Can't Stop

I have been a Conan O' Brien fan for many years. I remember watching his very first program, and being somewhat unimpressed. However, as the years went on, I started to see some of his absurd humor, and I couldn't help but start to become a fan.

In January of 2010, something happened which polarized many in the country. Thankfully, it was inconsequential, but it did inflame a lot of passion, especially in people my age and younger. Jay Leno (who represented the establishment for many) got his job back on the Tonight Show, and Conan O' Brien was fired from his dream job as the host of the Tonight Show. I thought he got a bad deal, but knew he would be back on television eventually. Between the time that he left the Tonight Show and began his new program on basic cable, he took a live show on tour across the country and sold out every venue. Along the way, he allowed himself to be filmed, and the product of that was this documentary.

It is a very entertaining film for two reasons. First, Conan is a natural comedian. He is a very funny man, and that translates here as he jokes around with his crew and his coworkers on the road. Also, the clips from the live show itself are hilarious. In the same vein, Conan appears to be very friendly. He gives a lot to his fans in the film. He knows that many of his most rabid fans have come to see his show, and he does his best to accommodate them. He even does this at times when he is not thrilled about the prospect. His bitterness at the obligation leaks out a couple of times in the film. One wonders what it would be like to see yourself on screen (if you happened to be caught by the filmmaker's lens) adoring Conan right after he is honest about the draining nature of showing love to his fans.

This segues into the second reason this film is so entertaining. It shows us a human being and his struggle with fame. We live in a harsh culture that sees celebrities as our servants. True, Conan chooses to travel far away from his wife and children. No one makes him. The settlement he reached with NBC was so lucrative that I would imagine that he didn't need the money the tour provided. Obviously, he did it because he loves entertaining people. But after a few months on the road, it is clear that some of the obligations of the job were taking its toll. He still puts on a smile and greets his fans, but the camera away from his fans captures his true feelings as well. It is interesting to me why Conan would want for this side of him to be given to his fans. But it is also refreshing. It shows us the very human side to this man, and that celebrity of this level is unnatural. That is why near the end of his tour, he longs for the simplicity of driving his kids to school. He knows that is a more realistic life, and he yearns for it. But, he also loves the interaction he has while performing, and so he will live with the tension.

This film is so important. We as a culture must learn that celebrities are doing a job, and we don't really know them. Ironically, Conan gives us a chance to know him a little better here, and we see ourselves in him. Who amongst us wouldn't yearn for simplicity when millions of people demand your attention. How would I do if young women who were strangers to me began throwing themselves at me? It is a tall order to carry that well, and the moments when we see the weight of it become too much for him, we remember that O' Brien is a human like the rest of us. And, even with his frustrations, he comes out even more lovable. I wonder if that's what he wanted.

Waiting for Superman

Can one discuss the content of a movie with political implications without being political? I don't know if I will do that or not, and maybe it doesn't matter. Though I will say that if one looks honestly at this movie, whatever one's background or political philosophy, I think it does make its case well, and it is a terribly absorbing piece of work.

For the sake of clarity and honesty, I will provide a bit of background. I am a person with a relatively libertarian philosophy. As such, I tend to view the public sector with suspicion. While some spend time eschewing the greed of corporate America (a clear reality, I might add), I tend to fret more about the excesses of government. Maybe I do this because I believe that while corporations exist for profit and not to serve, the government exists to serve its citizens, and the bigger government becomes, the harder it seems that it is for it to serve its citizens well. Like any other entity, if someone or something can focus on what it does well and succeed at that, one thrives. The moment there is overreach (despite good motives), things fall apart.

While this may not be the view that Davis Guggenheim brings to his emotional film about the public schools in the United States, he does want to show what he sees as a problem with the public schools. He admits to being a leftist who simply cannot send his own child to his local public school. This is his decision in spite of his deep belief in the fairness and opportunity of public education. While he holds that ideal, he sees the quality of education his children would receive at the local public school, and he chooses to send his child to a private school, because he can afford it. This sounds like a happy ending. The problem is that many people don't have the same option as Mr. Guggenheim (including myself). Then, the gloves come off. Guggenheim indicts the system mainly by critiquing a system that doesn't hold teachers accountable. This is the most controversial part of the film, since it hits so many nerves. Many teachers feel under attack in our country right now, and the views in this movie could contribute to that. The question the movie poses is this: is the system that has been constructed more in the interest of the teachers and their union, or is it in the interest of the students? To many that is a false dichotomy. Many would argue that the better off the teachers are, the better off the students will be. However, as one sees some of the students who are praying to win a lottery to get out of their dead end school, it is hard to figure out why so much of the establishment (that is, the teachers unions) view any change that might help students with so much suspicion.

The film is confident that the future of these children comes down to the teachers. The great question is, how does it change? The film has received critique because it seems to glorify the charter school as the answer, even though critics show that charter schools' success rates are no different than public schools. This is an important point, but it sort of misses the point that the film is trying to make. Guggenheim wishes to show some specific instances of ideas and systems that are proven to work. The idea is, if we know what works, let's encourage it. No one should believe that a charter school is the answer. The film doesn't really make that claim. What the film does show is systems that do work, and how reticent the unions are to think outside the box. The fine Americans who do the hard work of teaching are part of a system that most people agree is failing our children. This film provokes thought. It points out the urgency of the situation. What are we going to do about the rampant inequity in a system whose whole point is to provide equal opportunity? There are hundreds of answers to that question. We can disagree about those answers. But one thing is certain, this film is honest with the fact that we have a big problem.

Ken Burns' The War

Of all of the films of Ken Burns that I have seen, none surpasses "The War" in my estimation. This 7 part documentary on WW2 is rich, poignant and devastating. Most would call "The Civil War" his masterpiece. I can see why. That film was the first film that he did that reached a broad audience, and it brought the American public in contact with his style and sensibility. What makes "The War" the better film in my estimation is Burns' ability to take his own views out of the mix (for the most part) and let those who lived the experience tell the tale. He does that quite well in his other films through letters and film clips. But this film is special because when it was made, so many WW2 veterans were still around to tell their story. There are still many left, but so many have been silenced. Since the film is a chronological collection of anecdotes, the best way I can sum up the film's brilliance is by relating three anecdotes related to World War 2:

As 1942 drew to a close, the United States had been at war for a full year. That year, Paramount Pictures had released a film called "Holiday Inn", a musical starring Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire. In the film, an Irving Berlin ballad of holiday yearning called "White Christmas" made its first appearance. The song became a smash hit, and it resonated strongly with American troops overseas as they spent their first lonely Christmas away from home. Ken Burns uses home video footage of Luverne, Minnesota, a recording of the song, and a current video image of a film marquee to create a genuine feeling of nostalgia. As you watch the image of the GIs overseas, hear Crosby singing, and see the holiday images both old and new, the viewer is instantly transformed to that place and time. Now, I think of that time and place whenever I hear that secular carol.

At the end of the summer of 1944, the Allied troops were sweeping through occupied France. The great city of Paris was liberated. Here, Burns uses 4 different sources to create a meaningful experience of the liberation of Paris. First, the photographs and home movies of grateful Parisians greeting their American liberators sets a great tone. Second, the strains of the French National Anthem with a jazzy, Django Reinhardt style are the score used, giving the scene both a French feel, and an American overtone, since jazz is an American invention. Third, a jubilant letter written by a young African American GI is read, in which he relates the kisses he received from the Parisian women upon the liberation of Paris. And finally, and most moving, is the account given by Air Force Captain Quentin Aanenson of Luverne, Minnesota. Aanenson is featured throughout the film, recounting the horrors of the war and the weight associated with having to run deadly bombing missions over the continent of Europe. But here, his face has a light to it not seen elsewhere. For here, he recounts flying over Paris during the liberation and seeing the crowds on the Champs Elysses and at the Eiffel Tower all celebrating the liberation. He recounts how in that moment, all of the work they had done was starting to pay off. The viewer can't help but think of the hell this man had recounted in the film of the bombing missions he had run. Here, for the first time, he is seeing the results of the long, difficult engagement.

The last anecdote comes from the Pacific Front. A young Machinist's Mate arrives at the battle of Iwo Jima to see the fireworks of the battle from his ship. He recounts the seeing of banners imploring all of the Allied Troops to "kill the J--s, kill the bastards". He recounts seeing the flames scorching the enemy troops out of their caves on the islands in the Pacific. He leaves out how he got a medal due to being injured while doing a hand stand on a battle ship, but he includes an account of doing hand springs along Market Street in San Francisco to celebrate the victory in the War.

You will not find the last anecdote in the Burns film. Instead, it was an account that my grandfather related to his grandchildren at his home some years back. We sat and listened as he made the horrors and victories of the war come alive for us. I bring it into this entry because not all Americans have what I have-a direct account of the atrocities of World War 2. Burns gives that to us in this film-the accounts that are close enough that we still have them, but feel so distant that we must listen to them to bring us back into the cold realities of war. It has now been almost one year since my grandfather's passing, but when he was laid to rest, I had a new appreciation for what he had done. As the Naval officer played "Taps" and the soldiers folded the flag and handed it to my grieving grandmother, the realities of war came crashing down upon me. This man, with so many others, had lived through a terrible ordeal. Burns makes this so human in this film by getting out of the way and letting the people who lived through it tell their story, just like Papa did.

Ken Burns' Baseball

With April comes the baseball season, and my favorite sport gets underway. What better time to write about a film devoted to it? Sometimes the subject of a movie is so close to my heart that I can overlook its faults. Such is the case with Ken Burns' 20+ hour ode to America's National Pastime, "Baseball."

The film traces the history of the game from its rudimentary beginnings as an ancestor of rounders and cricket to its place today as a second fiddle to the more popular national obsession of football. The film works very well because the people who made the film love the game, and the people Burns interviews love the game. In the accompanying book, the reader discovers that the film seeks to show how the national game mirrors the struggles of its country. As such, the filmmakers focus on the Boston Red Sox and Brooklyn Dodger as teams that play out that national drama. Furthermore, the Yankees receive much attention just due to their prowess.

The film also sprinkles in other names and anecdotes that are essential to the game's history. With such a grand history, Burns could not possibly cover it all. But he makes a fatal flaw by making the game so much about New York and Boston that one is unable to see the joy of those outside those cities. Two specific anecdotes come to mind. As Bill Maseroski hits his World Series winning HR in the 1960 World Series against the Yankees, we see no gleeful musings from Pirate fans, instead, we see Mickey Mantle talk about how he cried all the way home after the game(the Yanks had won 7 titles in the 50s, and would win two more in '61 and '62) and Stephen Jay Gould (the late paleontologist and Yankee fan) say how his friends must never bring up that HR in his presence. Also, in 2001, the film shows the D-Backs vanquish of the Yanks again as a tragedy for the Yanks, who had just won 3 titles in a row. In these cases, Burns fails to live up to his hypothesis that this is the national game. By not showing the winning side of the matter, he makes the game about the Northeast, and forgets how the passion of fans in Western PA, the Midwest, and the West also contribute to the drama of the game. Clearly, an attempt at an exhaustive look at the game's history would diminish the film, but the willful disregard of over 90% of the country and how it experiences this supposed national game is missing. The movie is at its best when it focuses on the Negro Leagues...it would have been nice to see similar focus on other smaller markets and their triumphs (1985 Royals, 1980 Phils, 2005 White Sox, etc.)

I love the film, but it is so flawed that it still frustrates me. I will soon cover another of Burns' films that I believe hits the right note. Until then, play ball!!

The Fog of War

I approached this film with an open mind. I like to think that I am open to the truth not as I see it but as it is. Also, I was eager to watch a film by Errol Morris, a man who I had heard of for years, but I had seen none of his films.

The philosophical question of what makes a film a documentary is debated from time to time. Some say it must be factual (a critique I remember hearing a lot from the political right when Michael Moore's films are released). Some say they are simply the director's opinions set to film, and they needn't be factual in the strict sense, because that would eliminate artistry. I agree with the latter. After all, why make a film when a filmmaker could simply release a list of facts instead? The reason to me is that all of us as humans must find ways to express ourselves artistically.

As art, this film is extraordinary. It is built around a series of interviews with Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense for John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. He was intimately involved in the planning and execution of the Vietnam War, as well as a trusted advisor to Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The movie's point, it seems to me, is to cast shrouds of mystery around any supposed black and white morality surrounding the concept of war. Since war is only a result of the fallible nature of humanity, it seems only natural that this horrible action called war would contain numerous ethical dilemmas. In interviewing McNamara, Morris seems to want to show how we as a country have failed due to getting involved in different conflicts. At times, certain actions within a conflict are questioned (for instance, the dropping of the A-Bomb on Japan is dealt with, but the just nature of WW2 is not questioned) while other times a conflict itself is brought to trial (Vietnam is not seen as a justifiable conflict.).

It is not hard to make war a complex topic. It is hard to make a film that is so watchable and engaging, even when I may have different views than the filmmaker. I got the feeling that the military complex as a whole is under suspicion, as it should be. I wonder where the line is between conscientious objection and a realization that certain conflicts are unavoidable and we must be prepared for the worst. No one would love to see the world eradicated of weapons more than myself...but can we, given the nature of humanity? The great thing about this film is it gives its point of view, but allows the viewer (whatever point of view he/she brings) to wrestle with the ideas along with McNamara.

In closing, I also love the style of the film. Morris uses a device called an Interrotron, which allows him to look directly into the camera when answering questions. This gives the film more humanity. McNamara may have made questionable decisions in his career, but this film shows him as one small man dealing with an overwhelmingly complex world, and trying to make sense of it.