john's thoughts

reflections on art and life, society etc

  • The Ghosts of Movies Past–The Uninvited

    I originally thought of this title for a series about old films some time ago and I guess the title came to me by way of memories of “A Christmas Carol.” But I waited long enough to begin, that it now fits the season of Halloween. By “ghosts” here, I mean mostly the former, the lingering effect of films, both in the minds of individuals and in the rather ephemeral but I think important national subconscious-at least the subconscious of movie fans. So I begin with two kinds of ghosts to talk about, the effect of a movie and the subject of the movie itself.

    “The Uninvited(1944), is, technically, an American film but it sure seems like a British one. Set in Cornwall in the spring-summer of 1937, it concerns a brother and sister(Ray Milland and Ruth Hussey)who, while on vacation, discover a large, long deserted house and become determined to buy it. He is a London music critic and composer and she is, apparently, independently well to do. They pool their resources and succeed in getting the house, purchasing it from the owner, a crusty old carryover from Victorianism(Donald Crisp), and also come into contact with his overprotected and somewhat intimidated granddaughter, Stella(Gail Russell).

    The film, like most at the time, and fortunately, I think, in this case, is in black and white. It begins with a wide-vision shot of the sea and the audience gets to see white caps as the waters come ashore on the rocks. They also get to hear the sound of this. Meanwhile, they hear Milland doing a voice-over regarding the coasts of lands that border this part of the sea and their propensity for providing a background for ghostly events. This all sets the scene nicely and puts the viewer in an agreeable tingly mood.

    I will not go into the film in great detail here, but you need to know a little of what happens. The granddaughter, much against her Grandfather’s wishes, makes friends, barely, with the two Londoners. She and Milland seem to have a quick, closeness between them, and the stage seems set for romance, particularly when Milland writes her a song. But instead there is uncertainty and fear(“Stella By Starlight” became a jazz/Great American Songbook hit–you still might hear Miles Davis’s and other versions of it on Sirius “Real Jazz”)

    On the first night brother and sister are together in their new home, Milland hears the sound of a woman sobbing. His sister explains that during the weeks he was cleaning up details in London and she was civilizing the house, she heard this several times, and no, it’s not Lizzie, the housekeeper, whose cat behaved oddly and refused to go upstairs. “It comes from everywhere and nowhere,” she says. Yes, indeed.

    Without going into revealing details, I will merely say that this is the beginning of a tense and compelling ghost story that does not terrify you with nut cases running around with chainsaws, but may make your hair re-arrange itself a couple of times and send through you a couple of chills, so you feel as if you had just come inside on a cold winter day. Questions are asked and not, immediately, anyway, answered. The history of the house is studied and eventually, after quite a bit of tension and suspense, there are a number of ghostly manifestations(along with some explanations, too).

    If you check this out on-line you will find many people praising it. But some regard it as weak stuff, nothing like today’s “shock” films with noise, blood and violence. This is, in my opinion, a good thing. This movie is not about physical violence. It is about subtle, spiritual and psychological haunting and the different but still chilling fear it can bring. It is way more sophisticated than the gross chop ’em to bits type. It is by far my favorite supernatural film–“The Haunting” from the 1960’s would be second, but for all its qualities it is not equal to this.

    Part of the reason for this film’s excellence is found in the efforts of the director, Lewis Miller. Every scene seems to fit, to be an integral part of the story. The appearance and atmosphere of the house are allowed to play a significant role, but one you see or sense in the background, just part of the scenery of chills. When the manifestations do appear, they are not clear–they are foggy and indistinct, like something from a dream or a surrealist artist, as if telling us that this is not just a matter of other people, it’s other people from outside our reality, but real and perhaps threatening all the same.

    Given the movie’s age you might expect to creak a little bit–and it does, but only slightly. Some of the romance is a bit contrived and the attempts at humor are clearly several decades behind the curve. But these count little, they are a small part of the overall story, maybe 5% or less of the movie. And there is the brief presence of the elegant and unusual Cornelia Otis Skinner who in a very busy life acted a little bit and maybe should have more. Her teacher/counsellor is a combination of authoritarianism and doubtful sanity that you won’t forget.

    This is not a movie for people who want to be “shocked” by violence and mayhem and screaming. It is about the mystery and spookiness of encountering the supernatural and trying to figure it out, and being both afraid on one hand and anxious to learn on the other. It’s a film for people who like mystery in the most serious and meaningful sense of the term, the kind that sneaks up on you after midnight, and spooks your mind and soul rather than threatening your body. In an era where so many movies have the grossest violence with almost no subtlety at all, it is a reminder of civilized behavior and presumes it can exist among both those of flesh and blood and the wandering spirits. Try it, you might really like it.

    (Other than the common title, this film has nothing to do with the one made in the late 2000’s, maybe 2009 or thereabouts. I watched about 20 or 25 minutes of it once which was enough to determine that 1) The stories are not connected and 2) I was wasting my time)

    , , ,

  • Foreign Policy conundrums

    It must seem to the President that every time he gets one thing settled and back to “normal”(whatever that would be in the White House)another crisis appears. Of course, that has likely been the case for every President since Teddy Roosevelt or maybe since George Washington. But Joe Biden has put great effort into dealing with the economy and other domestic/”political” issues lately only to have new crises appear abroad, some predictable, some not.

    We may, for now anyway, dismiss the balloon issue. Biden obviously did right with the first one, ordering it eliminated after it was out of American air space or at least in a location where it was very unlikely to threaten people or property in the US. The next three will likely never be explained and perhaps need not be. They appear to have been of very low level threat status if of any at all.

    But other, more serious things are bubbling out there when it comes to national security/foreign policy. As he deals with the banking issue, he also has had, suddenly and unpredictably, a very potentially serious matter with the Russians over a drone they harassed(if you can harass an unmanned vehicle, anyway) and which was later downed, apparently by the US and is now missing.

    But there were at least three possible serious foreign policy issues to deal with before that and as you have likely guessed I am going to comment on them and what they mean or may portend. The issues involved are the apparent rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the current political mess in Israel and the looming possibility of some kind of conflict, possibly military, bewteen the US and China over Taiwan. There are some connections here.

    The Iran-Saudi deal seems to have taken a number of peope by surprise, ranging, perhaps, from the supreme knowledge of British Intelligence to the lofty analysts of CNN. I’m guessing, of course, at these two, I just picked two of the more reliable of information gathering agencies in the world. But it appears almost no one “saw this coming,”

    Though both Saudi Arabia(SA) and Iran are Moslem states and both growing economic and military powers, they are quite different. They represent almost, if not quite, the only significant groups within Islam. The Sunnis are represented by SA and the shiites by Iran. Historically(and this quarrel began about 1500 years ago, or three times as long ago as the Christian Reformation)Sunnis have dominated, representing about 85% of the Moslems in the world and the Sh’ites about 15%. The basic beliefs are largely the same, but the Shi’ites have usually exhibited more of what seem to Jews and Christians the more bizarre elements of the faith.

    There was a time when I thought–and, I confess, occasionally told students–that the Shi’ite were slightly the more fanatical of the two. But the rise to dominance of Al Queda and ISIS, both Sunni organizations, changed my mind on that. Both sides have some passably reasonable leaders. Both sides have some fanatics. Neither is palatable to all of the Western and/or Judeo-Christian view of the world, but deal with them we must if there is to be peace of any reasonable kind.

    But now we have the SA-Iran bromance brewing and, being an ex-history teacher, I quickly looked for historical precedents. There is one, an easy one to find for anyone familiar with 20th century Europe. That would be the notorious Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939. Nazism and Communism were both totalitarian forms of government and were remarkably similar in learning to crush dissent and oppress dissenters. But they were, in theory at least, deadly enemies. Communism was a form of Marxism which I think would have been nearly unrecognizable to Karl Marx.

    But they at least used his attacks on capitalism and on religion, which he saw as a support for it, as their starting point. Since Marxism was traceable to 1848 and the “Communist Manifesto” they were working with something nearly a century out of date, but that did not matter to Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin who went their own way, proclaiming themselves the inheritors of Marx, while establishing a police state based upon the writings of the man who predicted that after the “revolution” the state would “wither away.”

    They also pushed Marx’s philosophical materialism. That is, they recognized no reality other than what could be seen, touched or heard, things that could be seen in everyday life by most people or that could be established by a scientific laboratory. Anything else such as speculation, faith, curiosity, or an interest in the possibility of a non-material reality was forbidden and dismissed as stupid and impossible. The fascists, Nazis included, knew perfectly well that the first thing they needed to do was to provide jobs and economic security. But they also realized that most people desire something beyond mere material comfort and they provided it with a bizarre form of emotional patriotism and racism. Emphasizing the emotional as much as the material, they exploited Romanticism in its most debauched form and married it to totalitarian efficiency. This worked for-well, awhile.

    The hatred between the two was often quite real and for years through the 30’s it seems likely that some of the more fanatical on each side wished for a war. But in 1939 Hitler wanted to invade Western Europe and not have to worry about Stalin and the Russians hitting him from behind, thereby thrusting on him a two front war. At the same time, Stalin likely wouldn’t have done this for awhile because of weaknesses in the Red Army, mostly caused by his “purges” of a few years earlier. Stalin wanted some time to get his military back to full strength. So each side had a motive for wanting “peace” of a sort with the other for at least a short time. When they agreed to the pact in August, 1939 many believed it was bound to be violated sooner or later. They were right. It lasted until 1941 when it no long suited Hitler’s purpose.

    SA and Iran similarly have been enemies for years, more than a decade and one might argue a good deal more. Part of this is caused by the above mentioned religious differences, the Sunni-Shi’ite thing. But there is also this–when it comes to economic power, military power and, well, power in general these two are serious rivals and one could see them as being on a collision course. The are the two leading military and economic powers of southwest Asia and each is determined to be number one. Neither one is willing to give a whole lot, though apparently more now than, oh, say, a few weeks ago.

    There is a very good Reuters story on this you can find on line dated today, Mar 16. According to Reuters, this deal is more an agreement not to make war than it is a lot of specifics. China is said to have been chosen to help broker the deal(which they did–in China)as Iran mistrusts the US. One could argue that Iran has good reason to mistrust the US and the US has even better reasons to mistrust them, but the idea makes sense for these negotiations.

    Reuters stated that an Iranian official, not identified, said the subjects covered by the talks included security, economic and political issues. This is not really big news(what else would they start with?)but it does indicate on each side there are people are willing to deal seriously or at least wish to be taken for doing so.

    It appears that both nations intend to work for Persian Gulf Security and a guaranteed oil flow, which might have good results for the West, as well as helping their own economies. Each country is pledging, though apparently not on paper yet, that neither will be a source of insecurity for the other. One Iranian indicated that future difficulties between the two would be handled in what he described as a “controlled” manner.

    The US is in a delicate diplomatic position here. Iran is an implacable foe of nearly a half century standing. SA is a difficult and sometimes embarrassing ally. China is likely going to replace Russia someday, after Ukraine, as our main antagonist. Seeing China intervene in Africa(which she has been doing) and now southwest Asia/Middle East is not comforting. Nonetheless the US has been muted so far in its response to the Chinese/Iran/SA confab and perhaps this is the right response. For one thing, we have enough on our plate right now without getting involved directly in this issue. For another, it doesn’t do for a Great power to dither in public, which is about all we could do considering the combination of foreign and domestic issues before us. It may be best to maintain a discreet silence, at least for the present. But there is potential trouble as well as some hope in this and the President and the Secretary of State will have to listen carefully and tread carefully if they’re not to create more problems than they solve. And remember, folks, what happened to that 1941 agreement. We hope, for the good of the world and the Mideast, that this agreement has good results, not just hopeful promises. But it could go the way of the USSR-Nazi agreement, too.

    I still want to deal with the Israeli political situation and the Chinese, the US and Taiwan, but not right now–like Sec Blinken we have enough on our plates for tthe moment. I’ll try to be back soon with the rest.


  • The Ghosts of Movies Past–An Elegiac Wrapped in an Elegiac–“The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence”

    I thought I knew what “elegiac” meant, but nonetheless looked it up before settling on my title. Roughly speaking, it means a poem or song about the past; more loosely interpreted it could be a story, a novel, etc–or a movie. It usually , literally or by implication, bids farewell to someone or something and there is usually a feeling of melancholy and regret about it. “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”(TMWSLV or just LV) fits the bill quite nicely.

    I had, of course, seen LV years ago–how many times I do not know for it played in a theatre where I worked most of the time from the end of my junior year of high school until I graduated from college. TCM recently presented it and I took advantage of their good choice. It is not just a good movie, it is a very good one, verging on greatness. In fact, it is my no 3 on my list of Westerns after No 1, “Warlock,” and No 2 “The Searchers”–“Searchers,” incidentally, like LV, was directed by John Ford.

    By watching this movie you get two elegiacs and if you’re as affected by good ones as I am you get more opportunities to shed a heartfelt tear or two. First of all, set about a decade into the 20th century, the story itself is an elegiac to the 19th century west, the old Wild West we know from movies and the real one which was somewhat different from the Hollywood version, but perhaps not so much so as to make Hollywood a total liar.

    The movie is set in an unspecified state somewhere in or near the Rockies and with a lot of grazing land. Wyoming and Colorado both jump to mind, but it’s not really that important. Travel is still mostly by buckboard and the small town still looks much like the old west. But from the conversations and attitudes of the characters it is clear a new era has began. The characters may not be entirely aware of this, but somewhere in the backs of their minds they know it. And it is brought out in their daily lives as they go about the business of accommodating a new century and its ways, perhaps sometimes without realizing it. And although they don’t make a big point of it, the old ways still linger in habits and attitudes and will for another generation or two. Of course a world war, a depression and another world war might speed up things a bit.

    But the old ways are passing and as a symbol of this we have an elegant and aging couple, Sen Ransom Stoddard(James Stewart) and his wife, Hallie(lovely Vera Miles who broke my heart many times in my teens and early 20’s). They have come back to Shinbone not for political reasons, but on a private mission of love and regret. Their old friend Tom Doniphon has just died and they are there to honor him and perhaps revive a memory or two. But they are well dressed and a bit Eastern now in their manners and they clearly belong to a past that is fading. We will return to this narrative shortly.

    So one elegiac is to the old West. The other is to the old west’s champion in the 20th century, Western Movies. The first more or less coherent American film we know of, “The Great Train Robbery”(1903?) is a Western and Westerns continued to be made from time to time But they picked up briskly in the 1930’s and over about the next generation they dominated, into the early 1960’s when they began to fade, though never quite fading away entirely, certainly not in the American collective subconscious. They continue there, perhaps being one of the causes of some of our political peculiarities of the past decade or so.

    But LV reminds us of the way Westerns were once, when my generation was young and the makers of the Westerns were getting old. This was the classic era of the genre and it gave us “The Treasure of Sierra Madre” and “Duel in the Sun,” , “Ft Apache” and “Pursued” and “Red River.” A little later it had even better gifts–“High Noon” and “The Gunfighter,” and “Shane, ” and two I’ve already mentioned, my Nos 1 and 2, “Warlock” and “The Searchers.” There was no one plot–the plots varied to a fairly large extent. But the background or setting, geographical and, more importantly, psychological, was often the same.

    There was The Hero, usually an out of towner or been-long away returnee or perhaps a community leader such as a rancher. But more often he was a loner and he usually started out defending the innocent or pursuing a bad guy or guys, frequently without a lot of support. Somewhere along the way The Girl would put in an appearance and their tangled romance would be the subplot or perhaps a part of the overall plot. (Jo An Fleet in “Gunfight at the OK Corral,” for example). Sometimes there was a competitor for her affections, often a tenderfoot who was no match for the Hero or a bad guy who was–well, no match for the Hero.

    There was sporadic violence and threatening and eventually a violent climax, a group one(“The Big Country”) or more typically and one on one shootout in the street(“The Fastest Gun Alive”). All of these were subject to some changes and elaborations from time to time, but for twenty years or so the pattern pretty much held. I would not insult these really fairly noble films, nor their creators, by defining them as being of the “formula” variety, but it was impossible not to note the similarities. And the longer they went on the easier it was for the similarities to drift into cliches, though perhaps not so badly as you might expect. But perhaps the film makers thought they noticed a desire on the part of the public for something a little bit different And perhaps they were right.

    The time was coming when the heroes would be less heroic and the situations more nuanced and less morally clear cut. The heroes would have feet–or at lest the occasional toe–of clay and the bad guys might have a certain elan to them. It was not the time of the “Spaghetti Western” yet when LV was released but it was only a few years off and by the end of the decade would be taking over the Western genre. And the Hero and the Girl and all the rest went with the old movies or at least were somewhat marginalized.

    And I think this was anticipated, perhaps not extremely consciously, by both fans and film-makers, and that deep down they all realized an era was ending. The actors and the directors were sometimes still the same and the stories weren’t that different, but by the early 1960’s something was changing. In 1962 when LV was made the changes had not yet gone too far, but some people were noticing, both with TV and the movies. I remember a joke about adult Westerns being now the “good guys v the neurotic guys.” And there was some truth in this and while that truth was more in the planning stage than on the screen, enough of it was manifest to bring about a feeling of nostalgia on the part of fans–and apparently film makers too.

    The movie business, like most businesses draws plans and it was perhaps noticeable to the Western movie professional that things were changing. new plans being made And it might have occurred to the great John Ford that his own time was passing and so was the time of the Western. And, while this is all speculation, maybe he decided to make one more of the old kind which would be a statement for himself and for the genre he loved. Hence, LV came to be.

    The Good Guy was still there, only now there were two of them, Sen Stoddard and Tom Donophin (John Wayne). Vera Miles was the The Girl who in this case had two GG’s from which to choose. And there was certainly a bad guy, Liberty himself, worse than most and equal to about any in movie history.

    The story unfolds with a few surprises but not enough to upset the genre–there is one really big one near the end, and no, I’m not going to reveal it. There’s too much of the serious mystery fan in me to do that. At the beginning, a stagecoach is approaching town and Liberty and his men strike. They are driven off, but one of the passengers, Ransom Stoddard, coming west to practice law, is badly beaten up. Tom shows up in time to help him and the others get to Shinbone, and there he meets meets Hallie who works in a local restaurant and who nurses him back to health.

    Eventually Ransom becomes not only town lawyer, but also a teacher, coaching the residents(many of the immigrants, incidentally) on reading, writing and citizenship and urging them to support statehood for the Territory. While this goes on there are two main story lines. One is romantic, as both Ransom and Tom care for Hallie and she has feelings for both of them. The other is Liberty Valence who continues to terrify the town, but not quite going over the line to bringing down its total wrath on him. Meanwhile, the useless local Marshall(Andy Devine reprising himself)is-well, totally ineffective.

    This eventually builds to a suspenseful confrontation and a rousing climax which I will leave for you to discover, along with the Big Twist. But I do have a couple of further comments on what happens along the way and how it happens. The whole movie is done with great skill and attention and with almost a tenderness toward the subject, which, if my fantasy is correct. Ford was aware of. And so he poured every talent and emotion into this film and gave us a number of memorable scenes, scenes that both thrill and deeply move you.

    Early in the film, there is a scene where the Marshall takes Hallie out to Tom Doniphon’s old place, long since deserted and fallen into ruin. She is, understandably sad and reflective and the Marshall picks a flower she admires and presents it to her with a flourish or as close to that as he is able to get. Perhaps I’m reading too much into this scene, but it seems to me that we have a lot going on in this brief moment or two.

    Hallie is remembering the past, the pain of more or less loving two men and now of knowing Tom is gone. The flower is a sign of comfort to her, her connection to the better part of the old days. The Marshall, who has never had a woman who dresses, acts or talks like Hallie is overwhelmed by her presence, and realizing his inability to do anything else for her, he offers her the flower, a poor gift, perhaps, but the only one he has.

    In an early part of the flashback(which is the greater part of the movie) we get a scene of the stagecoach pulling into town with the injured Stoddard and other survivors of the robbery aboard. In a piece of odd timing which works perfectly Ford uses as background music the beautiful and moving “Genevieve, Oh Genevieve.” of which we hear a short instrumental version. Then it fades but a few notes pop in again among the regular sounds of the town. Then it is gone, like so many other things a part of the past. Whether this idea came from Ford’s conscious mind or from his instinct I don’t know, but one of them must have been at work–fortunately.

    There is really almost nothing to criticize in this movie as a movie. I could, however(and I will)mention two things that today ring slightly hypocritical. While Rance Stoddard is teaching citizenship and government, he strongly plays up the fact that the people of Shinbone are for statehood, unlike the big ranchers who want to remain a Territory and keep out Federal interference which might make things better for the poorer farmers. At about the same time, one of his students, Tom’s employee, Pompey(Woody Strode) the only black character in the film, forgets the the “equal rights” statement in the preamble to the Constitution. “A lot of people forget that,” Ransom says. There is also the fact that Tom treats Pompey not perhaps as an equal , but at least close to it and better than many others do.

    All of this is nice to see and a credit to John Ford. I cannot help reflecting, though, that even when the movie was made and certainly in their later years, both Stewart and Wayne were not shy about making their political opinions obvious. They were both strongly conservative but the conservatives of today would no doubt find their approach in this film to be unacceptable. For what it’s worth, I have to admire both Wayne and Stewart for their acting abilities and contributions to the art of the film, but I also think they were decent and honorable men. I would have disagreed with them on several matters of a political nature, but I would have respected them and their right to their opinions.

    It is difficult to imagine how LV would have been accepted(or not)at Trump’s CPAC conference this past weekend. Certainly today’s Republican Party could use Wayne and Stewart or someone like them to bring them a sense of honor, decency, and honesty. Maybe there are some Republicans who will do that, but I don’t see many on the horizon.

    In any event, whatever political comments may be appropriate now, the greater point here is the art of American movies, the contribution of Westerns to that art, and particularly the old type of Western which would fall out of favor in the 1960’s. It would be true to say that Westerns swept aside or under the rug many things wrong in our society, but what art form did not? And anyway, the greater point here is that this is a great Western, a great piece of film for those who like to learn about, or remember, the way things were. It is a valedictory to , our own past and the country’s past, and most of all the movies’ past, and valedictories have a way of remaining in mind after the cliches are gone.

  • The Ghosts of Movies Past–Becket

    Somehow, I don’t feel like doing more on politics right now, though I did have opinions of the State of the Union, and, as I sit here now, CNN is telling us about yet another object of some kind that showed up near Alaska and was dispatched by the Air Force. Well, maybe more on that later.

    For now, I want to reflect on a great playwright, Jean Anouilh, and a great movie made from one of his plays, “Becket.” The title of the play was actually “Becket or the Honor of God,” a title that was likely thought too cumbersome for a movie.

    If you know your history of Medieval England or of the Medieval Roman Catholic Church, then you likely know the basics of this story. Henry II was King of England in the mid-12th century and Becket was his cohort and one time companion in wenching and drinking and so on. But the power of the Church was crowding the King and he made his old friend Archbishop of Canterbury presuming that he would bring the Church into Henry’s camp. It was getting cantankerous and ambitious and was perceived by the King as a threat, a perception that may have been somewhat overdone but was not ridiculous.

    Now, I’ll try to hold off the one-time-history-teacher desire to explain everything in detail, but I think I need to add a couple of things that a less history oriented reviewer most likely wouldn’t. The position of Archbishop of Canterbury today is one of the highest Protestant ecclesiastical positions in the world. He is the leader of the Anglican Communion, a world wide organization including of Church of England at home, the Episcopal Church in this country and other manifestations of Anglicanism around the world. This has been the case since Thomas Cranmer in the 16th century. Anglicans are found all around the world thanks to the British Empire.

    But in Henry’s time, it was different. The Archbishop was merely( not a very mere merely)the leading Roman Catholic ecclesiastic in England. He was clearly a man of great power, but he was subordinate to the Pope, at least in theory and to some extent in fact. He could do a great deal on his own in a time when it might take weeks to get messages to and from the Pope and when the Pope had a lot of irons in the fire of European politics and diplomacy. But ultimately he was not all powerful and if push came to shove he would have to yield to the Papacy.

    Henry was right, however, to consider the Archbishop a powerful man and a both a potentially useful ally, but also a possibly dangerous adversary. When the position of Archbishop was vacant Henry saw his chance. In view of the recent resistance of the English church leaders to his plan to increase royal power, why not get an Archbishop who would support the King? How about his old pal, Thomas Becket?

    If you know your history of our Supreme Court you know that Presidents are never sure what an appointed justice will do once on the court. The same applies in other realms as well, and Henry encountered it here. Becket, surprised and somewhat dismayed by the offer, nonetheless decided to accept. It is possible that he thought he could maintain his friendship with Henry and maintain the Church at the same time. In any event, he took the job(his lack of background for it meant little at the time) and seems to have had a somewhat self-induced conversion experience as he did so.

    This is portrayed in the movie by showing us Becket’s willingness(Beckett is excellently portrayed by Richard Burton) to give away many of his personal possessions as the takes up the new role. He doesn’t mind.”It’s all so easy,” he says. And here we get a look at both Becket’s character and at Anouilh’s talent and inclinations. As already stated he is my favorite playwright. He wrote many different kinds of plays but always(at least usually)stayed within the bounds of structure and story telling as learned from masters such as Giradoux and Pirandello. He rarely, if ever, wandered into the Theater of the Absurd of Ionesco and other near contemporaries.

    I do not wish to decry the Theater of the Absurd, as I think it produced some good and insightful works, but I prefer , on the whole, plays that stay within what I think could be called existential reality. Anouilh did this. And he did it to write many types of plays; He could do tragedy and something like farce. He could do psychological studies and historical studies. He could combine these two which is pretty much what happened with “Becket.” His characters could be bleak or humorous, sometimes both. And the thing that always impressed me was that so often they could express, calmly, an acceptance of the world around them. Both cynical and tolerant outwardly, they frequently could remain quiet and detached-seeming as they felt their hearts break or watched their dreams disintegrate. They could also often reflect on past disappointment and pain with a shrug of regret, not outward roaring of defiance or anger, and with the tears unshed and the pain tamed, subdued and absorbed in a civilized and sophsiticated armor of despair.

    It was perhaps his most remarkable talent, however, to connect with the past and bring it into the present. That is, he could take something old, say real history(“Becket”) or ancient theater(“Antigone”) and present the story with an awareness of modern psychological understanding. But he could do this without losing the thread of the story, that is, what really happened in history or what the ancient dramatist wrote. I suppose that his best known and most admired play is “The Lark,” about Joan of Arc which would be a good place to start reading him if you’re willing to dive into Anouilh at his most dramatic. But I re-watched “Becket” recently and that is the movie I feel compelled to write about.

    There are a few other anomalies to note about “Becket.” Anouilh did not do the screenplay, though for all I know he may have had a hand in it. The screenplay was done by veteran Hollywood writer Edward Anhalt, a writer with a reputation for hating to write and having to be bullied or bribed into doing his job. But apparently he did the job well enough. “Becket” won him an Oscar for Best Screenplay Based on Another Source.

    The Anhalt screenplay deviates a bit from Anouilh and from history in a few ways, mostly not too important. The long standing tension between the royal power maven, Henry and the Church was mostly concerned with the Church’s “right” to try criminal-behaving clerics in church courts(rather than the royal ones) where they could usually expect a lighter sentence. Anhalt’s script makes it more about an obscure Lord’s rebellion against the Church regarding the behavior of one of his vassals. Perhaps not really a big deal and it still gets the point of royal-ecclesiastical conflict, but way change it?

    While Henry and Becket were no doubt friends before the appointment of the latter to Canterbury, there is some doubt they were as buddy-buddy as the movie would have them, and the chasing girls together thing may well be fiction. More on this actually interesting point later.

    The historical accuracy of the film is, I would say above average, though not quite as astute historically as “The Lion in Winter,” PeterO’Toole’s later go-round as Henry II. But “Becket” is clearly the superior of two as a work of the art of the cinema.

    One point of inaccuracy is the portrayal of Eleanor of Aquitaine, Henry’s wife. Katherine Hepburn’s Eleanor in “Lion” is I would say a much more accurate portrait of that redoubtable lady. The Anouilh/Anhalt Eleanor(Pamela Brown) serves her purpose in the script quite well, but her hyper-pious, weak but annoying portrayal is not accurate, at least not according to whatever I have read about Eleanor, who was a clever and determined medieval politician.

    I’m not even getting involved in the Norman-Saxon thing which is largely beyond the meaning of the story and its aesthetic or spiritual points. For the record, it appears that Becket was Norman, not Saxon.

    But this is a great film, much greater than “Lion” which has excellent performances but not the emotional/spiritual depth of Anouilh. So, with those asides, I turn to the film itself.

    What always seemingly fascinated Anouilh, whether writing about the Middle Ages or 20th century Europeans, was the interior experience, the inner man or woman and what they went through in their own minds and hearts–and at what cost and with what effects, inner and outer. The historical record does not tell us a lot about Henry II and Becket in this regard, but the story of the two of them has almost endless opportunities for exploring these ideas.

    I have already mentioned Becket’s quick “conversion” upon his appoinment as Archbishop. This is handled quickly in the movie, with a short scene of Becket having a sort of give-away, apparently at home, where people are invited to come and take what they please. What is really effective is not the quality of the goods(which I have mostly forgotten)but the quality of the attitude Becket takes, his facial expression, his whole aspect. This is clearly a man making a big change but doing it for cause, not just for power. There is a sense in which he is still Becket, but also a new man.

    Becket’s fairly sudden change from supporter of royal power to defender of church rights is a matter of historical record. But Anouilh seems to have seen it as more than that, or at least having deeper roots than just power and ambition. Without making too much of it, and without histrionics, he manages to make Becket’s change not only quick but inevitable and also honorable. It should be noted, incidentally, that over the whole arc of history since the Middle Ages, Becket would be seen by most historians, psychologists and other scholars as on “the wrong side of history.” But Anouilh wrote him and Burton played him just the opposite, a crusader not for an oppressive church power(and you could make an argument for that), but for church independence from political meddling and rapacious ambition(you could make an argument for that too).

    Anouilh seems to have been obsessed, among other things, with honor and the role honor plays in human relationships–and particularly with its apparent competition with love. Becket, it appears is really an empty man, a friend of the king but not as fond of the king as the king is of him, loving his mistress, but not with the tenderness with which she loved him, looking for something/someone to love and finally reaching this emotional ambition in his complex relationship with God.

    But the conclusion is not quite the one we might have expected. Some people would say that he found the truth or at least his true love, in love of God. But this is not quite correct, not completely. In Anouilh’s mind, Becket never could quite love God. But he did come to love the “Honor of God,” and while this did not make his life complete it came as close as anything ever did. Becket is basically a lonely man, lonely for some kind of intimacy, but he fails to find it in human relationships and in honors and accomplishments. He also finds just the love of God not quite totally fulfilling. It is only when he comes to love God’s honor that he is complete, or as close as he’s likely to get on the earth. And I guess you could say that there is a sense in which the honor of God is a substitute, a substitute for a man who longs for love but cannot love fully–except perhaps in this one thing.

    I guess you could say that according to Anouilh, if not to any historical sources, Becket’s later actions flow from this feeling, this love of God’s honor. Becket defies the king in the matter of the errant knight and this sets off a broader, overall quarrel about the King’s drive for more power and Becket’s determination to defend the Church’s power(its honor)against him. He flees to France where a sympathetic but cagey King Charles VII offers him shelter and support, but only within the limits which he thinks, literally, politic. Pope Alexander III pursues a similar policy-outwardly backing Becket’s actions, blessing and encouraging him, but taking no substantial action to help Becket with the struggle with his own king. So, in the end, he is almost literally a man alone, standing for his honor, or God’s and with no help except that of a few loyal followers, none of them extremely powerful or influential in the councils of the world. The world, apparently, was not yet ready to recognize all the internal conflicts we see in this story’s 20th-century retelling; but it is unproven, but not unfeasible that those conflicts could have been there, much as the playwright stated.

    But what about Henry II? Though seldom overlooked, he is often taken not too seriously in this conflict. He may have been on what many moderns would call the right side of history but he was on the wrong side of showmanship. Even to moderns, Becket makes a more appealing character, a man who fought for principle against all his “worldly” interests and eventually died for it. Henry’s case has been, I think, to some extent let go, except perhaps by his personal biographers.

    How much Henry was like Peter O’Toole’s portrayal of him, I don’t know. But O’Toole apparently read some of the sources or at least the histories of him and had some idea of what he was doing. Whether he discussed his role with Anouilh or Anhalt I don’t know. He played Henry as a not entirely unlikely character. Born to be a king and behaving like one, he could be arrogant, grasping and arbitrary. He might have been a tough boss and he quite possibly was (Becket likely would have agreed) a difficult friend. But he also seems to have had humor, some imagination, and the intelligence or at least the political acumen to play a crafty game himself. And behind all of that there may have been some realization of his background (The Plantagenets) and his duty to carry on the tradition.

    But Henry also, like so many people of the past whose inner lives we have to guess at, was fertile ground for the intellectual/psychological ambition of Anouilh, and he gets his moments on stage/screen which are worthy of note. Early on we get a look at his character when he and Becket want the same girl for the night. Henry yields but insists that Becket promise to pay him back, favor-for-favor, a promise Henry later on holds him to with tragic results. There is serious doubt as to the historical accuracy of this incident, but it does give us an insight to some assumptions about Henry–assumptions that may have been true.

    But the main emotion that Henry seems to feel through out the story is one of betrayal. He raised Becket to the top and look what he got for it. And this is not without some justification. It appears that medieval appointments of this sort were often made for a mixture of ecclesiastical and political reasons and that each side expected to get something. Henry had expected loyalty from Becket. He did not get it.

    Was Becket the one more deserving of our admiration here? Yes, I think he was. He behaved with honor, as he intended. But Henry reacted, in Anouilh’s mind, as much out of personal as political feelings. Though his outrage as a King was real enough, he seems more moved by his betrayal by a friend–the personal was more important than the political(perhaps usually the case with an artist rather than a politician).

    We see this in more ways than one, but particularly in a couple of revelatory scenes in which Henry expresses his true self and his true pain. “I loved him and he loved me less,’” or words to that effect are heard. Henry sounds almost like a jilted lover. Today this would likely lead to an extensive discussion of whether there was a sexual relationship between these two. I doubt seriously there was, but I think it’s possible there was a mental/emotional sexual longing, perhaps usually subliminal, on the part of Henry. I’m less certain about Becket.

    But here is the real story in my opinion-whether Anouilh would agree I don’t know. The fact is that pain is pain and unrequited love is unrequited love, sexual or not, homosexual or not. And this is the source of the main part of Henry’s very real pain, regardless of how aware of it he may be. Again, whether this is historically true is uncertain, but dramatically and emotionally true, it certainly is, and this was what Anouilh was good at finding–the actual source of the pain, whether medieval or 20th century, and in many cases finding them to be much alike.

    This is particularly seen in that Henry is told by Becket at one point that he must learn to be alone and later on he echos this advice to an aide who inquires as to his emotional state. “I am learning to be alone,” he says. I doubt a medieval monarch would ever had said this, possibly might have had trouble understanding it. But it fits perfectly here, and it marries the despair a medieval king felt to the 20th century idea of personal disappointment and loneliness.

    In the end Henry loses his temper and cries out something about which there has been some conflict of opinion and much dispute. “Will someone not rid me of the criminous clerk(cleric)?’ is one version. Or perhaps it was “of this troublesome priest?” In any event, it was something like that, which induced four of his knights to take him not only seriously but literally. They went after Becket and murdered him in his own cathedral.

    Henry comes off at the end as both defiant and broken. He is forced to do a penance for his role in Becket’s murder, which consists of having several monks whip his back in public. He goes through the required ceremony of thanking them, then, in a contemptuous aside, refers to them as pigs. It has always seemed to me that there is something approaching heroic in Henry’s reaction to this. He is a man in considerable physical pain and much greater psychological pain–but he is still King and he goes on.

    His life will be more empty now, but at least he has a purpose. He will pursue his own destiny and duty and if he must do it without the love of a good friend or a warm woman, then that will be his lot. But he will do it anyway. He has learned to be alone.

    ,

  • The State of the Union Address–Some Things to Watch for Tonight

    In just about 9 hours President Joe Biden will come into the House chamber accompanied by thunderous applause and will make his way, amid cheering and handshakes, to the podium where he will be greeted by Speaker McCarthy and Vice President Harris, both smiling but the latter a bit more sincerely.

    People involved in covering the news and/or watching American politics often give advice on what one may glean from this almost annual affair, so here is my effort. I have not read what anyone else has written about this so far, so only I am responsible for what I say, the good, the bad and the in between.

    First of all, take note of the reception the President gets. It is nearly always enthusiastic with members of Congress who have no use for the President for his Administration pressing to get a chance for a handshake. I suspect that this is due to at least 3 things–1) The publicity is likely enormous 2) The “all together” spirit of the two combined Houses on a possibly momentous occasion is easy to spread 3) At least some of the Members actually feel they are part of a tradition that needs to be honored, regardless of who is in the White House doing what.

    So an attitude of enthusiasm is more or less an assumption. But to the extent possible, try to discern the sincerity of it, particularly on the part of the Republicans, although current polls would suggest watching both sides carefully. It is very unlikely that the President will receive anything but outward enthusiasm but any indication of boredom or non-enthusiasm MIGHT indicate something. Also, watch how many times he gets interrupted by applause and how enthusiastic it sounds–perhaps most of all, is it coming only from his own supporters? Usually it is and I doubt tonight will be different.

    Turning to the address itself, how much time does the President give to domestic policy as opposed to foreign policy/national security? The Chinese airborne circus of the past few days has added, I’d say, to the amount of time the latter will get. But the emphasis will still be domestic, the economy followed at a close second, by violence, particularly police violence in America.

    He will point out the extremely low unemployment rate and what may be a significant beginning to a decline in inflation. He has to be careful of this latter, because a great many citizens are still wincing at two main places–the gasoline pump and the check-out line at the supermarket. This is part of why he gets low marks from so many of his people on the economy, despite figures many past presidents would have drooled at. He needs to acknowledge this in some manner, and make some comment about why he thinks the Administration will pull it all together in time.

    Regarding foreign policy, he needs to consider the misery of Turkey and Syria in the wake of the earthquake disaster there. He must show the US is open handed and ready to help, and I’m pretty sure he will do that. It’s the morally correct thing to do, it’s more likely to be politically advantageous, and it might forestall some of the attacks on the US regarding foreign policy matters, particularly the Chinese issue.

    But the big one in foreign policy is still Russia-Ukraine. Here the President has a good record, having held together a somewhat tenuous alliance for about a year; he has done so in the face of incompetent determination and senseless seeming willingness to spend lives, Russians and others, from Putin. There have been a few cracks in the alliance hinted at but nothing too serious yet. The President must make it clear that the US and NATO are there to stay in Eastern Europe, and as backers of a free Ukraine, but will gladly seek the way of peace if given a reasonable chance.

    The Chinese thing is a puzzle. It clearly was intentional on the part of the Chinese, something that was not obvious when we first heard about it. It would be interesting to hear the President comment on this and on the one floating around over South America and about which we seem to hear very little.

    More to the point, the President needs to emphasize that far from waiting, he made the decision to shoot the balloon down early(Wednesday last week)and told the military to do it as soon as it was possible without endangering the main land US population. He does need to explain why the information was not made public earlier. So far he has not done this and the opposition will take advantage of this if feasible.

    Then, again, what about the recent reports that this had happened other times, once during this Administration and three (3!)times during the previous one. No announcement or public statement regarding these was ever made. We need to know why not and whether there was good reason for hiding those(I doubt it) and releasing information about this one(almost certainly correctly, if slowly, handled)

    Regarding both domestic and foreign policy, note how much the President seems willing to hold out a hand to Republicans and how much he is critical of them, particularly of their shrinking but ever noisy MAGA wing. The President has some legitimate accomplishments(the chips bill, the infrastructure action)on which he received some helpful Republican assistance. This needs to be acknowledged with respect but without being shy about the fact that the Administration is still in charge. And he needs some way to chastise the far right(or wherever the MAGA people are)without enraging them beyond their limited tempers and without insinuating that the MAGA ideas so frequently heard are typical of the Republican Party(actually, some of them are, but this is not a good time to point it out).

    To close this out, I suggest that one of the most important things here will be the President’s demeanor. As is obvious from the above, a State of the Union Address is of necessity an exercise in balance. The President needs to show he can do this deftly and I think he will. Beyond that, he heeds to project calmness, authority and strength. This does not, of course, consist of trying to out-Trump Donald by braggart like behavior and unnecessary confrontations. It consists of gentlemanly behavior combined with determination. This is a combination which Biden is usually good at projecting, most likely because it’s the truth about him.

    One other thing–those “responses”that nearly all the networks do after the speech, each side getting its say. Of course it’s important to let each side say what it wishes . But usually a careful observer knows pretty well what it’ll be. So watch them if you wish–the worst they will do is bore you. I think I’ll watch a movie or read a good book instead, or maybe do an old “Frazier.” If I feel so inspired, I’ll be back soon to comment on the evening.

    ,

  • Better Anne Lamott than never

    OK, it’s not a very original or really humorous title. But anyway, here we go. I had originally decided to do three “Christmas books.” The first one which I was going to make no 3 seemed inappropriate, so I changed my mind. Two would do– then I noticed Anne Lamott’s “Almost Everything–Notes on Hope.” I noticed it only because, well, I recognized her name AND I was pointed in the right, as it turned out, direction by the impenetrable(well, to me at least) workings of the Dewey Decimal system which dictated that Krista Tippet’s book and Anne’s were within a few feet of each other in the stacks. So the book almost chose itself. I’m glad it did.(By the way, have you ever wondered how many people have been brought together by the Dewey Decimal system? Two people with similar interests wind up in the same lane of the library and they reach for the same book or different ones and their shoulders touch and they apologize. Later that day they’re sharing drinks and dinner at a local restaurant and eventually they have kids one of whom turned out to be–well, you take it from there–my imagination sometimes gets lost)

    Anne has been writing for quite a few years now. I first became aware of her on a program that in the 2000’s was on NPR Sat mornings. I have forgotten the name of the guy who did it, but I think it was Michael something. He worked out of Milwaukee and I remember thinking of him as the Upper Midwest comedian who isn’t Garrison Keillor. Anyway he had Anne on once and I was impressed with both of them in their interview. He handled her very kindly and as my wife pointed out she sounded very vulnerable at the time, not exactly the persona she usually has projected since, though there are often hints of it. (This was also the show which introduced me–and I’ll bet many others–to Kurt Elling, the dominant male voice in American jazz singing of the past couple of decades. Thanks, Michael, whoever you are)

    Joyce(my wife)has read a lot of Anne’s stuff and I had read a little bit, though not for a long time. I did remember, that she was–uh, different. Actually, she is considerably different from–well, just about any writer you can think of. If Mitch Albom is spirituality based on love and service, and Krista Tippett is that plus wondering and exploring, then Anne is spirituality on steroids braced by a bit of OCD, and by doubt, faith, imagination, memory, dread and hope–maybe not in that order All these go into making up this remarkable woman and irresistible writer whose acquaintance I am so glad to have made again.

    Anne holds nothing back. She jumps into the issue or question or whatever the way I think she jumped into life–and still does. She has had a troubled life in many ways, the child of a brilliant, charming and dysfunctional family, dogged by addiction, depression, disillusion, loss and betrayal. But she has also been published, made good friends, received adulation, raised a son and, at 62, married for the first time. She knows what it is to lose and to win and she knows what it is to sit with the depressed and dying and lonely. She also has a(more or less literally)irrepressible humor and irreverence which comes out at many different times. And she knows that whatever our differences and lackings, we all need love, we all need to be affirmed in some way. …

    Here she is on the difficulties of growing up–“Most emotional wounds are caused by a child’s belief that he is deficient, defective, or annoying …The message . . . was that we didn’t have intrinsic value but that we could earn it…Putting together a reasonably good personality was how we staked a claim on the outside world although it meant ignoring our inside world…
    “This was life inside the hardware store–the bakery on the other hand , was the family’s understanding that a kid doesn’t have to do or achieve or own anything more for the world to care and even delight in her …How did the rest of us ever find the bread of life, the ginger cookies of hope? The answer is little by little, over the years, mosaic chip by mosaic chip.”

    And this is one of Anne’s main points. There is some joy and satisfaction out there, particularly if you’re lucky and you know how to look for it. But the rest ranges from drab to hideous and you need to be careful and not expect all the answers all the time. They just won’t be there. and just about nothing is guaranteed., particularly re: human relationships.

    She explains in detail her battle with hate. Most religious writers will simply tell you it’s bad to hate and let you take it from there–but sometimes that can be hard to do–sometimes it’s impossible. Anne tells us how she tried to understand hate. She imagined she had hate over for tea and tried to understand it. She then handed it its hat and reflected. Maybe hate was(or haters were)within the realm of humanity. “If we work hard and are lucky, we may come to see everyone as precious, struggling souls. … God is better at this than I am.” She is aware of her shortcomings and how hard it is to live up to her highest values.

    “My focus on hate made me notice I’m too much like certain politicians. The main politician I’m thinking of and I are always right. I too can be a blowhard, a hoarder, needing constant approval and acknowledgement, needing to feel powerful.”

    So she comes to see that getting rid of the hate is sometimes hard work. But she knows that work has to be done so as to avoid reaching the end someday “toxic and self-righteous;” better to be living as far as possible with Wendell Berry’s words, “Be joyful though you have considered all the facts.”

    Towards the end of the book Anne delves a bit more deeply into grief and loss, though one of the lovable things about her writing is that pain is never far away and humor is always hiding somewhere, ready to pop out and surprise you. As always, she finds irony and self-mockingly criticizes herself. Remembering a dying friend she says, “Jesus says that we need to approach God and life like children, not like bossy, white alcoholic women with agendas.” So she did. She does.

    “Like the rest of us, I am a mixed grill of beauty and self-centeredness, pettiness and magnanimity, judgement and humility.” Well, aren’t we all? And isn’t it our business to try to expand the good parts and reduce the not-so-good ones, but always with the knowledge we will never be entirely successful?

    Anne’s final chapter in the book(she calls it her “coda”) is entitled Hope. Throughout the book she makes the point that there is good out there and contradiction and nuance and that these often balance–or don’t–in weird, scary and unacceptable seeming ways. Fears sometimes are true and so are dreams. So is love. But one never knows.

    “Hope springs from what is right in front of us, what surprises us and seems to work.

    “Of course, we are reduced sometimes, late at night, no matter how deep our faith in God or Goodness or one another, to quavering aspic.” And questions always remain, such as why her home was spared when so many others in her part of California were destroyed by one of their fires? Our minds, she states, “are hard-wired in many ways to do many things only half of which from my observations are self-destructive.”

    She ends with a quotation I was not familiar with from John Lennon(Of all people, my subconscious irritatingly interrupts me–I never liked Lennon a lot, but he nailed it here–I hope)”Everything will be okay in the end. If it’s not okay, it’s not the end.” It is hard not to compare that to Julian of Norwich–“All shall be well, and all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well.” She preceded Lennon by something like a millennium so it’s taking awhile–but the thought is still there.

    I do have a couple of ending notes–fairly early on Anne makes a passing reference to one of my favorite writers and one who has deeply influenced my own thinking, Madeline L’Engle(author of a huge number of books, novels and non-fiction, YA and adult, science fiction, social commentary and religion-best know and likely her best, “A Wrinkle In Time”). I don’t think the two ladies ever met. They were separated by miles of geography and years of time(about 36 of them), but it is interesting to speculate on what it would have been like if these two brilliant, warm and supremely talented, deep-thinking writers had ever had lunch together, say at the Hungarian Pastry Shop on Amsterdam Ave just across from the Cathedral of St John the Divine, where we once watched a cat wait until a couple left, then jump up on a chair and finish what they didn’t. And nobody bothered the cat, a restraint which Joyce and I both loved(L’Engle was chief librarian there in her later years–the Cathedral, I mean–I don’t think the pastry shop had one) Or at a bunch of other places on the Upper West Side. Or wherever.

    Anyway, imagine a meeting between the two of them. Imagine the words that might flow between them, the loving and warm but also disciplined and correct, grammatically perfect and I’ll bet always impeccably dressed Episcopalian, L’Engle, and the off-the-wall, in-your-face, let-it-all hang-out, God knows what denomination she is,(Presbyterian?) Lamott. It would have been a fortunate fly on the wall who would have gotten to hear such a conversation.

    Well, anyway, try one of her books. Start with this one, if you like. You should at least draw from it some laughs, some serous thoughts and some awe at the quirky, contradictory and altogether inexplicably brilliant mind behind it all. Beyond that, if you’re lucky and you think about it carefully and deeply, she might do more even more than that–like maybe give you the courage to live.

  • Does History Repeat?–Facts and Opinions

    One of the best known quotes in the world(at least in the academic world, anyway) is “Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it.” This from the philosopher George Santayana and his 1905 work, “The Life of Reason.” Others have said/written similar things, some better documented than others. In a 1948 speech to the House of Commons Winston Churchill said “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” a remarkably similar sentiment.

    After that is gets a bit less clear. Mark Twain said something similar(maybe), but in a different way. “History never repeats itself but it does often rhyme.” I like this one best, since clearly one specific event occurs only once and when two similar events are compared, say 25 years or more apart, there are obvious differences But the “rhymes” such as the roads to conflict re: WWI and WWII are often striking. Unfortunately no one seems to be able to verify Twain said or wrote this, but it’s a wise saying, wherever it comes from.

    Edmund Burke is supposed to have said much the same thing, but there is debate as to just when and how he phrased it. As in the case with Mark Twain, is sounds like him but is difficult to verify.

    Anyway, as you have likely guessed by now, I am planning to give you some examples of this–three relatively short and I hope informative instances in which recent history has at least rhymed. As I begin to write this on Jan 5, you may be experiencing one of them if you are following news on Radio, TV or the Net.

    My first subject is the “Spanish Flu” which struck the world including the US in 1918 and recurred on and off for about a half a decade, though fading fairly rapidly by the end of 1921.

    The name “Spanish” is a misnomer. The only reason it happened was that Spain was neutral in World War I and while the belligerent powers were blaming the enemy and/or lying about the situation, the Spanish media more or less told the truth and did it from the earlier days of the outbreak. The flu may have begun, in fact, in the US. It first appeared at a US Army camp in Kansas in March, 1918,and spread rapidly, striking over a thousand men and killing 46 of them in a month.

    It did not play favorites hitting both urban and rural areas, though there is evidence that crowded places were hit worse. It is worth noting, I think, that while big cities had poor public health institutions by our standards, many rural areas had about none. There was a lot of confusion and there were many mistakes. There were also lies. And before long, thanks in part to troop movements, the flu was in Europe too. It would eventually work its way around the world. No one knows with any certainty how many people died as a result, The estimates are now that about 1/3 of the people in the world contracted the flu in some way and around 50 million deaths resulted, but it might have been more. It is common to repeat the assertion that more WWI US servicemen died of flu than of enemy action. About 21 million people(more civilians than military personnel)is the most recent estimate of deaths directly resulting from the war. So it is likely the flu killed far more people than the conflict.

    In September, 1918 it spread from Boston to Philadelphia when 300 sailors, some of them already infected, arrived. The government’s action was to play down the threat to prevent panic(and, likely demands on themselves). They denied any serious danger to the public and, as casualties mounted claimed it was nothing but “old-fashioned influenza or grippe.” It was also predicted the illness would soon decrease.

    American was drunk on “patriotic” fever now and thousands of Philadephians attended a rally. About a week and a half later over 1000 citizens of the city had died of the flu. Finally the state government acted and began closing many public places. But within a year more than 15,000 Philadelphia citizens had died as a result.

    Some places reacted better than this, particularly after they saw what had happened in the east. but the broader pattern “was dismissal, dissemblance and outright deception.” Mayors and governors did not want to take on powerful and wealthy business interests, nearly all of which were opposed to close-downs.

    The first wave of Spanish flu peaked and then dropped off in the spring-summer of 1918. But a second, more serious wave swept much of Europe in the late summer and early fall. This coincided with the climax of the war, though I have rarely run across more than a brief(paragraph or two)reference in books about the war. There was yet a 3rd wave in early 1919. It was milder than the second wave and largely spared Paris and the Peace Conference that eventually led to the Treaty of Versailles.

    A brief survey of the internet on other countries involved in the war shows a depressing pattern. In nearly all combatant countries the news of the flu pandemic was at least played down if not totally suppressed. It was not mentioned in the House of Commons until October, 1918, the month before the war ended. It was also suppressed in the countries of the Central Powers(Germany, Austria, Turkey). The fact appears to be that no governments wanted to have to deal with this and that about all of them thought doing so would impede the war effort. In the Central Powers just about everything was collapsing anyway, but this seems to have made no difference. The Germans seem to have been particularly inclined to deny the flu, thought they were by no means alone. But they denied the influence of the flu on German troops in 1918 as the final Allied attacks began and the German world crumbled about them.

    The flu did not go away entirely, however. It appeared from time to time for another 2 or 3 years and apparently has never entirely disappeared. One rarely hears of it now since so many people have had it that almost everyone is immune.

    (This was not the first time in history such things had happened–check “bubonic plague denial” on the internet for information about how ancient and medieval rulers panicked and lied about this sort of thing too)

    The covid virus and its parallels are so recent and well known as to be almost embarrassing to recount. The current covid has been know for more than 50 years and apparently at first simply caused the common cold. The recent outbreak with its world wide effects of screwing up nearly everything and affecting a Presidential election was not noticed by scientists until November, 2019. Within 2 months it would be spreading widely around the world.

    We all know pretty much what happened. To take the US reaction as symbolic(thought noticeably worse and less truthful than most countries)the reaction was at first to question the facts, then deny their seriousness and to offer false hopes for a quick end to it . The President publicly said(on TV)that it would disappear with warm weather and be gone by late spring. It wasn’t. He also offered some bizarre ideas and some strange pieces of advice.

    The weirdest of these was his April, 2020 suggestion that injecting bleach into oneself might be a good idea. Many of his scientific people were appalled and they managed to stop this idea from spreading before it went as far as it might have. Likely more dangerous overall, was his suggestion of the use of chloroquine. This at least was a real drug that people took for real issues. Though it has many uses, it is primarily known for being an anti-malaria medication. The scientific community largely agreed that there were a few unusual cases when chloroquine might be useful in fighting covid. But the FDA was careful to release a statement that people should not make this decision for themselves and it should be used only as directed by a physician.

    And so it went. Reactions of countries and other political subdivisions around the world varied widely. But there was a large degree of false information generated and truth withheld. The problem is of course still part of our world today, slightly better than it was due to the various inoculations for it and the slow building up of a questionable but sometimes apparently real immunity. It will likely be around and still causing illness years from now, though we hope diminishing rapidly in its influence.

    No satisfactory cure was ever found for the Spanish Flu. As previously mentioned, so many people have had it by now and passed down to subsequent generations their presumed immunity, that it is seldom heard of today. But it’s not gone. It’s still out there and so is the Bubonic Plague. The Plague, by the way, is a bacterial infection and therefore treatable with anti-biotics.

    Case no 2–The split in the 1920’s Republican Party and the 1923 fight over who would get to be Speaker of the House. The comparison is to (you guessed it)Keven McCarthy’s twisted and manic road to his current position.

    First of all let me recount some tiresome but necessary electoral history. I’ll be quick about it. For a long time, students have noted that earlier in our history, US Presidents were elected in November and took office the following March. While there were good reasons for this in 1789, those were mostly gone long before 1933 when the much overlooked and understudied 20th Amendment to the US Constitution was enacted. It moved the Inauguration to January and is widely known and regarded by most interested parties as a reasonable and necessary action.

    What is not so widely known is that it also formalized and made a requirement that the new Congress elected in November would take office Jan 3. Previously, and for not very obvious reasons, this date had varied. This is too complicated to go into in detail here, but check it out on the internet if you have the patience. At late as 1922’s midterm elections the new members did not take the oath of office for about a year. So the drama took place in December, 1923.

    It was anticipated that Frederick Gillette, a Boston Brahmin and long standing House Speaker would be elected. While they had lost seats in the midterms of 1922, the Republicans still held a House majority and this should have been routine. But the party had become very divided in recent years. Roughly speaking it consisted of two groups –the conservatives/traditionalists were the majority. But the progressive wing of the party, mostly from the midwest and led by “Fighting Bob” LaFollette of WI, was not without influence and often made a good impression on the public. Many of these progressives, who somewhat resembled the more liberal Democrats in their policies, challenged Speaker Gillette.

    This turned into a real capital(or capitol)mess. They took 3 days and 9 ballots as the party tried to work out a conflict between its intended leader and his allies, and an influential different group which challenged him. Finally, after much discussing and bargaining and after one significant concession to the progressives on procedural matters in the House, enough of the progressive side voted “Present” on the 9th ballot and Gillette squeaked through. Since the number present and casting a vote for a person was now low enough that his new total of 215 was sufficient, he was re-elected–barely.

    It is hardly necessary to repeat what you’ve seen on TV and internet fairly recently, but for the record–Rep Kevin McCarthy of California was the leader of the House Republicans and therefore should have been a shoo-in as Speaker–even with a small majority this should have been an easy one. But a small but persistent group of right-wingers, including, but by no means limited to the “Freedom Caucus,” stood in the way and that was enough that McCarthy failed on vote after vote. It took 4 days and 15 ballots, but he finally made it. A few members who had voted for other candidates switched to McCarthy after he made very substantial concessions to the right. Others simply voted “Present” and as in 1923 the number of votes needed dropped thanks to the “present and voting for a person” rule.

    Like Gillette in 1923 McCarthy slipped through in 2023 by one vote. Which of them made more significant and self-limiting concessions will no doubt be debated, but it looks to me as if McCarthy made concessions he is likely to regret. His agreeing to a rule that any ONE member of the Republican caucus will be able to call for a vote to oust him from the Speaker’s chair looks like the worst. It may be interesting, but remember that Chinese curse about interesting times

    Case no 3–The early WWII conflict between Germany and the UK and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict today.

    It is no longer common knowledge how World War II began and proceeded from 1939-1941, its first two years, so I will start with a brief backgrounder. For details check Wikipedia or any good text book on Europe before and during the war.

    During the 1930’s the dictators, Hitler and Mussolini, had made Germany and Italy feared by bullying and cajoling the West(mainly the UK and France)into allowing them to get away with aggression. At Munich in 1938 they managed to get concessions regarding Czechoslovakia in return for a pledge not to invade what would be left of that small, new nation after the Munich Pact went into effect. I think few were surprised 5 months later when Hitler moved in and took almost all that was left of the unhappy country.

    Hitler invaded Poland in September, 1939, defying British and French demands that he leave it alone,. Their patience finally exhausted, the UK and France both declared war on Germany. The next few months were the “phony war” but it turned more real during Spring, 1940 when Hitler struck at Scandinavia, the Low Countries and France and by June had bagged all of his targets.

    This left the UK and Winston Churchill the only real block to Hitler’s victory and in September of 1940 the Germans began more than a year of almost constant bombing that is usually known as “The Blitz.” Almost from the start the Germans realized this was going to be tougher than previous conquests as the RAF took a large toll on the Luftwaffe. The numbers of German planes destroyed was considerably higher than the British losses, so in that sense the UK had the upper hand. But then there was the numbers game. The Germans had a seemingly inexhaustible supply of planes and the number would eventually begin to tell. British factories worked frantically to turn out more planes and ships, for the German Navy was now aggressively pursuing both British shipping and their Navy. If the Brits lost in the air and at sea it would all be over.

    For the most part the German bombing was directed at the factories that produced the war supplies, but there was some bombing of civilian areas also. The Germans changed strategies several times during the blitz, partly due to political quarrels, partly to heavier than expected losses, and, possibly, partly due to Hitler’s fury at direct bombing of German cities by the RAF. In addition, they sometimes were working with faulty intelligence. Although this is multifaceted and involves many issues, including poor intelligence for the Luftwaffe, Hitler’s personal feelings may have played some part. The changes tended to make the attacks on UK industry more scattered and less consistent, but the concentration on London’s East End and other mainly civilian districts., greatly increased the toll in lives, pain and frustration for the population.

    There was some complaining in the largely poor East End that they were bearing the brunt of the bombing while the rich had safer, more sturdy homes elsewhere. The Royal Family, however, rose to the occasion by visiting the bombed areas and showing themselves to the people as leaders who were staying home and sharing the burden. Churchill also moved among the people and once promised the drop multiple bombs on Germany for every one they dropped on the UK.

    The Blitz ended in the fall of 1940 after Germany and the USSR had gone to war but bombing went on sporadically throughout the war, and the fearsome V-1 and V-2 rockets made London a city fearing what might come from the skies again in 1944-’45. But the main blitz in the long run failed. The UK was still(perhaps barely)functioning when it ended and soon the US would be attacked at Pearl Harbor which changed the whole complexion of the war. After that the US would be at hand and the advantage, once strongly in Hitler’s favor would shift, though it took sometime to do so.

    In late 2021 it became apparent that Russia was considering an out and out attack on its neighbor, Ukraine. They began troop movements which suggested this was imminent. They also made public claims that Ukraine was theirs, by right and by history, and that they would be justified in taking it back. Vladimir Putin was not looking to win by a surprise attack. He was closer to trying to win by intimidation, a sometime Hitler tactic that was not usually extremely successful.(I have heard that when Hitler tried this on neutral Switzerland, the response was something like, “Just try it and see what we’ll do,” and he didn’t. Switzerland maintained its neutrality.)

    Putin had began, several years earlier, with trying to increase Russia’s influence and the geographical area it controlled in Eastern Europe. Most obviously, it had re-taken Crimea which had been ruled by many countries over the centuries and for years was part of the USSR. After the collapse of the Soviet Union Crimea was considered by practically everyone part of the ancient but newly independent state of Ukraine. This remained the case until 2014 when a severe internal crisis in Ukrainian politics seriously divided and weakened the nation and its leadership. Putin took advantage of this to send Russian forces into Crimea which he quickly declared to be now part of the Russian Federation.

    There also developed about the same time a serious division in Ukraine between the largely Russian-speaking extreme Eastern part, which favored joining Russia, and the rest of the country, largely Ukrainian speaking, which did not. For several years there was what amounted to a sort of underground, largely unmentioned civil war between these two parts of Ukraine with Russian forces unofficially and without wearing clearly Russian uniforms or markings, helping the pro-Russian side. This was the background to what happened in 2021 and 2022.

    Putin clearly had expected a quick victory. He found a unified and militarily powerful country. Discounting Russia, which is largely Asiatic in land, though European dominated, culturally and politically, Ukraine is the largest nation in Europe, geographically speaking(Turkey is more than 90% Asiatic, so I do not consider it a European country). At nearly 290,000 in number, the Ukrainian armed forces put up a stiff resistance, and soon the Russians were fought to a standstill. Later some of the Russian Army retreated, a process they are now trying to reverse with apparently mixed results.

    But what was clear was that the Russians, having failed to conquer the Ukrainians on the ground would try to do so by going through the air. But unlike the Luftwaffe which went after Churchill’s Britain, the Russians would mainly used non-manned instruments, drones and missiles. They also would use them against non-military targets in many instances, using them as weapons of terror but not weapons which consistently did severe military damage. They destroyed homes, killed people of all ages, and made many others homeless.. They also inspired a hatred of Russian armed forces by most Ukrainians, which if Russian ever did win the war, would almost certainly make the place ungovernable.

    As usual, my conclusions are tentative and could turn out to be wrong, but here they are. It is about a tie between issues no 1 and no 2 for which show the most parallels, but I think it’s no 1. The reaction of so many governments around 1918 and again more than a century later are so similar as to be impossible to ignore. Again, I agree that it’s not a real repeat but a “rhyme,” but the rhyme is loud and clear.

    No 2 is pretty close too. There are a few differences. In 1923 the putative Speaker-elect already had long experience at the job. He was, apparently respected by most GOP House members, a situation which may not exist today. And the split, as might be anticipated in a basically conservative party, was between the mainstream Republicans and their left-leaning, progressive colleagues. In 2023 it was between more or less regular Republicans and a right-wing fringe group, some of them clearly holding borderline-psychotic ideas and/or telling the biggest lies in the history of the House. In 1923 things seem to have quieted down after the Speaker election was settled. One hears little about intra-party GOP conflict over the next 2 years. It is impossible to predict what will happen now, but in today’s House, it appears the Speaker may be in for a rough ride.

    No 3 has some startling parallels, particularly in international relations But, on the whole, I think while a case can be made for it, it’s not as good a one as for the others. Regarding the international situation, there were at least 5 leading heads of state or government involved. In the Russian-Ukrainian situation there are 3. Putin is a reasonable facsimile of Hitler–Zelenskyy. with his feisty leadership of a beleaguered nation is obviously Winston Chruchill all over again–Biden, the US President who observes and encourages is clearly FDR. But there are no real equivalents to Stalin and Mussolini. The comparison also breaks down a bit when it comes to the military action. The Blitz did incredible damage and caused immense pain and loss to the people. But there seem to have been arguments over it back home almost from the start. There were several things involved in this such as intelligence services product, political quarrels, egos and Hitler’s fury at British bombing of Germany. In Ukraine Putin has gone from old fashioned infantry invasion to missiles to drones. Many of his attacks seem totally motivated by trying to terrorize rather than to achieve military goals. He apparently has some weapons which are just fired toward Ukraine in the hopes they will accomplish something. This is not exactly a parallel.

    Another difference, is that while the Russian approach has been largely unsuccessful so far from a military point of view, he has 2 advantages Hitler did not. He is not fighting anyone other than than Ukraine(directly on the battlefield)and, pursuant to that he does not have the possibility of being attacked from the rear. How this will turn out, of course, is impossible to predict and gives us another difficulty in trying to determine the extent of the parallels. We lack hindsight regarding this, a situation which may well last for some time.

    So I guess my conclusion that there are indeed rhymes in history sometimes rather strong ones. But there are also differences and with regard to situation no 3 it will take some time for all these to be noticeable or indeed, possibly, for all of them to occur. I’ll stick with no 1 as the loudest rhyme.

  • Some last minute suggestions about those Christmas movies

    I know this is_____ a bit late. I really feel one ought to watch Christmas movies before Christmas, as watching them after the day seems to take some of the fun out of it. But perhaps not everyone feels that way, and anyway we’ve got a couple of days to go here, so here goes.

    First of all, I have not seen all the”great Christmas movies” if there is such a category. I have seen quite a few including “White Christmas,” “Holiday Inn,” “The Apartment,” “Alias John Doe”, and “It’s a Wonderful Life.” I considered only films I have seen for obvious reasons in making my choices. Of these I just mentioned, I think it’s about a tie between “The Apartment” and “It’s a Wonderful Life” for the best choice. But I chose none of them, nor any usually listed with best Christmas movie opinion colums. My two choices for my favorite Christmas movie are “The Man Who Came to Dinner” and “The Holly and the Ivy.” OK, now wait a moment and let me explain myself.

    “The Man Who Came to Dinner”(From now on “Man Who”) is in some ways not at all a Christmas movie. It is secular in its orientation and joyfully irreverent in its attitudes. The people in it seem not the slightest bit spiritual and/or religious and are driven mostly by ambition, love, sex, vanity and self-imagery. In other words they are human and without the saving grace of an understanding of spirituality. But whether we can write them off them as meaningless because of that is another matter, and so is the fact that this shrewdly hilarious film is one of the best cures for melancholoy I can think of.

    “Man Who” is the product of the fairly long time(though not as long as often assumed)collaboration between George S Kauffman and Moss Hart, two of the great comedy writers of the early to middle Twentieth centiury American Theatre. Through the Depression they wrote of well to do sophisticated poeple and made them likeable and aceptable. Of course, most of the theatre going people who could afford tickets were not poor, but still, they manged to strike a pose that appealed to many others and I suspect gave them hope(“Hey, maybe someday we’ll be like that”)and amusement(“Look. they make asses of themselves sometimes, too”).

    I do not know how many will agree with me, but I think it is almost a duty during hard times for your society to be happy and have a good time. This way some of the laugher and cheerfulness may rub off on someone else and relieve their depression,. And once this starts, how far may it go? Oh, well, it’s just an idea of mine, But I think it applies to why I like this play and film so much(at least I tell myself that)

    I first became familiar with “Man Who” in high school. There was once(and for only one season, I believe) and TV show entitled “The Best of Broadway,” in which they took famous plays and boiled them down to one hour TV Dramas on CBS. “Man Who” was the second one, and it set me up for a slowly developing love affair with the American Theatre which has never ended.

    I later bought a copy of the whole play through a book club at school and read it time after time. I was somewhat shocked by the cussing and irreverence of most of the characters, but I loved the laughs and the wit and the basically joyful and aggresive attitude to life that they took. I also learned from the play. It was the first time I had heard the titles of Thomas Hardy novels, the first time I had heard of “The Hound of the Baskervilles.” I was being introducecd to a level of culture my family and my formal school education had completely ignored and there was something exciting about the whole thing.

    The original play opened on Broadway in October of 1939 when World War II had been on for about a month and a half. The movie version is descibed as a 1942 movie but I have read that it was ready for release the weekend of Pearl Harbor and was delayed in its release(but perhaps not quite everywhere)by the beginning of the US involvement in the war. So its history is one of trying, in tragic times, to bring some joy and maybe some self confidence to the audience which would be full of apprehensive people uncertain of the future. At the very least it could afford them a night out to forget their worries.

    The story concerns Sheridan Whiteside who was copied off the authors’ friend Alexander Wolcott, a literary critic perhaps best know for his being the unofficial leader of the legendary Algonquin Round Table group who met Fridays at the Algonquin Hotel on W 45th about 1919-1929. He is brilliant, sarcastic, often short-tempered and irascibile. He is also witty and charming. People are drawn to him and often used by him. But many of them are strong enough that they seem to be chums rather than victims.

    Whiteside(Monty Wolley)arrives in the fictional OH town of Mesalia, apparently more or less between Cleveland and Toledo, by train accompanied by his very efficient secretary, Maggie(Bette Davis). He is obligated to give a speech to a cultural group and to go to dinner at the home of Mr and Mrs Stanely. Mrs. Stanley is a big Whiteside fan. Mr Stanley is not.

    As he climbs the steps to the front door Whiteside slips and injures his hip. The local doctor quickly determines that he will need a week or more of rest and must not leave the Stanley home. The troubles are imagnineable–up to a point But Whiteside, a more or less world wide celebrity, conducts business by phone and telegram and receieves messages and gifts from his friends and admirers who pretty much run the gamut from Ghandi to the very obscure.

    Whiteside insists on taking over the lower floor of the house and since he is planning on suing the Stanleys for his injury there is little they can do about it except be obseqious(Mrs) or fume(Mr). There is a great deal of talk about the Christmas season and more about Whiteside and his activites. People and gifts come and go and Mr Stanley is irritated.,

    Whiteside actually is not having a bad time, though he is anxious to get on with his activites, when he gets a shock. Maggie has fallen in love with Bert Jefferson, a young local newspaper owner and writer and she plans to quit her job and marry him. Whiteside is appalled by the idea of her leaving her very exciting job for such a mundane existence. He is even more appalled at losing her efficincy and having to train her succssor.

    Aty this point the doctor informs Whiteside that he is actually OK–the doctor had been looking at the wrong X-rays and there is nothing wrong with Whiteside’s hip. Good news but bad timing. He can’t leave now without leaving Maggie behind him. He buys the doctor’s silence with a promise to consider the doctor’s memoirs for publication.

    It is at this point that the parade of Whiteside friends, copied like Whiteside himself from real people, begins. There is Lorraine(Anne Sheridan), reportedly a take off on Gertrude Lawrence. Whiteside gets her there to seduce Bert away from Maggie. Since he’s written a play, Lorraine, an actress, is interested. She is also spectacular, both in her glamorous appearance and her abundant personalithy. There is also Beverly Carlton(Reginald Garner)a clear take off on Noel Coward. Beverly is a playwright of such wit and humor that he is almost a match for Whiteside. There there is Banjo, a spin on Harpo Marx, He’s played to manic perfection by Jimmy Durante, but of course the fact that it’s Durante is always in your face(maybe a good thing)

    These two guys, though loyal friends of Whiteside are also friends with Maggie and sympathize with her dilemma. Each offers a contribution to the effort to pry Lorraine away and give Maggie her man. I doubt if I will be giving much away if I add that Lorraine is successfully pried. The way it happens is not too believeable, but it is a piece of comic genius. So all ends well except for the Man himself who for reasons I won’t take time to explain ends up looking at another stay with the Stanleys.

    I guess what has always attracted me about this play/movie is the exhuberance of most of its characters. They live in a world unknown to most of us, but one that may exist(or did then)out there somewhere. They are exciting and suave, chic and attractive and fascinating And despite the occasional setback and perhaps even more occasional twinge of conscience, they are having a good time. They are enjoying their lives in a time when much of the world is in pain, but they are not doing it callously but something else, perhaps desperately. They seem to me(and I like to think)that somewhere deep inside they know two things–they are very lucky to live like this and, secondly, particularly in a world such as ours, it could end, perhaps without warning.

    So for them Christmas is a time of good cheer and a little bit of icing on the cake. And while none of them takes a truly spiritual interest in it, it appears that a little bit of the spirit does seep through in the acts of friendship and indulgence which we occiasionally see. And besides that, their fun is our fun for awhile, so let them have it. So to all those denizens of the world of Kauffman and Hart, the world of Whitreside/Wolcott and the folks of the round table at the Algonquin, here’s best wishes. Enjoy your Christmas my friends. Perhaps sometime you will find a somewhat deeper meaning, perhaps not But in any event, thanks for the laughs and the glow it brought and the fun of your company along the way.

    In many ways “The Holly and the Ivy” is about as different of a Christmas movie, compared to “Man Who,” as you could imagine. Based on a very old, perhaps medievel English carol, the title really has nothing to do with the plot, except to set in mind the fact that it is Christmas time. It is a very beautiful piece of music, however, and its stage-setting aspect should not be ignored. Nor will you forget it quickly.

    The movie takes place at Christmas time, apparently 1948, in Norfolk. Norfolk is northeast of London and borders on the sea. An area of small towns and farms, at least then and maybe still, it is the perfect backfrop for this film. It is Christmas time and the Rev Martin Gregory(Ralph Richardson–later “Sir Ralph”)is expecting his family to join him. A widower, he lives with his daughter, Jenny(Celia Johnson), who serves both as loyal daughter and house keeper, and is approaching the age where she might slip into that categoary of women who never marry and spend their best years caring for aging parents or others. She is in love with David, an engineer whose work is about to take him to South America. She wants to get married and go with him, but knows her father depends upon her emotionally and otherwise, and is afraid of hurting him.

    Then there is her sister, Margaret(Margaret Leighton)who forsook Norfolk and her family’s ways for the good life or at least the high life in London where she works in publishing and socializes or more with the rich and sophisticated. Their brother, Michael(Denholm Elliott–also Uncle Elliott in the remake of “The Razor’s Edge”)is in the army but is expected to be discharged soon, His father expects him to follow in his footsteps to Camridge. Michael has other hopes and ideas.

    Somewhat in the background, but still a leading character is David. The quiet engineer wants Jenny as much as she wants him, but he can’t afford not to go ahead on his planned move to South Amerca, an opportunity not likely to be repeated. He is not a dominant character in the film, but he is to some degree the fulcrum of the plot for it is the fact of his reationship with Jenny that pulls things off their steady normal ways and introduces conflict.

    There are two particuar things I like about this film. The first is that is avoids the cliches of the un-understanding parent or the un-understanding clergyman. It’s not as if there are not real life people of that kind, but we’ve seen them so often portrayed in strictly one-dimensional style on the screen that I have tired of it completely. This 1952 film did not indulge itself in anything of that sort.

    Martin is clearly a kindly and understanding clergyman, loyally serving his parish and compassionately dealing with the issues and troubles of his flock. He is not the censorious seeker of sin to correct, but the kindly friend who has some idea of how to connect troubled people to God. It is in fact, in a way his effectiveness as a pastor that gets him into trouble with his family.

    The kids all have troubles. As noted, Jenny wants to get married but fears hurting her father. Michael feels that he has been pressured on the Cambridge thing and that he has not been listened to in a meaningful way. And he believes that he is not going to be listened to and that there’s no point in trying. This leads to an inability of the two men to connect in any calm and reasonable way.

    Perhaps the most difficult for the Pastor to deal with is daughter Margaret. Although frquently mentioned, she is not seen until about half way through the movie. She has worked for a magazine in London and lived the high life for awhile, to the extent of having an out of wedlock child of whom her family has never heard. But the child died of meningits and her relatioships went bad. Some of her wants to return to Norfolk but she’s sure her father would not understand

    So the Pastor apparently has given his love and his caring to his parishioners but not to his children But while this may be his fault-that they feel this way–it is not the truth. He has always been kindly and understanding with his people. He is willing to be the same with his children. But the adult children don’t get it and it seems never did.

    For all I know this is often an issue with clergy families, the family feeling shorted by the clergyman’s attention to his flock. But just how and why they feel this way is never devloped fully and this is the one other flaw I find in “Holly.” We never get much more than a hint as to how things have gone in the past. When it deals with the presernt however, it is extremely honest and moving. However much the kids don’t think he will understand, he does. This is a shock to them, a welcome one, but still demanding a turn around in their thinking.

    And the turn around does come. One by one, he reveals to them his frustration that his being a pastor has led people, particularly his own children, to believe he won’t understand. And since understanding human failings and pain is his buesiness, the irony is bitter to him. But he persuades the children that he does understand and he does forgive whatever there may be to forgive. And finally, he finds, they are capable of doing the same. And I guess this does help it qualify as a “Christmas movie” since it seems to be partly the holiday, though mostly the human attitufes involved which make this possible.

    This all takes shape against the back ground of a small Norfolk village at Christmas and therefore provides not only an emotional but a cultural/psychological background for the characters’ troubles and their resolution.

    The only thing wrong here is that possibly it turns out a little too well. Life is seldom so neat as to allow an aging parent to patch things up with three adult children in one visit and this may seem a bit pat. But compared to the frequent terndency to make a “Christmas movie” something that is composed of pretty scenes of snow and jingling bells and people smiling, it is a blessing to see one that is at least based in something beyond that. It is also nice to see an understanding movie clergyman who is both understanding and wise without being too pious. It is good to see this combination of restraint, decency and sanity mixed together and easy to believe it.

    So take your pick between these two movies according to–well, whatever mood you’re in at the moment, I guess. They are both worthy of your time and might each leave you feeling more Christmas-like, albeit, perhaps, in somewhat different ways. Or, here’s a thought-if you have the opportunity(your local library’s film collection?)watch both. In any event, Merry Christmas.

  • Some Christmas(sort of)reading

    Well, Thanksgiving is past and I’m not quite comfortable yet with doing something on the election, so I guess I’ll start my idea of some books you might read for Christmas–but not necessarily the ones mostly recommended, not necessarily ones clearly definable as Christmas books (Maybe I’ll try a blog on Christmas movies later) My first book is Mitch Albom’s “Have a Little Faith.” If you’re not familiar with Albom at least a little bit, the title may sound corny and something you don’t want to bother with. Hey, maybe you’ll turn out to be right. But wait a minute first …

    If you do know Albom’s work(which I knew previously only by reputation)you likely have some ideas of what a book, by him with this title would say. But, you wait a minute too …

    Albom has done a number of books over about a decade and half of writing, some fiction, some non-fiction. He is likely best known for “Tuesdays with Morrie,” which was a huge best seller a few years ago. “Faith” is actually older, copyright 2009, and called to my attention recently by a friend. I was not familiar with it before that. It also was made into a TV movie a couple of years after its publication date, something I was also not aware of.

    “Faith” is about his close friendship with a man of his parents’ generation, in this case a Rabbi. In that respect it resembles “Morrie.” But even to one who has never read the latter, it is obviously different in some significant ways. For one thing, it is really about his relationships with two men of faith, The Rabbi, Albert Lewis, and the Rev Henry Covington, an inner city minister in Detroit. The emphasis is on the former, but the latter plays an important role too.

    Albom himself was a middle class Jewish kid from NJ who started out as a journalist, in fact a sportswriter. He also wound up living and working near Detroit, a city he learned to know well and which he describes vividly at some places in this book. He became a long-time Detroit person, but still with a lot of NJ in his mind as basically his home area. Through that connection he began to renew his relationship with Lewis who had been his Rabbi when he was a boy. Lewis told him that he wanted him, Albom,, to do his, Lewis’s, eulogy when the time came.

    Albom had been raised middle class Jewish and became quite upwardly mobile. By the time he and Lewis got together again, he was already known to many people through his writing, and despite the depth shown in “Tuesdays” a few years later which moved many people very much, he was basically a non-religious or only incidentally religious Jew. His main values were work and success, although he clearly did not ignore the less fortunate or the unlucky, as his work with charities indicates.

    He visited Lewis from time to time and watched him as he declined from being a fairly healthy and still somewhat active old man, to being a sick man, with little time left. Albom followed this decline and recorded it as he considered what he was sometime going to have to do. He also used the time to think and ponder his own faith or lack of it. And along the way he crossed paths with Henry Covington, whose story he learned and recounts along with that of Lewis.

    Covington was another sort of man altogether. A black man from inner city Detroit, he had early in his life come into contact with the local drug culture, but also with the local faith community and the two mixed in his life. For a long time the drug culture won. Covington became a what most people would likely consider a gangster. A frequent breaker of the law, he was mostly a drug dealer and for sometime a wealthy one. But he fell victim to his own vice, became an addict and finally hit bottom, poor, homeless and without hope.

    Albom chronicles Henry’s struggles with himself and his surroundings, and his slow climb out of depravity and back to decency. By the time Albom knew him Henry had recovered to the point of being “straight” in the old fashoined meaning of the term He had a church in a poor area of inner city Detroit and his people nearly all had serious problems–drugs, violence, poverty, the usual inner city mixture in our country which diminishes our country and demeans many of its citizens. We get to know Henry well through Albom’s visits with him in which we hear about the desperate lack of money in his church and his neighborhood and the overwhelming odds against the people who struggle.

    Henry comes off as a genuinely reformed individual, a not common phenomena in our culture. He has genuinely forsaken his past and is now working for his and his people’s future.

    So the book proceeds with a back-and-forth approach as Mitch examines the lives of these two men, one nearly over, the other fully engaged in struggle. Both of them come off as noble in their own way. Henry is selfless in his giving of time and support. So is Albert Lewis, but he is running down down and is also philosophical. He not only is willing to share himself, he reflects on his life, his faith, and the meaning of each. The juxtaposition of these views both creates a comparison of different kinds of nobility, but also provides a bit of dynamic tension, with two similar but not exactly the same approaches.

    Albert has his doubts now and then when it comes to religion, but his answer is always his faith. He does believe in God though he may not always understand Him perfectly. But he has learned from his faith and his life, that what he needs to do is to take care of people, to make the badly off better off(economically or otherwise)and to lift the minds and hearts of his followers, his congregation to a higher level where they can perceive the pain of life, but go on. And, find it worth the effort.

    As he approaches 90 and his body weakens, his faith never varies. God is Love is, though not spoken or written exactly that way, the basis of his faith. You can serve God only by serving man, by relieving suffering and offering hope. And his congregation loved him and respected him for decades including toward the end when he was able to do very little except talk.

    Mitch describes this all with the story-telling talents of a novelist, which he also is(look up his novels on the internet–some of them sound terrific). He admires the fight each of these good men has made against pain, depression, drugs, and whatever. His last chapters are intensely moving and leave you tired, in a mostly good way. They also may leave some unconvinced aand therein lies the one weakness I perceive here.

    Mitch goes sometimes a little too far in the love will win assertion, even in the ghetto sense, in the sense that God’s love will lift all who turn to Him(and maybe some who don’t). He also may lean a little too heavily into the idea that poverty-stricken people are necessarily morally superior to richer people No, of course he doesn’t put it that way and maybe that’s not at all how he meant it. But some of his words are, if I may risk sounding pretentious, susceptible of that interpretation. Mitch says little about the questions of why misfortune seems to fall equally on the good and the not-so-good, about why misery is the constant companion of so many people regardless of economic standing.

    But I will say this for him. The end of the book is so uplifting, that it just may cure some depression and some hopelessness merely by being read. And Mitch does “get it” in the sense that if there is anything to monotheism at all, then the idea that “God is Love,” though not quite the whole story, is the best starting place and for some a good enough place to end. Though I am a religious person, I may not quite fit into Mitch’s system perfectly, I may want a bit more argumentation and discussion. But his is a place I might fit at times, and most of those who do I think are better for it-particularly if they keep in mind that not everyone will agree all the way, though few will find much to criticize in Mitch and many will praise him highly–including, come to think of it, me.

    Very near the end of the book, Mitch quotes in full his eulogy for the Rabbi. I am tempted to just repeat the whole thing here., but that doesn’t seem quite right and to take a few parts of it would fall short of doing it justice. It begins on p 235 of the Hyperion edition and can be read in a few minutes.`

    I will quote, partly, and otherwise reprise the Epilogue from pp 248-249. Here it is–

    In one of their last conversations the Reb was talking of heaven and Mitch had an idea. He asked the Reb about what it would be like if everybody got five minutes with God before moving on to whatever came next. During that time you could ask whatever you wished.

    The Reb responded that first he would ask God to show the way to members of “my family” who need help. It is not clear whether he meant his congregation family, his personal family or both. “Guide them.”

    And Mitch said OK. that’s a minute.

    The Reb said he’d ask God to give the next 3 minutes to someone who is suffering and “requires your love and counsel.”

    And in the last minute? Mitch wondered. And the Reb replied that he would tell God he thought he had been a good and loving man who had helped many people and he wondered what his reward would be. But, he thought, God would say, “Reward? What reward? That’s what you were supposed to do.”

    Mitch ends the book with “the question gets answered. God sings, we hum along, and there are many melodies, but it’s all one song–one same, wonderful human song.

    I am in love with hope.”

    There are some of us who won’t be able to go quite the whole way with Mitch’s answer. We will want to talk more and reason more and tease out the meaning behind the words. Any maybe some of us will. But regardless who does or doesn’t, maybe we all end up the same place. In fact, I think we do. Try his book-this Christmas.

    My second “Christmas book” is Krista Tippett’s “Becoming Wise–An Inquiry into the Mystery and Art of Living.” This is like Mitch’s book in that it is basically saying that postive and joyful living is possible, but first you have to get through and/or deal with the crap. Neither of them would be crude enough in their elegant writing to put it that way. but that’s about what it comes down to, so I will.

    Tippett’s book is altogether more the ambitious of the two as it breaks down such an approach to the world into five different(more or less)categories and these five plus the introductory chapter are the book. I took a quick look at what readers and critics had said about the book and my impression(based upon an admittedly short study)was that the professional critics liked it more than the public. In fact, the two I read were almost totally positive with no criticisms at all.

    I understand some of the criticims the readers made but on the whole I’m with the “real” critics in this matter. It is true, that the book has an uneven feel as it jumps from one interview subject to another, which was the basis of much of the readers’ criticism. But the overall theme, never stated quite as much as in Mitch’s book, is love and openness to experiences of the day to day world and experiences of a more spiritual nature. And I think she does a very good job of connecting these two.

    I found it worth the trip to travel through so many minds. She talks to so many people and they come from many different backgrounds. Many of them are scientists with varying degrees of interest in or belief in a spiritual realm of human existence. Many are religious leaders or at least religious people. Many are accomplished leaders in “secular” endeavors but relate to one or both of the other two, The main thing that she seeks is their views on how to be a complete person, or to make the world better by your presence(whatever your occupation) and how to live joyfully(mostly)amid the miseries of the world and the clutter of our flawed, imperfect lives.

    I will not attempt to give you a final answer from Ms Tippett. I cannot as there is none, at least in the specific didactic way so many expect. But if there was one basic statement I think would apply here, I guess it would be that we need to live with generosity and an open mind–open to other cultures, both worldly and what most people would consider “spiritual” feelings, open to other types of pesonalities and beliefs, and always ready to be surprised by something new or at least something we had not recognized.,

    In a book that is mostly interviews with people the author found fasicinating, one meets, well, interesting folks. It is perhaps well to keep in mind that not everyone in the world is capable of this kind of thought, or, more importantly, interested in pursuing it. Also, there is this– Mitch’s book is dedicated almost entirely to the message that love of others and sacrifice to help them are the main points of a good life. I don’t think Ms Tippett or any of her contributors would object to this or deny it in any way whatsoever. But I also think they search for something more–the reason behind such a view, a reason that may go beyond the compassion nearly all decent people feel at one time or another. And through so much of the book, we find stated or implied, the importance of stories. True stories about people which have defied them at times and defined them at others, and made-up stories which were made up purposely for explanation when nothing else would explain them.

    I think the best further explanation I can give you is to offer some direct quotes and/or summations of the author’s conversations which I found particularly important.

    For openers, the author comes as close as, I think, she is comfortable with, to a personal statement of faith with “If God is God–and that in itself is a crazy shorthand, begging volumes of unfolding of the question–he/she does not need us craven.

    “He/she desires us, needs us, grateful and attentive and courageous in the everyday.”

    She adds, “That fear of the religion of my childhood was about measuring up–about moral perfection, and the eternal cost of falling short. For me now, faith is in interplay with moral imagination, something distinct from moral perfection.”

    This is about as close as I can get to a statement of faith on her part and I find it quite attractive. And so do most of her interviewees, whose contributions go mostly to support at least indirectly, this point of view. for example–

    Psychiatrist Robert Coles said, responding to Krista’s question about children and mystery, “Mystery is such an important part of it. And mystery invites curiosity and inquiry.” A few lines later he invoked Flannery O’Connor–“She said …’The task of the novelist is to deepen mystery.’ And he adds “We can’t let it be. …mystery is a great challenge. It’s an invitation and it’s a wonderful companion, actually.”

    And this to some degree set the tone of the book. Nearly all of the interviewees celebrate mystery, that is unknowing and trying to learn, to explore. Of course this happens in different ways. She evokes one of the more formal thinkers of the 20th century, Reinhold Niebuhr, who began one of his best known books, “The Nature and Destiny of Man,” with “Man is his own most vexing problem..” And the vexing takes place in many ways and all cultures, and in nearly all cultures and religious traditions someone tries to deal with it. The same is true of nearly all philosophical/psychological traditions, though sometimes these get mixed up together so much it’s difficult to differentiate among them.

    Speaking for herself, Krista says, “Once upon a time I took in mystery as a sensation best left unexamined. Now I experience it as a welcome.” And a few lines later, “spiritual life is a way of dwelling with perplexity–taking it seriously, searching for its purpose as well as its perils, its beauty a well as its ravages…In this sense, spiritual life is a reasonable, reality-based pursuit. …it is … about befriending reality, the common human experience of mystery included.” And I felt I had just been made to remember something I already knew but to which I paid too little attention. And the whole book tends to do that to the reader.

    Perhaps you have heard of the people known to demographics as the “Nones.” These are the Americans, mostly young, who, if given a multiple choice of religious preferences, check the block that says “none.” Krista gives attention to a point long known but seldom appreciated in my opinion. “Nones” are not necessarily anti-religious. They are people who find the versions of religion, particularly Christianity, with which they have become acquainted not accept able. And, frankly, though I don’t consider myself a “None,” I frequently sympathize with them

    Krista says, “I don’t find it surprising that young people born in the 1980’s or 1990’s have distanced themselves from the notion of religious declaration …

    “More to the point: the growing universe of the Nones –the new nonreligious–is one of the most spiritually vibrant and provocative spaces in modern life. It is not a world in which spiritual life is absent. It is a world that resists religious excesses and shallows.” Krista doesn’t actually say this, but I will add that the “excesses and shallows” are what you usually see of religion on TV and therefore the only(or anyway almost the only)experience of religion many Americans have.

    And it is important to note that this spiritual searching extends to people often considered by many in the academic community AND the larger public automatically non-religious. Arthur Zajonc, “is a physicist and comtempletive”–a combination which, if mentioned a generation ago at a faculty party would likely have led to laughter in many places. He says to Krista, “It’s possible to have a spirituality that is not simply about faith … but that actually understands itself as committed to knowing. The practice of meditation and contemplation, which has been an important part of my life since my 20s, has led me to the conviction that there’s an experiential domain in contemplative spirituality which can become in some sense scientific–in the sense that it’s a repeatable basis of human experience.”

    Though I have no wish to compare myself to a man of this guy’s depth or spiritual/scientific experience, I have had similar feelings for a long time. I have felt that secularists who sneer at spirituality should investigate it carefully and apply their own “scientific method” before deciding to reject it.

    The last chapter is on hope and myraid examples of different hopeful expressions are there, too many to try repeating. But I wish to end where Krista does. There was a young woman, a doctor apparently or at least an employee of Doctors Without Borders who was taken hostage by ISIS and a year and a half later died in their hands. Krista was granted the right to look at the letters she had sent to her parents, and to at least some of her blog writings. In one of the latter she had written “This really is my life’s work, to go where there is suffering.” And in a letter to her parents while in captivity, she reminded Krista of “mystics and saints across the ages,figures like Julian of Norwich and Mother Teresa.”

    But Krista got to asking herself about the fact that her beautiful writings and many others would never have been read by many others if they had escaped, returned home safely. It was only the finality of what had happened that brought them to peoples’ attention. And she struggled with this and its implications.

    She does not, after all this and all that she has experienced and observed and read or talked about, offer any all-satisfying final answer. Pat answers are not her style. But she does say this-

    “Humility is a final virtue …woven through lives of wisdom and resilience …Like humor, if softens us for …beauty and questioning and all the other virtues …Spiritual humility is not about getting small, not about debasing oneself, but approaching everything and everone else with a readiness to see goodness and to be surprised. This is the humility of a child which Jesus lauded. It is the humility of the scientist and the mystic. It has a lightness of step, not a heaviness of heart.”

    She concludes that the mystery and art of living are “as grand as the sweep of a lifetime and the lifetime of a species …as close as beginning quietly, to mine whatever grace and beauty, whatever healing and attentiveness are possible in this moment and the next and the next one after that.”

    There is great wisdom and some great comfort in this book and I think the above closing statement says it as well as anything I could add. I am hesitant to compare the books, but compare I must if I’m to fulfill what I set out to do in this little exercise. Mitch’s book is the basic book of being good and living the good life for yourself and for those around you. Krista’s does not in any manner contradict him. She merely expands her thinking and her readers to higher and more difficult levels, as she acknowledges the nuances and contradictions of the world and of what we perceive as goodness and happiness. She is not afraid to ask the great questions and to give us a plethora of answers from which she more or less distills a partial answer of her own.

    We do not know everything and never will. But many of us are capable of learning a lot, and if we followed the dicates of the consciences and consciousness we meet in Krista’s book we would be better off and the world a better place. What more could we ask of her? Merry Christmas, though I hope to get back before the day with a friviolous sounding(and therfore seriously imoportant)reflection on Christmas movies. I think Krista would approve.

    , , ,

  • Who won the mid-term election?

    Well, it is a question. Now that we have the final results of the House of Rep seat distribution, and of the GA runoff, things are a littler more clear. than they were. But don’t count on a lot of clarity yet.

    In the House the GOP apparently won 222 seats which gives them a 9 seat majority. This is not so close as to call into doubt every vote, but it’s close enough the give the party leaders a few chills. When anything serious is being considered the leadership is going to be doubtful. Presumably they will be careful to make sure everyone is still on the reservation as the vote approaches, but this may not always be possible. It will require strong and effective leadership and that is still a question

    I would put my bet on Kevin McCarthy to be the new Speaker of the House, largely because he obviously wants it badly and does not appear to have any serious rivals. What he does have(and likely wishes he didn’t)is a lot of doubt about his leadership skills and his political ideas. These feelings are mostly with the Freedom Caucus and nearly all on the right flank of the putative Speaker.

    There are likely some doubters on his left flank too, but the moderate Republicans appear disorganized and demoralized, though perhaps not quite as much as I had expected. They do not appear in the position of constituting a serious challenge and most of them would likely settle for staying out of the fight and, if there is to be one, watching the McCarthy people and the Freedom Caucus slug it out. There is just about zero chance of anyone left of McCarthy being Speaker.

    So likely McCarthy will win the leadership role in the House. But he may find it difficult to lead. Some of the Freedom Caucus are far enough right that they might challenge him on some issues, in part because they genuinely disagree and in part because they want to show they have the chutzpa to do it. Fighting them off without offending them beyond cooperation may be difficult.

    It appears that McCarthy is still worried about the Freedom Caucus and perhaps some others to the right. Though it is always possible he believed in what he did, that could have been part of the reason for his vote against gay marriage earlier today. And why not, from his point of view? This vote will be pleasing or at least not irritating to the right. Some of the more moderate types may be slightly miffed, but are not likely to give him real trouble over it. For one thing, some of them might fear that if they give him too much opposition, it’s possible he might fail 2 or 3 times to get 218 votes for Speaker and it is just(barely)possible they might wind up the someone they (and a lot of Democrats)would perceive as worse. This is not very likely but in American politics now, you should be careful of writing off anything that is even vaguely plausible when it comes to outcomes.

    My guess is that McCarthy will be elected speaker, not without some struggle, perhaps, but not likely a big or long struggle. His rule may be a real pain, for him as much as anyone ese He follows one of the great speakers and he will have to ride herd on some unruly and not entirely rational people. He also may struggle a bit with his image as regards the former President, since he seemed originally to oppose Trump’s Jan 6 behavior, then flip to supporting it about a week later.

    Regarding the Senate–Warnock wrapped it up with about a 2.8% victory, not a big margin but also not much room for doubt. He made an intelligent and at times almost visionary speech in claiming victory and thanking supporters. Walker made a fairly graceful and honorable exit, way better than I had expected of him. He spoke the most coherently I’ve ever heard him and made no preposterous Trump-like claims about the election being “stolen” or whatever. I don’t think he’s a classy guy, but he showed some class in bowing out. It doesn’t make up for his apparent past behavior and the nasty nuttiness of his campaign, but it’s at least a start, which is more than Trump has done.

    So the Senate will be 51-49. Does this one more vote matter? Well, perhaps not as much as some Democratic leaders say, but it likely will have an effect. Manchin and Sinema will still have some power to be annoyances or worse, but it won’t be quite as easy as it was. The VP will not need to cast a vote very often, in fact not at all if Chuck Schumer keeps everyone on track. It will give a little sparkle to his title of Majority Leader and he may be able to spin that into increased authority and influence. Mitch McConnell may find he is not quite able to be as troublesome as he sometimes was, but the difference looks small.

    On the surface I think this has to count as a small (very small) victory for the Republicans. After all, they now control the House and will be in place to harass and block the Administration in many of its plans and designs. Of course, the speaker will have to look over his shoulder frequently to make sure everyone is following, but that may work out.

    But there’s always that pesky Senate and there’s the expectations game. Up until election night itself I think the Republicans and most Democrats too(to say nothing of political bloggers–I’m one)expected the GOP to have a majority of 20 seats or more. Their 9, though a victory, has to be a disappointment.

    I think that most GOP politicians realized that their chances of winning the Senate were 50-50 at best. This, however, did not prevent some of the usual extravagant claims that they would win the Senate, some of them even suggesting they might have a couple of seats to spare. But there was another GOP disappointment.

    Instead the Dems picked up one seat, running against the usual anti-White House trend in a mid-term. This was due to several causes, but one of the most obvious is surely the quality of the candidates. The GOP had several Senate candidates who were close to Trump on some of the more bizarre issues, particularly the “stolen” election thing and the Jan 6 riot. The fact that they had at least two gubernatorial candidates(PA & AZ)who were also into the extremist-type of campaigning was certainly no help. Keri Lake’s Trump-like behavior may actually have cost them the AZ Senate race, though likely Sen Kelly would have been re-elected anyway.

    In this case the fading but still powerful Trump wing of the party seems to have lost touch with political reality. Fewer voters are impressed with wild theories and extravagant behavior on the stump than was the case six years ago or even two years ago. The Republicans may still have a case or two to make with the public, but not through goofy conspiracy theories and extreme ideas. Trump could still get the nomination again, but it looks less and less likely.

    I think that the most likely thing now is that there will be some genuine attempt at bipartisanship on both sides in the new Congress. But this may be impeded some by the Trumpites on the Republican side and some of the more self-righteous leftists among the Democrats. It will require skillful political actions and a real willingness to compromise to get a whole lot done. I do have some hope that they will cooperate enough to keep the nation safe, military security wise and also financially. This would mean cooperation in giving sensible aid to Ukraine and in preventing a government shutdown or a default due to financial disagreements. The default thing is not likely but would be a real danger. The first thing a great nation does is pay its debts. Alexander Hamilton knew this even if some of today’s conservatives seem not to have noticed his example.

    So I think we have here a muted Republican victory, but only a muted one. It is accompanied by relief and even pride on the part of some Democrats and time alone will tell who was the real victor.

    I send best wishes to all for a good holiday season. I hope to be back shortly with some comments on Christmas-time reading and Christmas movies.

  • Uncertain election predictions

    It is now late afternoon in OH and the rest of the Eastern Time Zone. The polls here will be open for a few hours yet. There are reports of heavy turnouts some places, but such reports are anecdotal, maybe true, maybe not. Also, usually a large turnout favors the Democrats,, but few things are usual this year.

    In an earlier blog, 2 or 3 months ago, I predicted the GOP would take the House by winning 20 or so more seats than they currently have. This would result in a majority of at least 15 in the House, maybe more. Right now the Dems lead, but the Republicans need only a 5 seat gain to take over. This being the case, I concede the House of Rep, at least for the moment, to the GOP. A big surprise is always possible, but in this case, the possibility is extremely remote. Almost certainly the House will be led by a new Speaker, Kevin McCarthy, He will likely have a majority of around 20 seats, maybe more.

    So enough of that–I will concentrate upon the US Senate where there are still questions. There are 6 to 8 seats which are the key races here and I will briefly comment on 8 of them. There is overall agreement that many of these races are extremely close and also that the result may not be known this evening, possibly not for several days, maybe not for about a month if GA is close(see more on this later.)


    Starting East and moving West like the pioneers, I begin with NH. Sen Maggie Hassan(D) is trying to hold off the aggressive campaign of the GOP’s Don Bolduc. The latter is a MAGA Republican of many extremely MAGAish views, particularly in his support of the obvious untruth that the 2020 Presidential Election was “stolen.” Gov Chris Sununu rightly dismissed him as a nutcase(no, not using that word)but refused to say he would oppose him over “one issue.” Hey, Gov, it looks like several issues to me.

    Hassan has pointed to her loyalty to President Biden and her role in getting some of his most important legislation through the House. Nonetheless, the polls show a close race in this usually blue state. I suggest that Hassan will likely be re-elected, but not by a large majority.

    PA is perhaps the biggest race in the country in most ways. It is one of two big states where the Dems might succeed in pulling off a “flip.” We have two flawed candidates, Dr Oz who has made some questionable statements such as the one that mentioned “local” authorities as playing a role in the pro-life/pro-choice fight. What he meant by local authorities and exactly how that would work is not clear. He has perhaps done himself some good(and also respected common sense)in endorsing the President’s de-criminalization of pot users and his refusal to get on the election denier train. Nonetheless, Donald Trump endorsed him.

    John Fetterman, the Lt Gov of the State looked like a terrific candidate to some of us early on. To a large extent he still does, but his health remains a concern. He had a poor debate but has campaigned, I believe, fairly effectively since. Because of the peculiarities of PA election law and vote counting, as well as the closeness of the race, this one is not likely to be decided this evening and maybe not for several days(It took until Saturady in 2020 to make sure Biden had defeated Trump). In the end, I think it will be very, very close and I think Fetterman will squeak out a victory. But as Michael Smerconish likes to point out sometimes we predict more with our desires than our logic.

    Just West of PA is OH where I sit now in a library about 50 miles or so west of the PA-OH state line. Here we have “Hillbilly Elegy” author J D Vance, R v US Rep Tim Ryan, D. The early advantage seemed to be Ryan’s in this now more or less red state, but as money and Trumpian influence flooded the OH Vance caught up.(Vance once derided Trump but changed his mind, whether sincerely or not I have no idea, but certainly to his advantage) It is now very close and like many other places it is likely to come down to turnout. My heart goes to Ryan(as did my early vote)but my gut says Vance–but very close and perhaps not to be decided for awhile.

    Down south we have GA. This is perhaps the most visible Senate race in the US right now, Hershel Walker, R v incumbent Senator, Democrat Raphael Warnock. I originally thought that the simple facts about Walker’s past and character would be enough to defeat him but now I feel no certainly there. As voter after voter in GA has told journalists they care more about who runs the Senate than what runs Walker’s life and character, it appears he has a slight edge. I reluctantly predict he will likely win

    But there is a joker in the deck in GA. State law requires a runoff if no one gets 50% of the vote. There is a Libertarian candidate, Chase Oliver, running also. He is not likely to get much more than 2% of the vote, but if it’s really close that might be enough to require a runoff. And if the Senate vote should produce a 50-49 breakdown, then control of that chamber will depend on what happens in the early Dec runoff. If this should happen and you happen to live in GA, tighten your seatbelts. People and money, particularly money, will be coming there in huge numbers/amounts.

    To the Upper Midwest and WI–this is straightforward in some respects. GOP Sen Ron Johnson is one of the most loyal of Trump followers endorsing nearly all the former President’s ideas including the election steal untruth. Democrat Mandela Barnes, the state’s apparently sober and sincere Lt Gov is still behind, thought a large undecided vote is clouding the issue a bit.- Advantage, Johnson, though I dislike admitting it.

    AZ at least looks straightforward, though not easy to predict. Sen Mark Kelly, a sober and knowledgeable Democrat is challenged by Blake Masters, a young and spectacularly quickly rising GOP star. Masters has shown little interest in keeping his distance from Trump and, though a very successful business man seems to have little else to offer. Polls are close. I think Kelly will hang onto the seat for the Dems. It may be a long time being proved–remember AZ 2020.

    IN NV Sen Catherine Cortez Masto,D is challenged by Adam Laxalt, Att Gen and heir to a Republican tradition in the state. Cortes is the superior candidate in my opinion and while it will be close I think she’ll hold the seat.

    Finally, Alaska, which has a newish system for statewide election in which the top four finishers in the all-party primary get to the final round.. This means incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski takes on fellow Republican(Trump endorsed)Kelly Tshibaka, and Dem Patricia Chesbro. Buzz Kelly, another Republican, dropped out and endorsed Tshibaka. Murkowski is a clever and flexible politician who once beat both the GOP and Dem candidates as a write in. She will lose most of the Republican vote to Tshibaka, but will likely get a lot of Dems and Independents in her column. A close and interesting contest. Could go to Tshibaka but I put my money on Murkowski, one of the more independent Republicans in the Senate. Of course, she would vote with the party on organizing the senate and other procedural matters. Hello(maybe) Majority Leader McConnell

    So- I am showing 4 Dems and 4 Republicans winning This would suggest a continuation of the 50-50 division which has existed since the 2020 election. Of course there could be surprises in other elections which would to some degree change all of this. The only prediction I feel wiling to give now is this–The Senate may split 50-50 again and it will not split more than 52-48 regardless of which party predominates. Since the Dems “win” with a 50-50 division(as long at they stick together)they have just a smidgen of a better chance of running the Senate than the Republicans. But it’s a small difference.

    I guess time will tell, but it may take quite a bit, Meanwhile. I may be back soon to try to make up for my mistakes. Enjoy election night, folks–it’s an American night, nothing quite like it anywhere else. I hope that distinction remains–well, a distinction.