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)

    , , ,

  • Halloween– Notes & Movies

    I don’t really have time to do anything elaborate or nearly so on Halloween. The circumstances of the country, the world, and myself have conspired to make it difficult to do everything I want to do on time. This is too bad because it is, in a weird and contradictory way, one of my favorite holidays. It’s also about my favorite time of year. I share that with Ray Bradbury, a great sci-fi writer of the past who is now apparently mostly forgotten except among aficianados.

    I will give a brief account of Halloween. You can find this on the Wikipedia(I used it as my source)but I did know something about it and can add, perhaps a little background.

    This is an old holiday. Some, I believe, have traced it to ancient Greece but details are hazy. Certainly, the Greeks’ inheritors and eventual conquerors, the Romans played a small role. But the real historicity seems to have come from the Celts who lived, it seems, in places over much of Europe–and perhaps some outside it–in ancient times. They eventually settled mostly in what are now Ireland, Great Britain and the northern part of France where their descendants became Irish, Scottish, Welsh and Bretons. One of their celebrations of the change of the year(Nov 1 on our calendar) was the genesis of this holiday.

    Eventually the church got involved and changed Halloween by adding some things and subtracting others. I am not going to go into All Saints Day and All Souls Day now, but there is a connection. Perhaps I’ll deal with these later.

    As for celebrating this year, better check out what’s on TV and at your local theatre. But I do have to comments on two of my favorite films. One of them you may know about because I did a “Ghosts of Movies Past” on it a little over a year ago. This is “The Uninvited” and if you can find it in your local library or on TV I strongly suggest you watch it. And you might want to read my review of it from last year–it’s right there, Oct 9, 2022. As I explained in that entry, this is my favorite supernatural film and I recommend it to anyone with the slightest interest in suspenseful, supernatural films.

    I also want to mention “The Cat People,” which I completely forgot about last year. I guess I’ll stick with my statement then that “The Haunting” would be my second favorite supernatural film, but this one would give it close competition–perhaps it’s a two-way tie for second. “The Cat People” was made in 1942. It was directed by Jacques Tourneur, a French director, though most of the credit is usually given to Val Lewton, the producer. Lewton was indeed responsible for several good scary films about this time, and indeed launched Hollywood into the idea of doing fairly low-budget but tense thrillers, and he does deserve credit for that. But it appears that Tourneur was the guy on the set who actually made the movie(he almost got fired early on and fortunately for film history he kept the job).

    The story concerns, Irena, a young Serbian-immigrant to the US who lives and works in NYC and meets Oliver, an engineer. They fall in love and marry, but there is a fly in the ointment. According to a Serbian legend some of their ancestors were devil-worshippers and some of them became “cat people,” worshippers of evil. Women of this descent are likely, if sexually, aroused, to turn into panthers with possibly violent results. Yes, it likely would have been a good idea for Irena to have told him about this before the wedding took place. The whole idea would ruin a wedding night, right? However, the trigger for her concerns seems to be that at the wedding dinner a cat-like woman, apparently Serbian, accosts her and refers to her as “sister.” This idea apparently implants itself in her mind then and simply will no go away.

    In any event the story plays out against this romantic-sexual tension and the possible terror of having someone near you turn into a black panther. Not surprisingly, Oliver becomes interested in his friend and coworker Jane, who is suitably non-feline. As the characters try to unwind this issue with the help of a baffled psychiatrist, the atmosphere of tension and menace grows smoothly and rapidly.. There are several really frightening scenes in it, including one near an indoor swimming pool where Jane is about to immerse herself when she hears–well, guess what she hears in the hall outside. This is one of the most suspenseful scenes I have ever witnessed.

    By the way, Tourneur and writer DeWitt Bodeen, did a nice job of balancing the necessity of getting across the heroine’s sexual hangup without violating the Hays Code. They manage to make clear what the issue is without actually saying anything that would have pushed the code guys into fits.

    Obviously, I am not going to tell you what happens later in the film. But watch it, and “The Uninvited,” and if you have any liking at all for subtle and clever scary stuff(as opposed to 250 pound psychos running around committing random mayhem)I think your attention will be well rewarded. Happy Halloween.

    , ,

  • A Higher Mountain

    It was less than a week ago when I finished a blog here in my local library where I sit right now and sent it out to be published. I did not require a lot of time after that to find out that my article was already obsolete when it hit the email sites. The reason for this obsolescence was that when I had written a meeting appeared to be almost ready to take place. It would have been President Biden face-to-face with the Presidents of Egypt and Jordan, the leader of the Palestinian Authority and perhaps a couple of other more moderate Arab spokesmen. By the time I had finished and published my piece these meetings were already called off.

    The reason for this highly unfortunate outcome was the other leaders’ fury about the now-infamous bombing in northern Gaza,killing and wounding large number of Palestinians. Whatever fury they felt was fanned and made more politically acceptable(maybe helpful)by the even more hysterical fury in the Arab Street.

    It should be noted that huge conclusion jumps were made. Hamas said Israel did it and it was assumed Israel did it with out any evidence that this was so. Whatever their many shortcomings, the mobs in the Arab streets cannot be accused of hypocrisy or trying the make political points with this anger. The pepole are obviously furious beyond reason and believe deeply that they are right. The leaders, I suspect, may feel some of the same feelings, yet have a few doubts as to the truth. But the lure of political opportunism may lead them on to places they eventually will regret.

    It is taking longer to nail down a 100% proof of just who was to blame for this senseless and horrifying slaughter of people who were merely seeking shelter from violence than I had expected. But I think it will eventually be clear enough and the the newspapers and magazines along with the on-line columns and later writers of the histories will mostly get it right. And for my money, it’s clear right now. I doubt that I am alone in this conclusion.

    No one, not even the US or Israel has said so far they have 100% proof. But what they do have is a combination of forensic and other evidence that indicates that beyond almost all reasonable doubt this was not done by Israel. Let me sum up what appear to me to be the main points of this evidence

    1)There is overwhelming agreement from military and intelligence analysts that the damage of this blast was not from a bomb. The crater it left behind was not large enough. What it did look like was a crater left by a rocket which landed and/or crashed on this spot.

    2) Israeli intelligence has provided TV networks with videos of what is apparently a rocket rising over the area involved, then beginning to fall to earth. Later(not very much, though)there is a large explosion. No, the film does not show the rocket every second from its apparent flame-out to its hitting the ground but the timing appears about right and there is no alternative explanation for what caused the explosion. So the Israeli contention that this was a rocket fired from inside Gaza and meant to strike Israel, but which failed to make it to its intended destination is plausible. In fact, it is more than that–it is almost the only possible explanation. This is means there was a lot of excess fuel in the rocket and therefore explains the size of the explosion

    3) There is no plausible or logical reason why the Israelis would do this. They would almost surely have understood that such an act, if proven, would utterly infuriate millions on the Arab street and put great pressure on various political leaders to take a hard stance toward Israel and the US, its principal and most powerful ally. With the exception of the proving it part, this is exactly what happened and a tantalizingly momentous meeting of minds was prevented. The President still did well to go and did good job in Israel and on his return trip. But so much potential was lost, all the same.

    So we are reduced now to the “where do we go from here” part. And there are no good answers.

    The fact that some trucks were let through to relieve the Gaza people this morning is mildly encouraging but only mildly(if that)so. This is a drop in the b ucket approach and helps hardly anyone. As a gesture, it’s all right, but it must be improved upon and quickly. Meantime impatience grows on both sides.

    Netanyahu, heretofore the most hawkish of PM’s vis a vis Arab neighbors now appears slightly less so than his generals. The latter seemed, earlier today, at least, to have concluded that the only way out is to crush Hamas. I can understand their desire to get rid of any enemy which wrecked such destruction and pain on their people, but one still has to ask at what cost, and what next?

    Tom Friedman’s article Oct 19 in the NYT has been widely praised and I wish to join in the praise. I have long thought him one of the best, perhaps THE best of the long list of good and excellent thinkers who write for the Times, and never more than now. Please read the article for yourself, but let me note what I take to be his main and oh-so-important point. It is inevitable that there will be some strike back by the Israelis considering what has happened to them. But, Friedman says, let that response be as measured as possible. It should be only military, not vengeance -seeking in what it does. And, even more importantly, this must be accompanied by an acceptance by Israel of the two–state solution to the question of Palestinians on the West Bank. This means the eventual–perhaps fairly quick– agreement by Israel that the West Bank will become a free and independent Arab state.

    This outcome is unacceptable to much of the Israeli right, who feel Israel must not be touched, that is changed in any way. I respect their emotions, but I suggest that in the spirit of the Jewish faith and the Jewish people a little maneuvering for the blessing of peace is in order here. Furthermore, as previously pointed out in many forums, perhaps including this one, this is to the advantage of Israel. If they continue to be just one state, then eventually the Arab population will outnumber the Jewish popoulation and Israel, will cease to be a Jewish state. This is opposite of what it was supposed to be, namely a safe home for the Jewish people.

    But a two state solution would preserve Israel’s chacter and nature better and be more true to its founders intentons. They would give up some West Bank land which would become a part of the Arab state. But Israel would remain Jewish, only without the bitter current divisions. This is plainly what its founders wanted and their dream would be fulfilled, while the rights of Arabs to their own destiny would be preserved.

    , ,

  • The President Climbs a Mountain

    Joe Biden will, I think, never be accused of not trying. He has taken on some of the worst difficulties–covid, the covid-brought about economic mess, a fractious and divided opposition(today’s Republicans), Putin & Ukraine and now the current tragic unfolding events in Gaza and Israel. There is much still unknown and undetermined and ,much we all need to think about. I don’t expect to have a lot in the way of answers here. But I do have a few brief introductory musings on this mountain of serious difficulties and I decided to share them now.

    There can be no doubt that Hamas, the Sunni-aligned but nonetheless Iranian supported terrorist group that has effectively ruled Gaza for more than a decade, bears the main responsibility for starting this. Whatever their complaints(and some are at least arguable) and no matter what kind of rulers and/or neighbors the Israelis have been(and they’ve had their bad moments, particularly when Netanyahu has been in power), there was no reasonable excuse for the slaughter of October 7 in Western Israel.

    The Hamas leaders, who appear indifferent to the pain of everyone else including the residents of Gaza in whose name they wield power, must have know what they were doing to this extent–they knew it would lead to more violence. It is a simple rule of international, particularly Middle Eastern, politics, that if you strike Israel, Israel will strike back. That is a given, and while it is by no means limited to Israel, it is particularly appropriate to this small, but powerful and usually honorable country. It was established to be a home for the Jewish people when they had just experienced, as a people, the Holocaust and if any country ever had the right to use force in defense of itself Israel would be that country(Not there are not others, US sometimes included.)

    So there was no doubt there would be retribution from Israel. The questions were–to an extent still are–how will Israel strike back, when will they do it, and to what extent will they unfortunately mimic the disregard for human decency and world opinion shown by their adversaries? We earlier today heard of a bombing in Gaza that had taken 200-300 innocent lives. Much of the Arab world and many others of Israel’s(and usually our)enemies used this immediately as a stick to beat the Israelis before the court of world opinion.

    I too was offended and wondered how Israel could have been careless enough to leave themselves open to this charge. But even if the charge turns out to be in any way true, the guilt of Hamas in starting this remains. And now doubts are raised about what exactly happened. The Israelis have denied this was their work. They have, in fact, alleged that the missile that caused this was actually fired by Hamas or some of their supporters(Hezbollah, whoever)and it went off target with tragic results. The truth of this is yet to be determined, but I would say this allegation deserves at least a reasonable assumption of truth–it is consistent with what I think is true of the two sides and it is much more likely that the Israeli story is true than than it is not. Still, we wait for more information.

    But what about the President? When I heard of the suggestion of this trip I was opposed. This is dangerous. Flying to the Middle East should be fairly safe with the USAF and the US Naval air power to defend him. But is it certainly not extremely secure, and the real danger is on the ground. No matter what our people and the security people of Israel, Jordan, Egypt and whoever else might be involved can do, there is no way to guarantee anything. There is always the possibility of a sniper, and remote-controlled bomb blast or a suicide bomber. There are just about never any guarantees of safety for any human being. Certainly there are none here.

    There are also political risks. Though I think the President’s courage and steadfast determination to work for peace will likely prevent this, it is possible the effort will be a failure. That would be very bad for the cause of peace, for the President’s political party and further for the USA and its allies around the world. So the President is showing two kinds of immense courage here, physical and political. Whatever the outcome, no one will ever be able credibly to deny that.

    , ,

  • The Biden-Blinken Nightmare–Two Crises abroad, One at Home and No Apparent Solution

    I wonder if President Biden or State Secretary Blinken regrets today that he is in office. Most likely not–they are both patriotic and deveoted men who want to do what is right. But it would be hard to blame one or both of them if he wished he were relaxing on a beach in retirement as Biden could be or still an academic or a ranking but not top level foreign policy official in the government, as Blinken might well be if Biden had not tapped him for the top job at State.

    I’m sure they are both eager to struggle with the problems at hand and to do their best to straighten out the messes. But they might indeed wish someone else was responsible for this although I doubt one or both of them would want that someone else to be anyone connected in any way to Donald Trump. Briefly, consider what they face.

    First there is Ukraine and it will not go away because of US domestic political problems or international crises somewhere else in the world. The Ukranian gains from late summer seem to have been real but small and now to be ended or close to it. This will obviously likely go on much longer.

    There are some signs that the backers of Ukraine are softening a bit in their support in some cases. This is not critically bad so far, but it will be soon if it picks up strength like a snowball rolling down a hill. Europe is for the most part holding fast as was shown at a recent meeting of European diplomatic and political leaders. But in some places there are indications that some of these countries’ people are tiring of the outflow of money and time being taken for it to help.

    In Slovakia there was recently an election in which a party sometimes described as populist right-wing finished first. It is opposed to more help for Ukraine and took 23% of the vote. Second was a liberal, pro-Ukraine party with 18%. Since more than 20 parties were involved these are fairly high numbers and clearly the two leaders, though each would have a long way to go to build a majority coalition. Nonetheless, it is cautionary. Could what happened there happen elsewhere? Of course. Will it? Who knows? But Biden and Blinken have to consider the possibility it will–and what would they do if it does?

    So Ukraine remains an issue and there is no easy way out So far the Administration has done a good job of holding things together. But the longer it goes on the harder it gets. Now add into that, the sudden explosion today(Oct 7)in Israel. For maybe the 2nd time in history the Mossad, Israel’s vaunted intelligence service, seems to have been bested, to have been unready for something which it would seem they should have noticed.

    It has been pointed out by many already that this is similar to the Yom Kippur war 51 years ago They missed that one too and now a generation or(more like)two later it has happened again Why it happend the first time is still difficult to say for sure and hardly matters now unless there is a lesson to be learned from it which is likely not the case What they missed then had to do with old fasioned inter-state power politics. This is the new world of non-state(sort of)violence and terrorism and has nothing really traditional about it, although after a about a quarter of a century many of us have pretty much gotten used to it. The attack came from Gaza, right next door, which has long been (effectively if not actually officially)governed by Hamas.

    Hamas is a religioos/political movement, a Sunni one which would usually be opposed by Hezbollah, the Sh’ia one in nearby Lebanon. They have run Gaza for about a decade and a half since surprsingly ousting the old Fatah government in an election which was part of the legacy of the Oslo Accords. They have rarely shown any inclination to compromise or consider anyone else’s point of view unless they had worked them into a situatuon in which it appeared it would be suicidal for both sides to go on fighting(This more or less happened about a dozen years ago

    Hamas appears to be advancing with not only the intent of taking land but also kidnapping and imprisoning Israeli civiians. What the purpose of taking such prisoners would be is hard to figure, and harder to think about.. The Israelis have announced(or PM Netenyahu did)that Israel now is in a state of war. I dislike to agree with Bibi on much of anything, but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he is close to being right here. What role the US will be able to play here is not clear, but it must be something. For many reasons, strategic, economic and others we cannot afford to let the Middle East slip from our grasp or influence. This has already happened to some extent with Israel whose sorry domestic state and political quarrelling may have had something to do with getting themselves into this mess to begin with.

    Finally. and mercifully more briefly, there is our own political crisis. The House of Representatives is without a leader. Maybe one will emerge soon. But to what purpose? If he is as recalcitrant as the right wingers who dispatched the unlikeable but ultimately willing to compromise McCarthy, then little good may come of it. And action is needed quickly first, of course, on our spending and shut down crisis, but almost as quickly on these foreign policy issues. And if the leaders turns out to be Ohio’s Jim Jordan, the attitude toward a resonsible foreign policy may be even more questionable than it has been earlier this year.

    So Biden and Blinken have a genuine mess or combination of messes on their hands and there cold br more waiting–say China, or North Korea for openers, and possible more in the Middle East as well. They need to tread both carefuly and boldly to the exent that is possible. No action or excessive action would both be potentially disastrous and it appears no quick fix is on the way in Ukraine or Israel. I’m sure they are both aware of this. Let us hope most of both parties in the House and Senate are aware of it too and willing both to offer sensible and sound advice on one hand and to stay out of the way on the other.

  • The Ghosts of Movies Past–Random Harvest

    “Random Harvest” and “The Uninvited” which I did here some time ago have one big thing in common. I thought they were both British made movies but both turned out to be American–at least technically and legally. I was not wrong, however, in their basic character. They are both British to the end in their inspiration and style and in their overall point of view and attitude. ” Harvest” also was based on a British novel(same name)by James Hilton(“Shangri La” and “Goodbye-Mr Chips”)

    “Harvest” was made in 1942 and directed by Mervin Leroy, one of the fine directors of fairly early American sound pictures. It received 7 Academy Ward nominations but won none. Greer Garson in a sense beat herself by winning the Award that year for “Mrs. Miniver,” the stirring if slightly melodramatic salute to the British resistance to Hitler, particularly the resistance of civilians(She was not a nominee for “Harvest”)

    “Harvest” begins at the end of WWI and we meet a British officer(Ronald Coleman) whose name and identity are unknown and who, as a result of his war injuries can’t remember anything of his former life. He has been assigned the name “John Smith.” He is in an institution for war wounded in 1918 and he is about to be visited by an aging couple whose son disappeared during the war, Could he be their son? They and he hope so, but they do not recognize him and all are disappointed.

    In the furious celebration of victory over the Germans a door at the asylum is left unguarded and he wanders off and into the local town. There he meets a showgirl, Paula,(Garson)who figures he’s a victim from the asylum but likes him and feels sorry for him which leads to a friendship. I don’t think it will be a big spoiler to add that eventually they marry and begin a new life together. Then an accident gives him back his old memories but wipes out all memories since his war injury.

    Now Paula is in a jam–married (and a mother) to a man who no longer knows his wife and son, but has remembered his wealthy, big business family and now returns to them. The family is largely ungrateful and not very warm to him, but he decides to stay and turns out to have a talent for business(He had been working on a writing career in his time with Paula). And the family is happy enough to have him take over their sagging fortunes and revive them.

    NOW–you may think you can guess at least some of what happens next. As a matter of fact, you’re likely right to some extent, you could hardly miss on some of it–but there are a couple of surprises along the way and you may not guess all of it, particularly not how things happen or when.(Rather like “Vertigo” in that–see my blog on Hitchcock if I ever get around to finishing and publishing it).

    That is all I’m gong to tell you about the story. It appears every now and then on TCM and likely other movie channels too. If you get the chance I strongly recommend you see it, you’ll likely like it and maybe be very moved by it. Of course you have to be careful with me. I have a liking for stories about the British Upper and Upper Middle classes between the wars and into Churchill’s era. And I suspect that behind my defensive sarcasm and humor I am really a romantic-at least on even numbered dates. So this would influence my choices of–well, many things, certainly movies and music.

    The leads, Coleman and Garbo are superb in this. My only logical complaint is that the “showgirl” Garson is at the beginning of the film is a bit too civilized, a bit too classy sounding and looking to be entirely believable. I thought “showgirls” back then were disrespectable by definition and she seems to have just returned from a wealthy tea party. But other than that there is nothing wrong with her performance which is outstanding. And Garson is always believable as a well bred lady for whom a well bred man might fall head over heels. And Coleman does.

    One of the critics(the original ones, that is) complained that his presence in the movie seems that of a man older than he ought to be and there is some truth in that. He seems nearing middle age at the start and most British officers at the front in 1918 were younger than that. But he doesn’t miss a trick otherwise. He is the ultimate war victim, the decent, lonely, abandoned gentleman searching for love and acceptance and finding it, temporarily at least, in Paula. He is always a gentleman, not only in his outward behavior, but in his sense of honor and his performance brought to my mind a quotation I think I’ve used before, from “Ten North Frederick”–“He was a gentleman in a world that had no further use for gentlemen.” But this one was successful.

    Watching these two people, deeply in love with each other at one time, then the one having forgotten the other one-whose feelings obviously have not changed-is gut-wrenching and LeRoy both plays this for all it’s worth and at the same time does it in a cultivated and restrained way. It could have been a mess, an insult to both of the leading characters, but LeRoy had the good sense to make it a waltz, not a Rhumba, and it worked.

    The reaction of the critics has been curious. Although a big hit and monetary success, it was not well received by most of the important critics at the time of its release. Bosley Crowther of the NYT(“Bosley Crowther who can always be counted upon to miss the point” Pauline Kael once called him–maybe this is an example)stated “for all its emotional excess, Random Harvest is a strangely empty film.” The highly and much admired James Agee was funnier. He thought it was a film for “those who can stay interested in Ronald Coleman’s amnesia for two hours and who can with pleasure eat a bowl of Yardley’s shaving soap.”

    But the passing of time made another generation of critics more generous. Jonathan Rosenblum of the Chicago Reader thought it had “a kind of deranged integrity and sincerity on its own terms,” a back handed compliment perhaps, but definitely a compliment. Leonard Maltin, author of famous movie books found it a “supremely entertaining MGM treatment with Coleman and Garson at their best.” Movie historian Hal Ericson said “the magic spell woven by the stars and by author James Hilton …transforms the wildly incredible into the wholly credible.”

    And this was likely necessary. The coincidences and chances of the movie are notable None of them is close to “Impossible,” but the whole plot taken together would fall into the category of “unlikely.” It required good writing, outstanding performances and the steady hand of an accomplished director to to hold things together and pull this off and it worked admirably. If you like them traditional, longing, and historically transporting, this one almost certainly will please you. It is done like what it is, an “old movie” from that first generation of film makers who knew how to integrate story, character and feeling and usually succeeded. This is one of the successes.

    I have this fantasy of NBC having a “Saturday Night ” sketch in which some of the characters from “Everything, Everywhere” go to see this film and flip out from the order and self-restraint. Well, I’d better not follow that one too far.

    ,

  • Farewell, Margaritaville

    Jimmy Buffett died a few weeks ago and left a whole lot of people bereft. I don’t know if he will get it, but here’s my letter to him.

    I miss you Jimmy, already, and I had rarely thought of you in recent years. So you couldn’t honestly call me a real fan, I didn’t really follow your career or your music and I have no idea what your second biggest hit was. But I know the first one, and so do millions of others. It was “Margaritaville.,” but it was more than just hit music–because of the sound and the words, and the way they created a reality of their own, it was more than just another hit–it was an anthem, a poem and a statement. It encompassed a time and a place but it did more than that. I don’t know if you intended it to, but it created a feeling for life and its rewards and disappointments, its successes and failures. And it also suggested, at least, a way of dealing with them.

    It wasn’t exactly a hymn to respectability or responsibility. Some would say just the opposite. It was not arguing for any one idea or set of ideas,. It just told us about you and your feelings and your ways. And in learning them, we noticed that it was possible to reminisce and learn things from your reminiscense and go on. But we also noticed that maybe they were not all that big(the failures and disappointments)and that if you were casual enough and patient enough and if you accepted easy gifts such as music and open air and beautiful surroundings, (and maybe the occasional margarita or it’s equivalent)then maybe everything would work out. For many years it did for you.

    You were a pirate and a lover, an ideal and a brother and a friend. You implanted in many people the idea of what I think might be called “casual heroism,” the ability to take the tough spots, to roll with the punches and not whine but rather celebrate what you have and maybe learn to appreciate it more. And you taught this to others, intentionally or not, and they loved you for it and their lives were better as was yours because of it. “Margaritaville” became an ideal to many, a place where regrets could be acknowledged, serious thoughts considered, and then it was time to enjoy. “Margaritaville” was a special place where life almost always floated on a cloud of effervescence, that combination of joy and mystery, that some people get from love or music or just plain wonder. But for most of us it lasts a short time, and sometimes it’s a long time between treats.

    In “Margaritaville,” it stayed. It was always there, somewhere in the back of our minds that there was such a place, maybe in geographical reality(hey, you were there, right?), but certainly in our imagination and it was that kind of imagination that could become real for short times, and make life better. And for a short time everyone could be a pirate, or at least a mate or follower and could partake of the “Margaritaville” universe. Sure there were still bills to pay and dishes to do and all the rest, l but the knowledge of “Margaritaville,” I’ll bet, and the knowledge that you might go back there, pulled a lot of people through. And maybe it still will.

    It’ll be harder now. I have the feeling that some of “Margaritaville” went with you, but that maybe some is still here, still available. Or maybe–and this is indeed a flight of fancy-if I may borrow an idea from C S Lewis(a writer whom I imagine is not usually linked to you in many minds)perhaps you are now in the real Margaritaville , and the one we know back here is its mere reflection. Plato. would have liked that idea. Perhaps someday we’ll all understand.

  • A Riddle from a Poet and a Novelist

    There is a bookstore in a part of Minneapolis, W 25th St about a mile or two west of Hennepin more exactly, which is in a location I love. This is a pleasant upper middle class area which could well be called suburbia if it were not in a leading American city. The store is called “Birchbark Books and Native Arts” and is owned by the author , Louise Erdich.

    It is across from a school and near a park and there is a pleasant restaurant-lounge next door with, I seem to remember, decent food at moderate prices. It’s an all-out great place to be where if you are retired or on vacation you could, on a good weather day, sit outside and read while drinking endless cups of coffee or tea and no one would bother you all day. You could drop in to the restaurant for lunch, then return to you outdoor spot. Your companion could join you later for dinner at the restaurant. In case I’m not making myself clear this is a great place.

    Erdich is considered by many a significant American writer who has published many books, mostly novels, about the upper mid west and her people–which is complicated because she is half Chippewa and half German. She obviously knows both of these groups very well, though her writing tends to emphasize the Native American side.

    The store has been there for several years and on our fairly frequent(limited in recent years by covid)trips to the Twin Cities area we nearly always visit. The store has gotten a little wokey for my taste which means not that I object to the store but I don’t find too much I want to read there. But on our recent visit last month I made a find. I found an author that I will likely try again, though she is not exactly my kind of writer. (The same could be said of Erdich, whose latest book is apparently a novel about a haunting in a Minneapolis bookstore–gotta try that one, right?)

    OK, enough background. Lorrie Moore is an established American writer–among the literati, anyway. I didn’t know her until her newest, “I Am Homeless If This Is Not My Home” practically jumped off the shelf at Louise’s book store a few weeks ago. Had it not been for the store I would likely never have heard of her. Thank you, Louise.(By the way, I had a similar experience at the Cleveland Art Museum last spring–in this case I was captivated by a postcard of Amedeo Modigliani’s “Woman With Red Hair,” a stunning portrait of a woman in a dark dress with ,uh, well, red hair. I am usually much more interested in writing, in literature, drama, and other forms of the written word than in painting, but this one overwhelmed me, Go figure).

    Moore has done more short stories than anything else, though this is not her first novel. It is, however, my first exposure to her and it was one of the weirder introductions to a writer(or anyone else)I’ve ever had. She seems to have a devoted following who express themselves about her on-line and they often speak of her talent with words.

    They are right. She is one of the most gifted wordsmiths I have ever read. Consider–“Desire, of course, on my part, has been shooed away by the Lord. Though sometimes I think I see it, raggedy, outback among the mossy pavers, like a child cutting across yards to get to school. One sees a darting through the gum trees and hickories that have come back from the winter’s scorching freeze. Oh, yes, I say to the darting thing, the fluff of a dandelion clock, or a milkwood puff: I sort of remember you.”(p 6) Who else could write like that?

    And that is her strength. She gives life to words and phrases and turns them into living things, sometimes beautiful, sometimes funny, very frequently fascinating. And this is one reason she kept me reading her though I think many might find the story unsettling and I did at times. Actually there are two stories going on here, one comprising I’d say less than 20% of the book, the other one the other more than 80%. It is this story that get most of the attention as indeed it should as it constitutes so much of the book.

    But the first one should not be ignored or belittled. The above quotation which so impressed me is from it and the book begins and ends(almost) with it. This story is the diary of a southern lady of sometime in the post-Civil War era. Her name is Elizabeth and she is single and runs a boarding house in a small, unnamed town. The story is her diary in which she writes her deceased sister to tell her about her life now and her experiences and opinions.

    Among her boarders is a man of indeterminate(as nearly as I could tell)years and a distinguished attitude. He makes subtle remarks and uses extravagantly eloquent language. She refers to him as the “handsome lodger” the first time we note her writing something about him to her sister. She slowly reveals that he has hinted to her that he would be willing to remove her spinsterhood, something which she obviously both desires and detests.

    This not only contains some of the book’s most elegant writing(note above), it is the more “normal” of the two stories, though a lot of people, had they read only this part of the book would likely find that a strange remark.

    The other part of the book, the main story, seems to take place in pre-Trump(but barely)America. Our main character is a young or maybe youngish middle aged man named Finn. Finn is a high school teacher on leave due to his health and is visiting his brother Max in a hospice in the Bronx. The visitation scenes are disturbing and sometimes hard to take. But Moore is not one to go lightly on her reader, at least not at certain times. These parts of the book are often painful, but they gave insight to Finn’s character. I would say that, overall, he is both a hero and a victim.

    While visiting Max Finn receives word that back in Illinois his ex-girl friend Lily is in trouble, depressed and suicidal. Though they have been broken up for about a year, Finn feels he must go to her so he makes his excuses to Max and starts west toward Lily and Illinois. At one point Moore gives us the following–“He suspected he was in Ohio. When not paying attention in life he assumed he could end up in Ohio.” Hmm..

    Eventually he reaches his destination and meets Sigrid, Lily’s sister, who tells him he is too late. Lily has committed suicide. Devastated, Finn goes to the place of her grave. And there an odd thing happens. He meets Lily. She comes from behind him and speaks. He turns and there she is–it’s Lily all right, but apparently half dead and half living.l She is wearing a shroud and apparently has a mouthful of dirt, but she is there and conscious and talking. “Crazed death had not yet made a stranger of her.” (p 78)

    Thus begins one of the weirder literary tales which I have read or heard about. It becomes a sort of road trip regarding human mortality as the living Finn and and whatever Lily cross a couple of states on their way to a Knoxville(area?) farm which harvests various parts of recently deceased and uses them for research to extend and improve human life. Lily has promised them her organs and has no intention of going back on the promise.

    As they travel they talk and talk and talk. They speculate and they reminisce and they wonder. Lily never has an explanation for what is going on. Is she a zombie? What is she? We never know and neither does Finn, nor, apparently, Lily herself.

    They reflect on the relationship they once shared and they reflect upon the ironies and shortcomings of the world and human existence. They talk about the important and the non-important, the profound and the ordinary. They talk about each other. The make love(mercifully not described in detail)and they move on. And they make no real discoveries, though they mull over a lot of long-known truths about themselves. But they never reach conclusions that satisfy them and the hope that Finn seems to have of understanding is disappointed.

    Elizabeth gets one more shot near the end and in a very round-the-corner way it is revealed as a possibility that that “gentleman lodger” is John Wilkes Booth, apparently escaped and now travelling on his own using another name but telling half-truths about his own past, And there is a dramatic and surprising end to their relationship and Elizabeth is left guilty and unanswered too.

    Finn gets one more round and we pull hard for him(or I did, naively, perhaps) but he is too devastated. His brother is now gone too and he has to get himself together for the ceremonies and other business of his passing. And Finn is now stuck in the world with no one and no answers. This is not quite a full or fair description of the ending, but I think it would be fair to say that this novel has no “ending” in the usual sense of the term. Finn and his despair dominate more or less throughout the book. The connection to Elizabeth’s story is extremely tenuous and perhaps meaningless. Or so it appears to me. That may not have been Ms Moore’s intent But it serves well enough given the “story.”

    I am a loss to try to sum up this book. I can’t think of any adequate way to do it. I have made it sound like the ultimate “downer” and that was not exactly my intent. There are times when things are actually done or said with humor and such humor usually works for awhile. Moore can be fairly funny. She certainly dazzled me with the beauty and complexity of her language. It seems to me that she wrote as a poet as well as a novelist. She is not a “storyteller” in the usual sense of the term but she has presented a story of stark and devastating beauty and complexity all the same. If you have a place similar to the one I mentioned in Minneapolis, that, on the right day and at the right time, would be a good location for reading this. The book and the atmosphere will both compare to each other and offset each other, I should think. Ms Moore will obviously not be everyone’s cup of tea, but her questioning mind and her determination in seeking out the truth about human beings and everything about them–love, God, disappointment, death, trust and all the other big questions could keep some of us coming back. I, for example, think I’ll try some history or a mystery/suspense novel now. But I do have an older novel by her that I found at my local library in my “to read” area. So maybe I’ll be back among her readers again. I certainly plan to stay in her corner, wherever that may be.


  • Favorite Album

    Daily writing prompt
    What’s your all-time favorite album?
    View all responses

    I may think of something else later and regret this, but my immediate response in Joni Mitchell’s “Miles of Aisles”–got “Carrie” on it along with “The Last Time I Saw Richard” and “A Case of You” which Diana Krall would later turn into one of the greatest jazz performances ever. A lot of Joni’s fans would go for “Blue” and I wouldn’t protest, but this is my favorite–Good to see Joni on TV again- JBP

    ,

  • Maybe, maybe not–then again …

    As my likely not really clever title may indicate, I have some mixed thoughts to share. I have partaken recently of two different artistic creations, one movie and one book, both of which left me wondering: at least one of them left me wanting more–maybe later. Okay, I’ll explain–or try.

    “Afire” is a German film directed by Christian Petzold with whom I was not previously familiar. Since he was the director I think its appropriate to mention his name. I won’t bother with any of the actors or other technicians since I’ve never heard of any of them before and neither have you–likely, anyway. To give away the ending of my review a little bit, I ended up more or less liking this movie–I’d give it a B-. But it was a convoluted business involving a great deal of patience and the belief that something good was coming. Something was, but it took a fairly long time.

    “Afire” takes place in northern Germany on the coast of the Baltic Sea, a fact that I gleaned from other reviews. I could tell there was a sea there but I did not know which one. It begins with two young friends, Felix and Leon, travelling by(unreliable)car to to Felix’s mother’s place on the coast which she has offered them as a good place to pursue their artistic endeavors. Felix is working on an art school portfolio and Leon is brooding over his second novel, newly “finished,” and hopes to see his publisher soon to find out if it’s a “go” as is.

    Their trip is tiresome for them what with mechanical failures and getting lost, and at least as much so for the audience (those who share my tastes, anyway) listening to these two bicker and BS. But they finally make it to the place anyway where they surprisingly encounter Nadja, a lovely young woman who apparently was also offered the run of the place including a key by Felix’s generous mother.. In return she will look after the place–apparently. This is never made very clear in what I think is one of the movie’s weaknesses, though she is actually the best character in the film. Attractive, intelligent, psychologically and emotionally elusive, she is a counter point to the more-or-less normal Felix and the grumpy, brooding tiresome Leon.

    Leon is immediately attracted to her, but he doesn’t really know how to make a move and anyway there’s the book and the publisher to think about. Apparently, Leon’s first novel was a success, which is a bit difficult to understand when you think of the guy himself and his apparent personal tendencies. Later we meet two other characters, Devid, apparently a lifeguard on vacation (or maybe just in between shifts) whose main purpose seems to be to have someone else in the movie. There does appear to be an infatuation between him and Felix but nothing much comes of it until the end when it turns tragic. The other one is Leon’s publisher, Helmut, who wants to go over the new novel and has a lot of comments and suggestions for the young author, none of them really praising him.

    Meanwhile, we are reminded from time to time that there is a serious forest fire raging not too far away. There is the suggestion that this may have some kind of teleological meaning for the characters or at least bring them to greater awareness of a serious earth issue. This point is never really developed, but that’s OK, having it there in the background may be enough.

    Now we come to the point where I need to state clearly my two main objections to the first 2/3 of the movie. Leon is a tiresome bore and shows almost no identification or empathy with anyone else. This apparently is not true, but this is how it seems for far too long before we see (or I saw, at least) anything else in him. I guess you could say that since he had one novel already published, he must have had something hidden in there. Manohla Dargis, lead critic for the NYT seemed to like the movie overall, but she did comment that they could have ripped off James Joyce and entitled it “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Douchebag.” Apparently, she has a higher tolerance for some people than I do. She liked the film more than I did, regardless of Leon.

    The other complaint, already referred to, is that roughly the first 2/3 of the movie is, to give it the benefit of the doubt, not very exciting. Now I have often myself heard people complain that “nothing happens” in a movie I liked very much and I wondered what was with them. So maybe somebody will wonder that about me. But anyhow, that’s how it seemed.

    According to Neely Swanson of Easy Reader News(no, like you I never heard of him or it before this)Petzold told someone that among his influences were American coming of age stories, a story by Chekov, and the French New Wave director, Eric Rohmer. Dargis mentions about the same thing, particularly Rohmer.

    I remember Eric Rohmer , though I may have seen only two of his films–I know I saw “Chloe in the Afternoon.” and liked it immensely. I believe I also saw and liked as much as Chloe, “My Night at Maud’s(be careful what you assume from that ambiguous title). Anyway, I commend Rohmer and his huge number of films to your consideration. Swanson has a good point when he writes ” …unlike Rohmer, he (Petzold) doesn’t seem to have a view to articulate.” That is likely part of the trouble with that first 2/3 or so of the movie.

    But the thing is that at a certain point, something changes. I cannot associate this with any particular event in the story, with one exception which I’ll get to. But the whole thing becomes more tightly done, or at least it seems to. The characters gain some feeling and gravitas and the eventual disposition of their characters and relationships becomes something you care about. From here on to the end it is an engrossing story of manners and morals and may even take a little bit of a whack at artistic integrity.

    The one thing that may lead to the turnaround is the arrival on the scene of Helmut, the publisher. He insists on going over Leon’s novel more or less page by page and pointing out its many lackings, particularly when compared to his one earlier successful work. Helmut becomes an important character, though not too fully developed, not as much as I think would have been good, and with some loose ends. But he brings a hint of maturity and purpose into the story. I do not think this is by any means the whole reason for the turnaround in the movie, but it is clearly a part of it.

    I will leave it to you to decide if you want to see this(assuming you can find it), but I would suggest that if you are serious movie fan and/or student of film you should try it. Petzold apparently has done better in the past and I think he’s likely to do much better in the future, particularly when I consider some of the “masters” he follows, particularly Rohmer. He was one of the best!

    OK, so much for the movies–well, for that one, I mean. On to the books-well, make a beginning, at least. This is a questionable move because I am much more comfortable with reviewing movies than books. But I’ll give this one a shot somewhat later–Having worn out my attention span on “Afire” I’m going to have to rest it for awhile. The book is by Lorrie Moore, apparently a well established short-story writer and sometimes novelist, but not one previously known to me. Her book is “I Am Homeless if This Is Not My Home.”

    I need to digest this novel further before go into it in detail. I was not familiar with Ms. Moore’s work before and I AM impressed, but not quite captivated.–Also, I am a bit confused. So hold on and I’ll try to get to her latest book(she’s been at it for 3 or 4 decades now)shortly, possibly after re-reading it or at least parts of it. For entertainment while I’m doing this, maybe I’ll watch more closely the Trump indictments and their attendant legal maneuvers. I know this sounds weird but in a perverted kind of way I think that will help my mind–not clear it exactly, but give it a moment of relaxation concentrating on the ridiculous rather than the erratically sublime.

    ,

  • Immigration, cruelty and self-defense–what are the rules and what can be done?

    I just became familiar with a new name in journalism. Lydia Polgreen is a columnist for the NYT which she joined about a year ago–so I guess I was behind the Times in not knowing of her previously. That’s not a very good joke but it will be the only one in this column. This is a decidedly unfunny subject.

    About a week or so ago Lydia did a column on the brutalities she had seen and heard about in Africa, and particularly at the Ethiopian Saudi-border. These included the wanton slaughter of thousands, many of them children, and such non-military actions such as forcing teenage boys, at gunpoint, to rape girls. So here are a few thoughts,.

    First of all, a little background, but only a little. I’m not going to weigh you(or me, for that matter)down with extreme detail. On the question of why people are fleeing Ethiopia, the answers come down to mistreatment of women, mistreatment of different ethnic groups, and poverty along with lack of opportunity. It looks better about anywhere else including, apparently, Saudi Arabia. The whole thing sounds like the explanations we some times hear about why people are leaving Latin America to come here to an often unwelcome greeting and an uncertain future.

    Saudi Arabia is even more complicated. There’s been a depressing series of government changes, rebellions and fighting for the better part of a decade now in neighboring Yemen. I’ll not go into detail but it comes down to a struggle between Sunni and Shiite Saudis and Yemenis and what amounts to a civil war in Yemen. It’s a part of the old Shiite-Sunni quarrel, but more complicated than just that. Nonetheless, many Ethiopian women keep trying to get to SA despite its constant interference in the Yemeni mess and the high level of violence and danger in both of these unhappy countries.

    Lydia asks the question then about all the richer countries, African, European or whatever. Where do we go from here? And she points out that the willingness to use harsh, sometimes deadly methods of keeping people from moving is on its way to becoming accepted. This includes, to some extent the Western Europe Big Three, the UK, France and Germany, and of course, the US with its nightmare on the southern border. :”There appears to be no limit to the cruelty that will be done in the name of keeping out people whom rich countries deem undesirable,” Lydia writes.

    She says that this policy of cruelty has been set mainly by the west and offers examples, some of which seem uncomfortably close to proving her point. She ends with a compliment for Joe Biden for what he said and she thinks he means about these matters, and regret at what circumstances have forced him to do or refrain from. She states that this century looks like being nasty, brutish and long.(This is a take-off an the words of 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes who famously wrote that without strong authority to keep order in a state, life would be “nasty, brutish and short.”

    To a larger degree than some, certainly, I agree with Lydia’s column. The cruelties she mentions are insupportable by any civilized spiritual, philosophical or political standard and in opposition to just about every political/social thinker of whom we have heard. Nonetheless. there is another aspect of this which is more or less implied in her article but perhaps not addressed as directly as it might have been; and that is just how the richer countries are to deal with this hideous problem.

    The US has, of course, tried different ways. Some states, particularly TX, have simply bussed them to far away cities(Washington, New York, etc)to get rid of them. This has had good results at times, but only seldom do they get anything really good–a welcome from friends or relatives already here, for example. New York has had over 100,000 arrive and over half of them are still there. Because of their race, yes, but more because of the culture, languages, and the fact that most of them have no legitimate way of earning money, they are an additional pressure in a big city and which is not inexhaustible in its ability to absorb people. Other large US cities have similar difficulties though NYC may have the worst one.

    All of us have, I think, read and heard of some of the horrifying incidents in Europe as people try to get into countries, mostly Mediterranean ones, from Southwest Asia or North Africa. Thousands of people have made this journey in recent years and many failed to survive the trip. Of course, once they arrived, they were often not welcome. It is difficult to get accurate, recent information on this on-line, but the picture in both the US and Europe is mostly not an attractive one.

    As stated, I mostly agree with Lydia’s column and I seriously condemn the practices that have made this journey one that ended the lives of some immigrants and led to a situation of something near imprisonment and poverty for others. But I also note this. Many European countries have troubles, but they are mostly manageable ones, at least west of Ukraine. Some of these countries rank high on lists of places where residents are better off(happier and more secure if not wealthier, I’d guess)according to studies and interviews.

    It is not entirely unreasonable for them to object to a huge influx of outsiders who will likely bring instability, possibly including poverty and violence. Not many Europeans still remember World War II but most of them have heard about it from their parents and/or grandparents and they realize what Europe was for awhile and what is was that it escaped. They are not likely to want to replace a previous generation’s violence and instability with a different kind of their own.

    As far as I know the only really successful immigration of a large number of people from another culture to a European country was the Turkish-German one after WWII. Actually, some Turks had been migrating there for years or even centuries, but the big push came after the war when the Germans were having their “economic miracle” recovery from the destruction their country had known. A lot of Turks were anxious to go somewhere where they might get good jobs and pay and responded to the opportunity. The Germans needed workers so in the 1950’s and 1960’s they flocked there.

    There were some cultural conflicts and not all went well. But over time the Turks seemed to settle in to being a minority group, the largest one in the country. They did not have full legal equality for some time, and many still do not, but this was slowly worked on by the German government with some difficulty but also with diligence which seems to have paid off at least partly.

    It would be wrong to say everything worked well from the beginning. It hasn’t. There was racism and resentment in the early 1960’s when the first large numbers began arriving. There still is in some places and some situations. But by and large it seems to have worked. There are now 3rd generation German-Turks who seem glad to be where they are. Not all of them are entirely happy. Less than half of the three million German-Turks have full citizenship and some still feel that they don’t belong. Many are pulled in two directions, emotionally, and feel both German and Turkish. But given the difficulties inherent in the situation it sounds to me as if this has worked fairly well. It is certainly hugely better than the violent and sad mess we see today in so many places including the US.

    It appears that one thing that helped was education. As the Turks became better educated they fit in better–not a surprise. Also, and partly as a result of that, obviously, they did better financially. They were an asset to the German economy not a drag on it(this has varied some, I believe, from time to time, but appears to be largely true).

    So, what does this mean today? Nothing easy, unfortunately. Obviously the European countries cannot take a huge mass of poorly educated people, most of whom speak the language poorly if at all, and start educating them. Obviously they can’t start most of them in good jobs that will make them feel at home and be treated as if they belong. But a start needs to be make.

    Now I have not given this question a lot of thought or study. I imagine there are some efforts along this line going on already. My suggestion is simply that they use what happened with the German-Turks as a guide and possibly an inspiration. Language classes and instruction into how to fit into the culture would seem to be the first thing. Real education should not be far behind. I do not mean to say that I think this will be quick and easy. It may well be difficult and take much longer than anyone wants. The German-Turkish situation involved essentially two cultures and two languages. Now there are many cultures and a large number of languages.

    This all will take time and patience and, yes, some money. But I trust this or something like it could be done. Given the current state of affairs–climate change around the world, political instability in southwest Asia and who-knows-what in Russia–it needs to be done, not just to relive the pain of these many migrant peoples but in the interests of the entire world. We are all in this together and are likely to succeed or fail in it that way.

    Oh, yes, and the US might study the situation too. It’s possible we could implement something like the German-Turkish situation here. Like them we have basically two cultures ,Latin American and North American, to deal with and two languages. English and Spanish. We also have a big mess facing our society. This will require cooperation including cooperation between our two parties and between 2 colors–red and blue. I hope this society is ready.

    , ,