-
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)
-
The Republicans, Steve & Edie, and the Editor of the National Review
I watched most of the Republican debate last night, though I admit to nodding off towards the end. I also watched TV, mostly CNN, this morning to see how people were reacting. Here are a few immediate(therefore suspect, but I hope passably and decently considered)reactions of mine–
Vivek Ramaswamy–I praised his intelligence and articulation about a month or so ago. I am glad I never praised anything else about him and I don’t think I ever shall. Wasting his potential articulateness and his intelligence, he has chosen to go for making noise, being the loudest, most intrusive and obnoxious of the candidates. He might even make Trump look like a gentleman. He has no restraint and is very short on honesty or common sense or both If he actually believes his incredulous “inside job” stuff, then he’s lacking in sense. If he is doing it because he thinks a lot of ignorant fanatics will follow him, he’s just demagoging it. Given the depths of self-deception and insidious twisting of truth the human mind is capable of, it is not impossible that he’s doing a bit of both. His only significant influence will be as a spoiler and he may fall short of spoiling very much. I hope that is the case.
Ron Disantis is rising a bit in the polls and seems to be learning some of the rules of the game. From a strictly technical point of view he did better last night, mostly getting his facts straight(mostly!!)and largely keeping his voice down and not shouting, except when losing his temper with Nikki Halley. He still has personality issues and this difficulty will be hard,–perhaps impossible–to fix. He just seems unsympathetic to me. I also dislike most of what he says, which I find largely warmed over far right BS, possibly distilled a bit to make him sound less like Trump.
Nikki Halley is the most impressive of the Republicans who actually have a chance of getting the nomination. Well rehearsed and well groomed, she is photogenic and articulate and, very importantly, she is capable of expressing outrage(Disantis and Ramaswarmy gave her plenty of reason)without sounding shrill, hysterical and out of control. Although I disagree with her on a lot of issues, she at least seems to offer some respect to those who differ from her and to be willing to seek compromise. She also has a good sense of international issues and US commitments abroad. She could be a tough candidate to beat, particularly if she was wise in her choice of a running mate.
Chris Christie is my pick of the lot and the one(well, maybe Vivek too, I guess) who clearly has no chance of being nominated. The ONLY one on stage who was ready to launch an out and out attack on Trump and tell the whole truth about the former President, I though he was very effective. He also did a good job, both morally and technically, of defending Nikki from some of Ramaswamy’s more goofy sounding and insulting remarks. He managed, in an era of assumed sexual equality, to look like a old-fashioned gentleman defending a wronged lady, but doing so without demeaning her. Ramaswamy likely made this easier by behaving like such a jerk.
Chris is at 2% of the Republican voters surveyed, which makes him essentially tied with Ramaswamy. But before jumping to conclusions, consider this. Ramaswamy really wants to be President. He apparently has deluded himself into thinking he has a chance now. And his 2% is among the people he needs, people who will be likely to vote in the Republican primaries. With Chris it is different. He has no chance of becoming President this election and he knows it. His only desire is to thwart Trump. So it’s more important how he polls among the larger population. A higher reading there would enhance his prestige among the public and ought to have some effect upon the party. Furthermore, he IS polling well in New Hampshire as is Halley; NH is the only state I know of so far which has chosen to, for the moment at least, favor the two unarguably sane and intelligent Republican candidates. How Chris does in later polls which might show the public’s taste at considerable variance from MAGA Republicans could be very important. Also, if he should win in NH he might be on his way–not to the White House, but to an honorable position as the man who kept Trump out of it.
OK, enough politics for the moment. You may have noticed a show entitled “Steve Lawrence and Edie Gorme–My Mom and Dad” which has played on PBS recently. I think it’s a one timer, not part of a series. I haven’t seen it yet but I’ve got it on the DVR and certainly look forward to seeing it. If you would look at my first blog, more than a year and a half ago, you will find them mentioned.
Steve and Edie were popular for years, but I think of them as coming mainly in that time when old fashioned Great American Songbook -type pop music was being driven out by rock. I don’t hate rock, incidentally, I actually like some of it quite well. But I loved the old, more adult seeming(to me, anyway)music which preceded it, particularly when, as with Steve and Edie, it bore some relation to the slower, more romantic part of jazz, what I like to call “night club jazz.” It appears the show will be repeated several times in the near future, so check your local PBS station for details. You won’t regret it–I hope.
Then there’s Ramesh Ponnuru, editor of the National Review. He recently gave me a good reason to make one more comment here and to combine politics and music. On a recent(the most recent)version of “Face the Nation,” the moderator asked for comments about the remarkable ongoing career of the Rolling Stones. The other three participants were at least somewhat praising of them, but not Mr Ponnuru.
Pursuing a version of conservatism which I think might have irked William F Buckley,Jr (I once admired him and still do in ways), Ponnuru was both dismissive and contemptuous. He had a number of disparaging remarks about the RS one of which included the words “moral turpitude” with which he was charging them–decades of it.
Well, OK–I don’t agree with everything the Stones have said or done or stood for–they clearly have their lackings. But that’s just part of the story–and also there’s the music. They have never been one of my favorite groups, but they have produced some good songs–“Angie,” the slow, heart-breaking love song with the gorgeous piano solo is my favorite. Then there’s “Ruby Tuesday” about the girl who just “comes and goes.”–and several others. There’s also the fact that in their 80’s they’re still out there looking and acting like rock stars at least on stage.
It seems for both the music and the spirit they deserve credit. A bunch of guys that age with the moxie, energy and will to do what they do just about have to be admired in my opinion. And it seems some generosity might be in order here. So, Mr Ponnuru, I suggest that for your own mind and persona and even more for the reputation of your magazine and the conservative philosophy, you might want to think this over again. If you change your mind, well, say so–and if you don’t, well, that’s OK too–your choice. Just remember that politics and morality, life and art, are all part of the same deal–being human and living in the world. Oh, yes, and thanks for listening.
-
Current reading
I am reading the delectable Anne Lamott’s “Hallelujah Anyway.” Anne is the funniest, saddest, feistiest and most lovable advocate for Christianity you are likely to find. She likes to ask things such as if there is love and mercy at the center of the universe, then why is everything so screwed up? Her answers are not orthodox but I think few except some hide-bound pietists will be able to find anything heretical in what she says. Try her, you’ll like her-JBP
-
The Poet of the Mean Streets
“Small Mercies” by Dennis Lehane, Copywright 2023, Harper Collins, 299 pgs
It is not easy, at first anyway, to classify Dennis Lahane as a writer. He’s not quite a mystery writer though his books are often whodunits of a sort along with other things. “Crime writer” would likely be a better description because he nearly always writes about crime. I doubt if many of the chairmen of English Departments at US universities would accept him as a serious writer, worthy of being taught in their courses. But they would be making a big mistake.
Lehane is most of all a tough guy writer. He is reminiscent of the “hard-boiled”school of bygone times, writers like James M Cain. But I think he’s better though it is hard exactly to say why. I guess it’s because he is a genre writer and yet transcends genre writing. Now I imagine what I just wrote is a cliche but cliches are sometimes true and I am willing to stand by this one.
Lehane has the ability to look into the human heart and soul and to describe what he sees there. He sees both good and evil, mostly the latter, but the good not to be ignored or despised. And he is, at bottom, I think, a guy who pulls for the good guys but thinks they usually lose. Maybe be we could call it realism, but therein hangs a long argument which I don’t want to have right now.
Whatever, I think Lehane is way beyond the minimum for being taken as a serious writer. He knows the heights and depths of human hearts and souls but he also knows the byways and nuances of US society, particularly the working class of the big cities and most particularly the poor of the Boston area. What his personal history and background are I don’t know, but he is obviously familiar with these people and their ways and while he does not suggest anyone emulate them he does not despise them. He understands the pain and meaninglessness many of them have to deal with and he knows most of them will not make it out to a wider world. But he will tell his readers about them and celebrate their gritty heroism, nonetheless.
“Small Mercies” is supposedly about the bitter protests and resistance that occurred during the busing/integration controversy of September, 1974. And, indeed, this is true. The company saw that it got a cover that suggests this subject and the inside flap mentions that there is the busing controversy and there is a crime which seems unrelated. But the two, it continues are not unconnected.
All of this is true, but it misses a serious issue. The book is about Mary Pat Fennessy and her world, the people she knows, the things she does, the life she leads. Because it describes this life in detail, it is also about the “Southie” area of Boston where all the trouble was. But the book is more about Mary Pat than it is about integration and social protest.
Please don’t get me wrong. The busing controversy is always there in the background. Knowledge of it hangs over most of the characters much of the time and the reader’s mind just about all the time. But this is a book about a person, Mary Pat, more than it is about social events, protests, etc, important as they are. And Mary Pat is, I think, one of the great characters of American literature.
OK, I’m not qualified to say that. I’m a one-time bureaucrat and history teacher and a big time mystery and movie fan-definitely not a literary scholar. So I guess you’ll have to check it out yourself to see if you agree with me about Mary Pat. I hope that you will.(By the way, Lehane chose to tell this story entirely in the present tense–an odd choice, maybe, but I’d say a good one–it worked).
Mary Pat is not an entirely good person–far from it. She is in her early 40’s, has had two failed marriages and two children. The boy was a Vietnam Vet(remember, this is mid-1970’s)who survived combat in the war and died of the drug culture at home. His sister is 16 or 17 and a high school student. Mary Pat works as an aide in a retirement home, not a very nice one, and gets the worst and most off-putting jobs most of the time. She basically hates the work but has no other choice. She makes enough to hold together her fragile two-person household.
Mary Pat is not an attractive person in many ways. She sounds not particularly physically attractive from Lehane’s description. She is intelligent but poorly educated. She has tastes that, mostly, would be equal to those of working class housewives in the poorer parts of a lot of American cities. He language is crass and often confrontational. She uses profanity and vulgarity frequently in a manner that will be familiar to anyone who has experienced certain parts of our society or even read much about them.
So we see the surface of what kind of person we have here–a crude person, an unsophisticated person, not an interesting person. This is a person you or I would not wish to hang out with. You wouldn’t want her at your party. I certainly wouldn’t want her at mine. And I don’t think either one of us has to be ashamed of this. At the risk of sounding like a conservative, there is little question that people from the middle class on up are usually more pleasant to be around(not always more moral, not always more trustworthy, not necessarily less given to nastiness and betrayal, but nicer–and I am middle class enough myself to recognized a certain value in that.)
But Lehane has more in mind than this. Lehane is interested in that real person, that genuine personality and soul that lurks inside all human beings and in many cases is rarely revealed to others. He is interested in what drives people to certain behaviors and what allows certain regrettable behaviors. And he is stingy with the answers as he should be, because Truth is stingy with them to anyone who asks.
But Lehane tries. He digs into Mary Pat’s deepest feelings and lays them bare for all of us to see. They are not always joyful(usually not)but they are honestly displayed. Most of all they are human, and humans are complicated and usually contradictory and often screwed up in one way or another.. And so is Mary Pat.
Early in the story, Mary Pat’s daughter disappears on a date. Mary Pat is concerned but not exactly panicky at first. But as more time passes she becomes more and more worried and begins to search and to imagine. At about the same time a young black man dies in a confrontation with some whites at a station. It appears that this might be connected to the busing quarrel or at least affected by the feelings it engendered. It is also possible that Mary Pat’s daughter was involved.
So we follow Mary Pat as she tries to find out what happened to her daughter and encounters reminders of the big community concern on they way. And we may get some feeling for the concept, that when you see a crowd of people protesting or supporting something, it is good to remember that the crowd is made up of individuals, each with their own story, and this is a large part of what they bring with them
We see many things in Mary Pat. She is loud and abrasive. She is fiercely protective of her daughter. She is often foul mouthed and willing to fight, verbally if not physically. But she is not averse to physical combat if it comes to that, and in one memorable scene she dishes out a vicious beating on a boy whom she blames for her daughter’s plight.
But we also note this. There is great love in Mary Pat. It has often been misused and abused, by her family, her two husbands, and others, but it is still there and is now centered on Jules, her daughter. This love is, in the long run, the main thing in her personality or, to put it more dramatically and possibly also more realistically, in her heart. It is responsible for her occasional rages and words of contempt. It is responsible for her deep grief and regrets. And to some degree it is responsible for another large part of her, her capacity for hate and revenge. For she is a person who does not easily forgive and forget. She will hold it against one and track one down if necessary.
Occasionally Mary Pat has a memory intrude on her troubles. She thinks of something from high school, or another part of her youth She thinks of some of the good times early in one of her marriages. And although it is impossible to imagine a fond smile coming to this woman’s lips, maybe something like that happens inside her–and then quickly goes away.
Mary Pat is also courageous. And this brings us to the one other motif of the book. There is always, at least in the background and sometimes much closer, the mob. The mob apparently ran Boston or at least most of Southie.
They control many small businesses. They commit mayhem when they need to and through bribery or trickery usually get away with it. They are relentless in tracking their enemies or anyone who has betrayed them. If you live in Southie you know this and you learn to get along. Mary Pat has learned but is not happy with the lesson and in the end not accepting of it.
There is also a small part in the book for the police. they are not in it a great deal, but they are portrayed a beleaguered but-as far as we meet them–mostly honest–they know they can’t take down all the big bad guys, but they’ll do what they can do. And Bobby Coyne, a youngish police detective with a sense of both reality and justice, is one of the book’s best characters.
But Mary Pat is the main person and the main thing in the story. Mary Pat as Everyman(woman?)or as least everyone in Southie, or perhaps all American cities or perhaps…well, take that as far as you wish. You might just be right.
Lehane is too complex and sophisticated of a writer to insult us with a simple “there’s good and bad in all of us.” It is not, of course, that that is not true. It is that it is a simple-sounding idea that gives us a longing for a deeper explanation. And while some of these things are beyond reasonable explanation Lehane does do this in his own way.
About the last 30 pages of this book are very suspenseful and very fast moving .These are the “action’ parts where we actually witness a good deal of the violence that occurs between Mary Pat and others. And it is in these that Lehane reaches his ultimate as a writer and an observer of human nature as we get brief, frenzied, often hateful and yet curiously understanding conversation between victims and victimizer.
And we see that in some weird, contradictory way that they all have an “I” hiding in there somewhere, maybe a lousy one, but an “I” all the same. They all have a soul and a personality and something of that sort has at some time had thoughts about existence.. The thoughts were not very sophisticated or well expressed, even to themselves, but they were there. And there is a strange kind of comfort in this, I think, in knowing that even in human monsters, there is some level of humanity, maybe long since inactive, maybe useless as a source of behavior, but stubbornly there despite it all.
And possibly this is the final message, if there is one. Lehane’s prose is so well done and his thoughts flow so sublimely in this end part that this book approaches being poetry. It’s not the kind you’d find in a poetry class, but I think that’s still what it is. It is the poetry of despair and hope, of joy and sadness, of decency and violence–the poetry of how it all fits together and tells about the mean streets so many people face–like the literal mean streets of Southie or the metaphorical ones of, well, nearly everyone somewhere. And in this hectic, frenzied way, there is a great deal to be learned about what needs to be done and perhaps could be done by our society. But there’s also, a smidgen of hope. It lurks somewhere in the human heart, the part of it that can’t be cured by medicine or diet or anything physical. It can only be cured by other sources.
-
I am absorbed by reading about the outbreak of Word War I. How did this mess, which destroyed a civilization, and a century and more later is still affecting the world, come about? Who were the main characters? What about the political, economic, and diplomatic events and trends which were involved? Whose “fault” was it? (I think there’s an answer to that, but it’s not easy to determine). Are there similar trends today? If so, what are the implications?
-
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.