Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Book Review: The Huge Book of Hell

Before there was The Simpsons, there was Life in Hell, a dark comic strip drawn by Matt Groening.
As Groening has become famous for the great television series he created, he has continued drawing this weird but hilarious strip. There are several Life in Hell books with names like School is Hell and Childhood is Hell. I recommend reading Work In Hell when you are frustrated with your job and checking out Love Is Hell when love just ain't coming your way and you want to wallow in that.
The books are much darker and more philosophical than The Simpsons. The drawings are raw and crude.
The humor can be quite self-deprecating. For example, Groening draws most of his characters as bunnies, only to have some characters ask if they are drawn that way because of the cartoonist's artistic limitations.
But the writing more than makes up for the weak drawing. His book, The Huge Book of Hell, for example, has suggested magazine covers: Annoying Performance Artist magazine, not to be confused with Annoying Street Lunatic magazine.
The imaginary publication features such articles as "The Gentle Art of Scab-Pulling" and "Is It OK to Yell 'I'm On Fire' In a Crowded Theater?" Gross? Sure. Silly? Well, sometimes. High-brow? Maybe.
And there is even a special book guide within the book. Yes, just like Oprah's book discussion group, Groening provides "A reading group guide to The Huge Book of Hell."
The guide includes such discussion questions as: "How would you characterize the cartoonist's own attitude towards society? Does it change as the book progresses? Will it ever? Why does the cartoonist refuse to change? Have you read any of his other books? Is it any better there? What the hell is wrong with this guy?"
My favorite cartoon panel in the book — perhaps because it hits close to home — shows a young character lying awake at night asking questions:
Do animal crackers feel pain when you bite their heads off? Why do flies land on dog manure? Don't they know it's dog manure?
How can anyone eat something called rump roast?
Is it possible to have so many questions flying around inside your brain that you can never go to sleep and eventually go insane?
The final, inevitable panel shows the character finally sleeping. Groening is great, no matter what the medium. Read and enjoy.

Friday, October 6, 2017

DVD Review of Jonestown: The Life & Death of Peoples Temple

I have always been fascinated by cults. One of the best comments in the documentary Jonestown: The Life And Death of People’s Temple, is that nobody joins a group thinking it is a cult.
"Nobody joins a cult. Nobody joins something they think is going to hurt them. You join a religious organization, you join a political movement, and you join with people that you really like," said Deborah Layton, a Peoples Temple member who wrote a book about the experience.
People join groups because they think the cause is good and just or they want the camaraderie it provides. I once asked a Civil War reenactor whether he thought the camaraderie he gets with his reenactor buddies is much different from the camaraderie gang members get.
The reenactor did not like or understand my question so I changed the topic. But I maintain I was on to something: We all want to belong to something. There is nothing like the feeling of being accepted into something bigger than ourselves. For some of us, that bigger something is our family. But for people with broken families or families with members in jails, members will seek out other groups.
I think a major reason why people join gangs is so they can have that feeling of being part of something. The gang also provides sort of a replacement family.
What does this have to do with cults? I see joining a cult as being like joining a gang. You join a group because it is doing something. You don’t think it will end, as People’s Temple did, with more than 900 members dead in a mass suicide on a compound in Guyana on Nov. 17, 1978.
But with street gangs you can, hopefully, point out to gang members the physical and legal dangers they will face because of the connection between many gangs and crime and violence.
In contrast, many cults are not breaking any laws (initially, though many seem to later on) and in fact often preach that they are working for justice.
This documentary focuses on the Peoples Temple, the cult run by Jim Jones, but it can teach lessons far beyond that one specific group.
The movie is powerful, moving, engaging, disturbing and educational, a real emotional roller coaster.
The directors treat the subject with empathy rather than sympathy. Instead of just making us pity those killed, and the few who survived, the Jonestown massacre it helps us understand – and better appreciate and learn from – what actually happened.
The first step, of course, is understanding who exactly Jim Jones was. He had a frightening, disturbing upbringing, providing funerals for dead pets, for example. But the important thing I learned was that he was charismatic and very passionate on the subject of racial harmony.
The second step is getting us to understand that it functioned in almost every way as a traditional black church with much passion, singing, emotion. The fact he was white was ignored or explained because he understood and spoke like the black members, members said.
The movie’s best draw is that it has interviews with people who were long-time members of the church and survived the attacks and they are able to walk us, the viewers, through the growth of the church, the church’s movie from the Bay Area to the jungles of Guyana and the ultimate massacre.
We learn, for example, that Jones was not above some common tricks such as having a member pretend to be crippled so he can “heal” her. Sometimes it’s not enough to be charismatic, the cult leader needs some extra edges and a few fake miracles help with that.
As with many cults, there is a weird sexual element. In this case Jones claims that everyone was homosexual except him. While forbidding all members to have sex with each other, calling it selfish and irrational, he had sex with male and female members.
The movie reminded me of the time I wrote some feature stories on a college friend who was a straight-edge punk guitarist who was also a member of the Los Angeles sect of the Hari Krishna. I went with him to two services. I was never interested in joining but I was interested in understanding its appeal. And in a way I did: The appeal there, like the appeal of People’s Temple, comes from believing you are part of something beautiful and true and just and you are working to improve the word. Who, believing those things, would consider what they are doing as bad?
But what happens when some decide this is far from the utopia Jones portrayed it as and instead there is sexual assaults, drug use, welfare fraud, etc and they want to leave? But Jones did not want anyone to leave, he saw it as a personal betrayal, and that’s when things get problematic.
People's desire to leave the group is part of what led to its sudden demise. The move to another country was sparked by negative media reports of strange things going on within the group. That led Congressman Leo Ryan, in November 1978, to take a fact-finding mission to the temple.
The most chilling parts of the movie come, as you might expect, when you watch the footage (including new audio footage) of Jones and others at the temple during their final hours. Members at first tell Ryan that they are happy with the group. At first things seem fine. For a minute you think maybe this won’t turn bad after all.
This footage is intercut with interviews with two survivors who escaped. One of them suspected things were going to get violent. In one of the more disturbing memories shared the survivor said he told Ryan that he needs to be careful. Ryan told him that there was a shield around him, since he was a congressman, and nobody would harm. Talk about bad foreshadowing.
We are reminded that Jones had previously distributed juice to all members, had them drink it and then told them they had all been poisoned. After the members began to freak out he told them it was just a loyalty test. But apparently as Ryan arrived they began to bring out the juice again. Incidentally it's often referred to as Kool-Aid as in the saying, "Don't drink the Kool-Aid" but it is actually Flavor-Aid.
Anyway, so at first Ryan’s visit is going fine but then some began to speak about wanting to leave. Jones is adamant that nobody will leave. Footage is shown of one woman screaming about being separated from a child who is leaving.
Things unravel fast and after a man ties to attack Ryan. the congressman and his group leaves but is attacked, ambushed really, at a nearby airport. The congressman and others are killed.
About 45 minutes later, as those who did the attacks at the airport return to camp, Jones tells those assembled at a meeting that the congressman is dead. Then the really ugly business of poisoning them - first the babies then the adults - begins.
Jones can be heard saying, "Die with a degree of dignity! Don't lay down with tears and agony! It's nothing to death. It's just stepping over into another plane. Don't, don't be this way," according to a
PBS transcript. He is later heard saying, "Quickly! Quickly! Quickly! Quickly! Quickly! Where is the vat? The vat, the vat...Bring it here, so the adults can begin."
Ultimately, all but four are killed by the poisoned punch or, in a few cases including Jones himself, gunshots. Two survivors brought me near tears as they told about escaping from the camp after watching family members die.
Indeed, both families – their direct families and the larger family of the cult – had died.
There is an intriguing semantic issue that arises late in the movie: Is it appropriate to call it a mass suicide when some were babies and some just didn't know what they were doing?
Jones put it this way: "We laid it down...we got tired. We didn't commit suicide. We committed an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world."
Tim Carter, one of those I mentioned who escaped after watching his family die, said: "We were just @!$%#ing slaughtered. @!$%#ing slaughtered. There was nothing dignified about it. Had nothing to do with revolutionary suicide, nothing to do about making a [expletive] statement, it was just senseless waste, senseless waste and death."
I’m sure some of you may hesitate to rent this because you see it as “a piece of history” or “something depressing” but this is much more than that – this is a glimpse into a part of life and society most people don’t spend enough time contemplating or discussing.
I encourage you to rent this and then join our discussion of the movie at Newsvine.
Incidentally, the DVD has some great extras, including longer interviews with the survivors and relatives of some of those killed.
I want to leave you with the contents of an anonymous note found at Jonestown:
To whomever finds this note. Collect all the tapes, all the writing, all the history. The story of this movement, this action, must be examined over and over. We did not want this kind of ending. We wanted to live, to shine, to bring light to a world that is dying for a little bit of love.
There's quiet as we leave this world. The sky is gray. People file by us slowly and take the somewhat bitter drink. Many more must drink.
A teeny kitten sits next to me watching. A dog barks. The birds gather on the telephone wires. Let all the story of this Peoples Temple be told.
If nobody understands, it matters not. I am ready to die now. Darkness settles over Jonestown on its last day on Earth.".
I wanted to include that quote and this last one to remind readers that these people killed were at least trying to do something, which is more than many of us can say.
Eugene Smith, a surviving member, said:
We were people that -- we wanted to make a change. It's a shame it didn't happen. It might not never happen. But one thing I can say, at least we tried and we didn't sit back and wait on the laurels for somebody else to try it. Yes, we tried it. Yes, it was a failure. Yes, it was very tragic. But at least we tried.

DVD Reviews: Johnny Cash Concerts

Johnny Cash is one of my musical heroes. He led quite a life and left behind a bunch of wonderful songs.
I consider him a man of great integrity who really knew how to sing about the life of the underdog. I like him for some of the same reasons I like Steve Earle and Billy Bragg — they say what they think and do not pull punches.
He also left behind some underwhelming concert films, which I have been watching lately.
A few months ago I had the idea of doing some preparation work for reviewing Walk the Line, when it came out on DVD.
I knew that Netflix had a few concert films by him so I decided to rent those. Bad idea.
I had listened to his two excellent live albums — Johnny Cash At Folsom Prison and Johnny Cash At San Quentin — but I could not find versions of those concerts.
So instead, I watched and reviewed these:
Johnny Cash - Live from Austin TX
This is one of the best of the bunch, I think, because it is the most recent. You can see how he has aged physically but remains as giving to the audience and grateful for their support as when he was singing the same songs 25 years earlier.
As with the rest of this bunch, there are no extras, no special features, beyond the concert itself. I was disappointed about that.
I give it an 8.
Johnny Cash: Live at Montreaux (1994)
The highlight of this concert is having his wife, June Carter Cash, and son, John Carter Cash, join him in singing "Will the Circle Be Unbroken," the great song originally sung by the Carter Family.
There is also a a quick but moving aside where Cash tells the audience how he stole the drummer Carl Perkins used when he sang "Blue Suede Shoes," and the drummer is still with him today. The drummer bows.
I give it a 7.
Johnny Cash: A Concert Behind Prison Walls (1977)
I think he was trying to replicate the success of the Folsom Prison and San Quentin albums here. With those films he seems to be trying to work on the level of the prisoners, joking about the warden and the quality of water.
With this film he moved in the other direction. I mean, it's one thing to
bring his wife, June Carter Cash, along to sing songs as he did with all of these. But Linda fricking Ronstadt? The pacing and flow is off at this concert. While not intended as a comedy, the best part of this concert video is the way they dressed. Those 70s clothes kill me every time.
I give it a 5.
Johnny Cash - Ridin' the Rails: The Great American Train Story (1974)
This isn't a concert, but rather a documentary, in which Cash talks about his love of trains. It's sort of weird and very 70s. Contains reenactments of important railroading moments, which is cool if you dig that scene.
I give it a 6.
Ironically the best of the Cash DVDs I watched was one that just contained the video for "Hurt," his cover of the Nine Inch Nail's song. It remains one of the most moving songs ever — not to mention disturbing lyrically — and the video's portrayal of Cash's life and career say more in five minutes than the movie probably does in two hours.
So take it from me, a fan of Cash (both the singer and the Newsviner), if you want to hear what he sounds like rent the Folsom Prison CD and skip the live videos.

Thoughts On Paper Moon and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Saw both of these last nite at my church movie night. I had seen the latter before but it was more than ten years ago so by the end I'd forgotten exactly what happened and was as much on my edge of the seat as the first time. The writing and acting on this movie are just breath taking.
Paper Moon was great. I see now why some have spoken so highly of Tatum O'Neals tour de force as the lead actress at age 7 I sort of cringed each time she'd be shown smoking not because I thought it was real I am not that dense) but because it made me think of how much it would freak out the anti-smoking folks if that were to happen in a movie today. It also reminded me how much I love the book and movie of Thank You for Smoking.
It was interesting to see Madeline Kahn in a serious role (previously I only see her in comedies and satires like Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein) -and had no idea she'd also played straight, serious roles as well.
This morning I read the Wikipedia entries and Roger Ebert's reviews on both movies because I like to hear the trivia stuff and compare opinions with my favorite critic.
However, I think Ebert completely missed the mark in his review of Butch Cassidy, which he says
You can see, in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," the bones of the good movie that could have been made about them.
But unfortunately, this good movie is buried beneath millions of dollars that were spent on "production values" that wreck the show. This is often the fate of movies with actors in the million-dollar class, like Newman. Having invested all that cash in the superstar, the studio gets nervous and decides to spend lots of money to protect its investment.
Ebert does get one thing right – the criticism of the ending:
And then the violent, bloody ending is also a mistake; apparently it was a misguided attempt to copy "Bonnie and Clyde." But the ending doesn't belong on "Butch Cassidy," and we don't believe it, and we walk out of the theater wondering what happened to that great movie we were seeing until an hour ago.
BTW, if you have not seen Bonnie and Clyde you need to – it's one of the best early attempts at the type of stylized violence that thanks to directors like Quentin Tarantino are so in vogue these days
A few trivia tidbits: Director Peter Bogdanovich wanted to change the name and after hearing the song "It's Only a Paper Moon (by Billy Rose, Yip Harburg, and Harold Arlen)" had an idea. Wikipedia then says:
Seeking advice from his close friend and mentor Orson Welles, Bogdanovich listed Paper Moon as a possible alternative. Welles responded — "That title is so good, you shouldn't even make the picture, you should just release the title!"
The Simpsons referenced the movie in an episode, according to Wikipedia
"it is referenced by name when Homer Simpson and Bart Simpson try to trick Ned Flanders into receiving a fake Bible by saying that his deceased wife, Maude ordered it before she died. This prompts Ned to say after a few moments, "Wait a minute, this sounds like that movie Paper Moon...".
Switching movies, according to Wikipedia,
Goldman's script, originally called "The Sundance Kid and Butch Cassidy,""was purchased by 20th Century Fox for $400,000. The two starring roles were originally given to Newman and Steve McQueen, but McQueen left after failing to come to an agreement about which actor would receive top billing. Warren Beatty was considered for one of the lead roles, and Marlon Brando, who at the time had minimal box-office draw, was considered at one point due to his role in an earlier Western, One-Eyed Jacks. At one point, Max Olsen and Paul Newman were expected to star, and they discussed using the new "staggered but equal billing" later introduced for The Towering Inferno. Eventually, Newman and Robert Redford were chosen, but initially Newman was to play Sundance and Redford Cassidy. 20th Century Fox did not want Redford to play the part, but director George Roy Hill insisted. Redford later noted that this film catapulted him to stardom and changed his career forever.
My god, can you imagine Brando in one of those leading roles? I sure can't.
In the scene where a railroad car is blown up, the railroad car was built for the scene out of balsa wood and toothpicks. The budget only allowed for one take, and therefore an unusually high amount of explosives was used. The explosion was huge, and the line "Think ya used enough dynamite there, Butch?" is reported to be an ad lib, according to locals who observed.
From Wikipedia:

" In the US version of The Office, the character Dwight (in a moment of comedy) compares Michael Scott to Mozart and himself to Butch Cassidy (who he says are legendary friends).
All in all, both are great movies, worth checking out and this was a good example of a time when I got more out of it after reading the Wikipedia trivia.

Documentary Movie Review: Bus 174

Bus 174 - This is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen, about an event most Americans have probably never even heard of.
It is also a fascinating look at live television coverage and makes me wonder how this would
have been covered had it happened here.
The movie is about a June 2000 bus hijacking in Rio de Janeiro that was carried live on television. (And no, I won't spoil it here by telling you how it ended.)
What's excellent about the movie is that it does more than just explain what happened on that bus and how things went awry, with reflections and commentaries from many of the people involved in the incident, both people in the bus and cops and reporters outside.
No, the movie takes the important step of looking back at the horrid life of the hijacker, Sandro di Nascimento, which included seeing his mother murdered while he was a child and later living on the streets.
He also spent time in prison.
By taking this approach the director not only puts the way the police handled the hijacking up for public scrutiny but he also makes people think about how we treat the lower class.
Footage shot in the prisons horrifies the viewer while also making one think and reflect.
It's been said - most recently about Katrina - that you can judge the quality of a society based on how it treats its poor and helpless.
In both cases society was found wanting.
I give it a 9.5.
Note: I suggest not only watching the movie but also checking out the DVD extras for a fascinating, inspiring interview with the director about his reasons for making the movie and how he went about it.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

DVD Reviews: Millions and The Motorcycle Diaries

The first question I suspect you are having, as you read this headline, is what the heck is the connection between these two movies? And, yes, a commonality does exist.
Millions is about a British boy who finds 265,000 pounds and has to decide what to do with it.
The Motorcycle Diaries is based on the book by Argentine-born Ernesto Guevara de la Serna - better known as Che Guevara.
In 1951 Guevara, 23, and his good friend Alberto Granado, 29, a biochemist, took a trip across South America.
Guevara, a Marxist revolutionary and Cuban guerilla leader, died Oct. 9, 1967, almost exactly one year before I was born.
So what can these two movies possibly have in common?
The answer: Both are morality tales of a sort.
Both involve two main characters who are young men - literally brothers in the case of Millions and two best friends in The Motorcycle Diaries.
More importantly, money not only plays a key role in both movies but leads to arguments between the two main male characters in each movie.
In Millions, Damian, 7, wants to give the money to the needy. Anthony, 9, thinks the money should be spent on extravagances.
While Damian buys pizza one day for everyone claiming to be poor, Anthony wants to buy expensive, cool products for himself.
His older brother can be seen as representing the average materialistic person.
I would hope most people would want to use the money to help others, even if they do not have as clear a moral compass as the younger brother.
But the cynic in me thinks most people would use the money to buy cars, stereos and other treats for themselves.
When the brothers realize the money is loot from a brilliant robbery, the decisions of the two become still more difficult: Should they tell their dad about the money? Should they turn the money in? And what should they do about a man who has been following and watching them, probably looking to take their money?
The situation prompts the best line in the movie, from Anthony:
"It isn't the money's fault it got stolen."
Throughout the movie Damian is visited by saints, who encourage him to continue using the money for good causes.
Overall, the movie, directed by Danny Boyle, is a charming, fascinating, visually colorful tale.
In The Motorcycle Diaries, money plays a more minor role but can be seen as symbolizing the difference between the two men. While both are kind-hearted, Guevara is more selfless.
Granado wants Guevara to use his money for personal extravagances. Guevara, though, resists Granado's pushing, ultimately using it to help others needier.
During the trip both men make a fascinating, inspiring journey together, not just geographically but of conscience as well.
As they travel they meet people truly suffering due to the government, private companies and other causes.
During the trip Guevara becomes increasingly focused on helping others, especially the poor and the sick, often at his own peril.
For example, Guevara gives his asthma medicine to a sick woman, leading to problems when he has an asthma attack.
So was his act of charity short-sighted or selfless or both?
That is just a sample of the many questions the movie prompts in viewers, especially as the men reach their intended final destination: A leper colony.
While nuns insist everyone wears gloves when working with the lepers, these two reject that rule. What seemed like insubordination to the head nun, meant something much different to the lepers who are shocked, then moved, that non-lepers are actually touching them.
This movie has its share of detractors but the critics' beef is usually not with the film itself but rather what the movie leaves out.
Through the course of the movie the viewer watches Guevara change from a medical student to the communist leader who will become so famous that you can still see his image on shirts, hats and buttons, often worn by people born long after he died.
It is well and good that Guevara rejects a system where a person's lifestyle is tied to how much money they have, these critics say. But the movie does not explore those injured and killed as Guevara, Castro and others fight for change.
However, that all came later in Guevera's life and the movie ends earlier than that.
I think it more appropriate to review what is included rather than what is excluded. And what there is here is a fascinating portrayal of a man's political evolution.
Both movies are good thought-provoking films that can spark good discussions. I used both movies for that exact purpose.
Both movies also have good extras on the dvds, including interviews with the lead actors

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Movie Review: Dixie Chicks Shut Up & Sing

This documentary about the Dixie Chicks, Shut Up & Sing, provides a fascinating look at a high-profile free speech fight. And this time the good guys - well, the good women - win.
In 2003 the band was riding high and they were receiving critical acclaim for their music. Their concert tour was popular.
And then it happened. During a concert in London lead singer Natalie Maines said, "Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas." It was one of those short remarks that changed everything.
At the time she made her comments the band had a hit song, "Traveling Soldier." But as soon as she made her comments, the Free Republic Web site and other right-wing groups quickly organized boycotts of the band and many radio stations refused to play their songs anymore.
The movie captures the whole uproar and controversy but from the perspective of the band. Some of the best scenes come as the band reacts to the vicious and hateful emails, letters and other responses to Maines's comments.
One band member - it might have been Maines herself -is quite right in pointing out that many of them probably had no idea what exactly Maines' comments were and might be less angry if they actually stopped to think about her remarks. But the witch hunt was on and on it went.
The most intriguing scenes revolve around how best to respond to the negative publicity and the hateful remarks Handlers suggested major changes but band members say they would rather keep going and fight the good fight. And so they do.
The first time I saw this movie I was underwhelmed because I had followed the story closely as it happened and at first glance it did not seem to be telling much I did already know.
I knew about the hateful letters and read the Entertainment Weekly cover story in which they appeared naked but with insults and other hateful words written on their bodies.
But I had a much greater appreciation for the film on my second viewing as I noticed things I missed the first time around and enjoyed learning more about some details of the controversy.
Also interesting was concern about how the public would react to the band's appearance on the Entertainment Weekly magazine cover. One person is shown expressing concern it will make them look even worse.
I'm not crazy about the Dixie Chicks music but I respect them for standing up for what they believe in. Each time I watch the movie my admiration for them grows.
They could have taken the coward's way out and backed away from the statement or said the singer was not speaking for the whole band.
Instead they stuck it out and in a bit of poetic justice their next album contained a hit song which was about the criticisms and death threats.
While they were still targeted and criticized for their 2003 remarks the album sold well.
Since the movie came out the band won Grammy's for Best Album, Best Record, and Best Song. If that is not poetic justice, I don't know what is.
If you are interested in fights about free speech, watch this movie. If you want to know what was really said by the singer and how people reacted to her comments, check out this film.
And me? While I probably won't be supporting the band financially I am cheering them on in my own way, through this review.