Mark-Rhoads2 Reviews

The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1965)

Mistake on East German Communist Terminology of 1960s

[8/10 · 31 January 2007]

This is a terrific movie with several great performances. Richard Burton is wooden but Oskar Werner as the German Jewish Communist Fiedler is at his best with nuance and intensity.

George Voskovec, a very talented actor who played one of the jury members in Twelve Angry Men, has a small but important role as the East German defense attorney for Mundt. But there is one glaring mistake in the dialog. Voskovec refers to someone making a trip "behind the Iron Curtain." Winston Churchill coined that term in 1948 in his famous college speech at Fulton, Missouri. It is impossible to think that any East German Communist attorney in an East German secret tribunal would ever use the term "Iron Curtain" to refer to what good Communists would call the western frontier from their perspective.

Inside Man (2006)

Time Line Does Not Work in 2006

[8/10 · 9 April 2006]

Inside Man was an interesting idea for a plot but the screen play really did not have an ending. Maybe they will finish it in time for DVD release.

We see hints in the film that Christopher Plummer was involved with Nazi war crimes or at least stealing the wealth of Jewish families to start a bank in 1948. Say what?

How old would this character Arthur Case have to be in 2006? World War II ended 61 years ago next month. Assume Case had to be at least 25 to 30 when he was a banker dealing with Nazis. Is the character supposed to be 86 to 91 years old? At that age, he is still serving as chairman of the board of a Manhattan-based bank? Is this not a bit of a stretch? Christopher Plummer the actor is about 77. He was only ten years old when the war started in Europe in the fall of 1939 and he would have been 16 when it ended. If the movie is supposed to be set in present day New York, its hard to see how that time line is supposed to be believable. Except for the ring maybe, why would the diamonds be only traceable to Jewish families in 1939 if they were the source. Were the stones used as collateral for loans to start the bank since they were not sold off?

Every actor in this film was good and they all gave good performances. But after all that, I think the audience has a right to expect a stronger ending that fits the plot line. This is as yet an unfinished symphony. Maybe it was rushed into theater release before it was ready?

Gabriel Over the White House (1933)

The New Deal meets The Twilight Zone

[7/10 · 10 March 2006]

Many commentators say this is a strange film. But you have to see it for yourself to understand just how strange it is. There is an interesting and even comical debate between modern viewers, who have their own political agendas to push, as to whether this movie might be seen as a precursor to The New Deal with a socialist penumbra, or an instructional guide from William Randolph Hearst on how to promote American fascism.

The premise of that debate is that there was a lot of difference between socialism and fascism at that time. But in truth it was an academic distinction. People often forget that the word "NAZI" does not stand for "fascism." NAZI is an abbreviation for the German words "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" which translates into English as "National Socialist Workers Party of Germany." One distinction between garden-variety socialism and German National Socialism was that under the former system, government owned the major means of production allegedly to benefit all, while under the Nazi variant there was some private ownership of industry but with so much government control it might as well have been state ownership.

Second-generation Fabian socialists in England in the 1930s might have talked about Communists as being on their "left" and fascists as being on their "right." But there is no reason for American advocates of freedom to indulge in that purely internal socialist semantic contraption regardless of how popular it may have been with simplistic historians and journalists who did not know any better. American Democrats and American Republicans should view all forms of totalitarianism, including Nazi Germany, as being variant strains of socialism on the far left side and beyond the American spectrum.

"Gabriel Over The White House," according to other comments, was produced in 1932 before the election and was released in 1933. If that is true, it is even more fascinating when seen as an "alternate 1933" to the New Deal. The Bonus March of May-July 1932 was very fresh in people's memory when theater audiences first saw this film that includes bonus marchers as one important element of the plot.

The president's demonstration of the force of air power over naval battleships is forward-looking for the time. But it is also presenting the views of Gen. Billy Mitchell who successfully bombed and sunk captured battleships from the air in a 1923 test and who was tried and convicted of insubordination at his court martial in 1925 for accusing his superiors of "criminal negligence" for neglecting the development of military airplanes.

The interesting depiction in the film of the president's ideas for putting bonus marchers to work on the public payroll was certainly adopted by FDR in creating the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps--both organized in a fashion similar to military service.

The scariest parts of the film that one could easily see as fascist propaganda include the military court martial for bootleg-financed gangsters and the president's confrontation with Congress as an elected branch that was acting too slow for his taste.

These parts may have been influenced by the crazy ideas of Hearst that unfortunately did not seem crazy enough to some demoralized business leaders at the time. The fascistic and/or socialistic propaganda elements of this film are even more interesting in view of the fact that Walter Huston also starred ten years later as Ambassador Joseph M. Davies in a pro-Soviet propaganda film called "Mission to Moscow."

In watching this film, I almost got the impression that I was seeing the political equivalent of the 1936 science fiction classic called "Things to Come" starring Raymond Massey. This Walter Huston film is not an alternate future but an alternate present for the audience of 1933 somewhat in the way that the TV show "The West Wing" was an alternate present reality for its viewers from 1999 to 2006. "Gabriel Over The White House" shows us a 1933 that could have happened but did not. Whether it was a pleasant fantasy or a nightmare for civil liberties is left a little ambiguous and that is why the film challenges the imagination of the viewer and befuddles political scientists.

Mission to Moscow (1943)

The first casualty of war is truth

[1/10 · 18 February 2006]

Both the book, "Mission to Moscow" by the late Ambassador Joseph M. Davies, and this film, are severe attacks on intellectual honesty. Near the conclusion, the narrator speaks over a scene with the flags of members of the United Nations starting with the flags of the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, and "all the world's free nations."

Wow. To imply that the U.S.S.R. under Marshal Joseph Stalin was anywhere close to "a free nation" is as breathtakingly dishonest as any author or screen writer can be.

Now it is true that many Americans did not like Russia under Stalin and it is true that FDR wanted to justify American aid for the Russian Army because it was fighting on a second front to defeat Nazi Germany. It is also true that the Russian people suffered terribly, more than any other nation, from Hitler's attacks. The loss of Russian life, both military and civilian, on the eastern front was massive beyond comprehension. As bad as Londoners suffered during the blitz, Russian people suffered much greater loss of life.

But none of that justifies the incredible pro-Soviet lies in this film. Lies such as one where Ambassador Joe Davies, played by Walter Huston, justifies the Russian invasion of Finland by saying it was self defense. Lies such as Davies saying that it was British delays that would drive Stalin "into Hitler's arms." There was plenty of duplicity in both Moscow and Berlin over the shared occupation of Poland when the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact (mutual non-aggression treaty) was signed by Germany and the U.S.S.R. in 1939.

There are repeated references in the film by Huston as the narrator, by a "voice" of President Roosevelt, and by others to "pro-fascist" propaganda as being responsible for anti-Russian feelings in the U.S. Without any help from Hitler, many Americans in the late 1930s saw the Stalin state for what it was, a repressive monstrosity. A humorous but dark view of the U.S.S.R. was on display in "Ninotchka" in 1939 starring Greta Garbo and Melvyn Douglas directed by the great Ernst Lubitsch. A similar 1940 film was "Comrade X" starring Clark Gable and Hedy Lamarr directed by King Vidor. Those stereo-typical views, also mild distortions, still came far closer to the truth about the Stalin government than this 1943 film did.

There is a side issue in some user comments about the screen writer Howard Koch and whether or not he was fairly treated as a "black listed" writer in the 1950s when he and his wife wrote under different names in England. Whatever the merits or demerits of that separate debate may be, the writing in this film is not only laboriously pro-Soviet, direct from the party line, but it is also stilted. Almost every monologue by Walter Huston as Davies is a speech that constantly recovers familiar Communist Party talking points of that era.

It is rumored that FDR wanted this film to be made based on the book in an effort to drum up public support in America for the allied effort. This might be true. But by the time the film came out in 1943, American public opinion had already made its peace with the idea of a temporary tactical alliance with Russia for the limited purpose of defeating Hitler. That is why this film's blatant pro-Soviet drum beating is so puzzling even in the context of World War II and in 1943.

Americans understood that, as Churchill put it, if Hitler invaded Hell we would say nice things about the devil. Perhaps a hundred years from now, the crimes of Joseph Stalin will be as famous as those of Hitler. But in 1943, it was in the interest of the grand alliance that American films downplay Soviet crimes and praise the bravery of Soviet troops. The latter effort was honest, the former was not.

Even so, this film went way too far. One can legitimately admire the Russian people themselves and their army for a valiant struggle against the Wehrmacht without fawning over a cowardly, drunk, and militarily-stupid Stalin. The film even fawns over the always lovable Vyacheslav Molotov (of Molotov Cocktail fame) so improbably played by Gene Lockhart (of Bob Cratchett and the judge in Miracle on 34th Street fame).

There is the key difference. Davies was not just pro-Russian in the context of a necessary war time alliance. Davies used the war as his excuse to become an all out an apologist for the repressive Communist dictatorship of the U.S.S.R. and rationalized everything that government did no matter what. Whether he was a dupe or just a gullible fellow traveler is beside the point. It is the extreme extent of the ideological rationalizations that makes this film so dishonest.

The Untouchables (1987)

Grade it A for Entertainment and F for American history

[7/10 · 8 January 2006]

The historical novel format in literature is a popular way to tell a fictional story against the background of real events that actually happened. This type of format can be very entertaining in the medium of film also provided that producers and directors are honest with the audience and do not deliberately mislead viewers into thinking they are watching something that resembles real history.

The problem of unintentional misrepresentation could have been easily solved in this film if there had been a simple disclaimer statement at the start of the movie to warn viewers they are watching fiction, not history. The Untouchables is a very entertaining and skillfully produced film that succeeds wonderfully in offering viewers an enjoyable movie and memorable characters such as the fictional police officer played by Sean Connery. But at the same time the film fails miserably to offer the necessary warning that it is only a work of fiction.

It is just plain wrong to imply that this film is even "loosely based" on real events or people. The screenplay by writer David Mamet is almost completely fictional. It is not based on the 1957 book with the same title authored by Elliot Ness and Oscar Fraley or the 1959 TV series starring the late Robert Stack as Ness which followed the book a little bit in its first season. This film has no more connection to the original book than the recent Steve Martin fictional "Cheaper by the Dozen" has to the original 1940s book by Ernestine Gilbreth. The title is the same and that is all.

Except for using the names of a few people who really lived, there is almost nothing in this film that remotely tracks real historical events that happened in Chicago between the formation of a special Treasury Department task force called "The Untouchables" in January 1930 and the federal trial of Alphonse Capone in October 1931. As long as viewers understand that it is fiction, most people will find the characters enjoyable and the action exciting.

Movie fans can enjoy this film at the level of entertainment alone and not worry about the bad history but for one problem where the first defect also intrudes on the acting. Most of the characters seem real enough and Sean Connery gives a fine performance. But unfortunately the characterization of Al Capone by Robert DeNiro is that of a cartoon character.

Here is where the historical dishonesty interferes with the entertainment value of the film because DeNiro makes a ruthless gangster seem almost appealing as a warm and fuzzy colorful character. Make no mistake, the real Al Capone was an amoral monster who ordered the murder of many people who got in his way and civilians were hurt also. He was not colorful or clever as DeNiro portrayed him.

The worst slander of the film and its artistic defect as well is a dramatic climax in which Elliot Ness murders Frank Nitti for revenge by tossing him off the roof of the Federal Court House in 1931. The real Frank Nitti died 12 years later in 1943 at the hands of fellow gangsters on Chicago's west side. There was no motive for revenge by Ness since there was no Sean Connery character in real life.

Writer David Mamet grew up in Cook County and presumably knows local history. So it is hard to see why he chose to so severely distort historical events to provide him with a dramatic crutch for his convoluted plot device. The real Elliot Ness was a fine law enforcement man who later became Chief of Police in Cleveland, Ohio and he never murdered anyone in cold blood.

Many entertaining movies take great liberties with history for the sake of dramatic impact. There is nothing wrong with that by itself just as long as producers are honest about what they are doing and the audience members do not walk away from the film thinking that they now know the true history of an era.

A Mighty Wind (2003)

A Masterpiece of Structured Improv Comedy

[20 November 2003]

"A Mighty Wind" (2003) is the fourth film in a series collaborations by Christopher Guest and his associates. While the four films share a process of inprovised scenes in a documentary structure, it is not correct to use the label of "mockumentary" for this latest film because it really does not mock the characters or subject matter. Instead, it might more accurately be described as a new genre all together that presents an affectionate satire within a documentary format. Perhaps the best description is a moot documentary. Similar to the literary format found in a historical novel, "A Mighty Wind" tells the story of characters that never really lived and events that never really happened but framed in the context of musical styles and times that did exist in the 1960s. The writers and actors have achieved a remarkable illusion of reality by giving the audience detailed personal and group background stories that make the all-too-human idiosyncracies of the characters so believable. The best comedy of these Christopher Guest films has a univeral appeal that does not necessarily depend on a shared point of view, a shared social or political philosophy, or any specialized knowledge on the part of the audience. The viewer need not know the world of heavy metal rock to laugh at the characters in "This is SpinalTap" (1984). Nor does one need to know a lot about community theater or dog show competition to appreciate the comedy of "Waiting for Guffman" (1996) or "Best in Show" (2000). But if the viewer does have special knowledge in these topics, or lived in those times, perhaps they appreciate the film on a deeper level than those who do not share that life experience. I understand how some younger viewers of this film who have never been previously exposed to the folk music style of the 1960s would not understand how funny some of the inside jokes seem to older viewers in their 50s now who were young when folk music was big. To paraphrase a line from Harry Shearer as one of "The Folksmen," when some of us who are older now lived in those times, we weren't "retro" then, we were "nowtro." But the characters are so strong and their foibles so easy to recognize that the film can be appreciated on its own terms by a viewer of any age. The original songs in this film are also not really satire. Some are so beautifully written and performed that I have no doubt they would have been folk music hits had they been released in that era. I hope some become "new" folk music "classics" thanks to the live concert tours and the DVD release of this film. When Ken Burns produced "The Civil War" series for PBS more than a decade ago, his theme music was "Ashokan Farewell." While the fiddle sound of that composition was perfectly authentic for the musical sound of the Civil War era, the song was actually written in 1982 by Jay Ungar. In a similar way, the original music of "A Mighty Wind" perfectly matches the idealism and energy of early 1960s folk music. In the title song "A Mighty Wind" one can imagine echoes of both "This Land is Your Land" and "Blowin in the Wind." One can also see similarities in the real Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary and the fictional Alan Barrows (Christopher Guest) of The Folksmen. The costumes and sound of The New Main Street Singers in the film remind some of the sound or look of The New Christy Minstrels. This superb film is a great comedy that can be appreciated on even deeper levels with the wonderful bonus materials in the DVD. Even the deleted scenes are hilarious and some deleted songs are very strong. But as funny as it is, this film is not just a comedy. The "reunion" of Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara as "Mitch and Mickey" is a terrific emotional yet gently comedic centerpiece for the story of the three bands and all the acting performances are textured and nuanced. Chrisopher Guest and his ensemble of actors, writers, and composers should be very proud of this gem. They have considerably brighted up an otherwise stressful year of conflict and their inventive gift of humor is a major positive highlight for 2003 and beyond.

The Shoes of the Fisherman (I) (1968)

Movie must be understood in the context of 1968

[13 November 2003]

With respect to those viewers who evaluate this film as entertainment, to fully appreciate and understand the many sub-plots, a viewer would have to understand something about Roman Catholic theology, the currents of 1968, and the popular philosophy of the French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin with some people such as the author of the book, Morris L. West. The Oskar Werner character of Father David Telemond is a good surrogate and advocate for Chardin but he is not Chardin. Chardin is mentioned by Werner during the inquiry of the Papal Commission into Father Telemond's writings. The real Chardin believed in what Telemond calls "The Cosmic Christ" "the point to which all of human evolution is advancing." Telemond and Chardin would explain that a good God still allows man to use free will to chose the wrong things, to commit crimes, even mass crimes such as war, because those things are part of the natural breakage that always happens in any production process. But they would also argue that faith would ultimately bring mankind closer to God on a very long but not infinite timetable. Pope Kiril thinks there is beauty and power in Telemond's writings but cannot understand Telemond's views on theology. "There is little of the Catholic faith as I know it in your writing." The Pope tells him that faith alone saved him from insanity in the Gulag of Siberia in the USSR. In his background, fundamental toughness, and simple faith, the fictional Pope Kiril (1968) is an amazing precursor to the real Pope John Paul II (1978). Tellemond protests, "God is there but by a different name." Telemond is finally accused by Cardinal Leone of heresy because he says that if his faith were taken away he would still believe in the world and its goodness--an idealistic but still secular world view. Pope Kiril is willing to sell off the wealth of the Church to help starving Chinese people because he understands that is the only way to prove to Chairman Peng and the world that the church believes in what it preaches. The loneliness of his decision is framed by terror when Cardinal Leone tells him, "This is Calvary, Holiness, and you have just begun to climb." That is the most profound line of a great many profound lines in the movie. One does not have to be an intellectual to appreciate the film which succeeds on its own terms as entertainment. But people who think it is boring just have no concept of what the film is really about. For acting and content, this is one of the best films of the last 50 years.