Are We "Mad As Hell" Forever?

Lots of media commentators and writers have been making predictions about the new year, and the new decade. While it can be fun to read them, history shows that most such predictions turn out to be wrong. This morning I read that Fortune magazine’s Top Ten Stock list for the last decade, published in 2000, was down 44%. Two of the companies on the list went bankrupt.

With most predictions being so far off, I have a lot of respect for those who seem to have insight into our direction--whether that direction is positive or negative. One such prediction was made by Paddy Chayefsky, who wrote the screenplay for the 1976 movie Network.

At the time it came out, Network was considered an outrageous satire of the TV business. Indeed, it is entertainingly over-the-top in places. But, sadly, a basic premise of the film has come true over the last ten years.

In the film, a TV network discovers the power of anger to entertain people and hold their attention. At one point Faye Dunaway, who plays the network’s chief programmer, screams at her staff that she wants “programs about anger.” At another point she takes control of the network’s news division.

I don’t know about you, but I often find it distressing that I can tune up and down the AM radio dial, or across several cable TV channels, and hear angry, irrational voices at any hour of the day or night. The reason these voices are on the air is that they attract listeners and viewers. We listen to them and watch them.

Maybe all this is harmless. I certainly hope so. But I keep getting the nagging thought that anger is being celebrated, rather than information being shared.

In 2010, I hope for a new birth of solution-finding, justice-serving and peace-making, in the media, our communities and our governments.

The Visitor

My Kid Could Paint That

Iron Man

Quote of the day:
“White criminals commit the biggest crimes. A brother might rob a bank. A white man will rob a pension fund. The brother is going to get ten to fifteen years because he had a gun. The white guy will get a Congressional hearing because he had a job and a nice suit.”
--Wanda Sykes

“Iron Man” is not what you’d expect. Yes, it’s a movie based on a comic book. But the movie is much more than that.

Watching the first ten minutes makes you think this is a story about the war in Afghanistan. Really. There’s not a tinge of goofy setup in it.

Robert Downey Jr. is terrific. He takes the tongue-in-cheek self-awareness of George Clooney’s Batman about ten steps further. There are plenty of laugh-out-loud (LOL) moments that are not just for kids. Unlike Trix.

Jeff Bridges is perfectly cast, and clearly relishes what he’s doing.

The director is Jon Favreau, who made and starred in the now-classic “Swingers.” He does something that’s hard to find in the movies. He integrates future technology in a way that is both fascinating and realistic.

I had a lot of fun watching such things as Downey manipulating an interactive holographic image. I don’t know how that technology will work for us in the future, but it’s reasonable to think we’ll see it someday. Indeed, it may already be happening somewhere.

Technology is a full-fledged character in this film, and it’s a very entertaining one. How many movies can you say that about? Usually technology is used as a platform to demonstrate the talents of the filmmaker and thus it winds up being over-the-top-whiz-bang-wowee-give-me-a-headache.

Not here. Favreau has shown a knowing and deft touch with all the dozens of advanced devices.

It all makes “Iron Man” a good time at the movies.

Note: when you go see it, be sure to stay until after the credits. There’s another scene there.

Don’t worry, you don’t have to read all 300 names in the credits. Whew, an awful lot of people worked on this!

The King of Kong

Quote of the day:
“Where have all the cowboys gone?”
--Paula Cole

I was sure “The King of Kong” was going to be about nerd obsession. It turns out this is just a piece of it. And not the most interesting piece.

This is a documentary about the people vying to be the world-record holder in Donkey Kong. Remember Donkey Kong? It was a long time ago. Along with Pac-Man and a few others, it was one of the most-popular video games in the 80s.

Though Donkey Kong is quite crude by today’s game standards, it still is among the most popular games.

The primary contenders here are not youngsters. The youngest looked to be about 35, and the others are past 40. A woman vying for the title in another game was in her 70s. While they all occasionally seemed to be having fun, they really take this stuff seriously.

The last time I remember playing Donkey Kong I lasted about a minute. To approach the scores of these people requires playing 2 1/2 hours. On one quarter.

That’s obsession. Obsession. Obsession. Obsession.

My eyes get blurry just thinking of staring at a game for that long.

Having said all this, “The King of Kong” is not really about “Kong.” It’s about “who is king?” The politics, manipulation and subterfuge caught me off guard--and really got me involved with these characters.

It’s a very interesting and surprisingly intriguing film. I highly recommend renting it.

Young@Heart

Quote of the day:
“If we’ve learned any new rule in the 2008 campaign, it’s this: Once our news culture sets a story in stone, chances are it will crumble. But first it must be recycled louder and louder 24/7, as if sheer repetition will transmute conventional wisdom into reality.”
--Frank Rich, in today’s New York Times

When you’re done reading this, go to your Netflix queue and add “Young@Heart.” Even better, find a theatre showing it and plan to go today or tomorrow. Don’t put it off.

This is the most fun I’ve had at the movies in a long, long time. I was glad to see it in a theatre so I could enjoy others enjoying the film, too.

It’s a documentary about a group of seniors who perform rock music together. I know, it sounds corny with a high potential for condescension and sap.

But there is no condescension or sap, and what corn there is is deliberate and self-aware. This movie is a joy.

There is a variety of singing talent among the members. It is amazing and a hoot to watch a 92-year-old recite “Should I Stay or Should I Go” by the Clash with an authentic knowingness. At another moment in the film, as an 80-year-old began to sing the Talking Heads’ “Life During Wartime” for the first time, Merrie leaned over to me and said “he’s channeling David Byrne!” And he was!

I just used the word “authentic.” “Young@Heart” is so appealingly authentic--we meet these people as they are, and as they discover joy and creativity within themselves. Then they share it with an audience who goes wild and brings the house down.

There is also sadness in the film, and it is treated straightforwardly, without either playing it up or playing it down. It is real and poignant.

The word “poignant” is not in Hollywood dictionaries these days, and this film about defines it.

The other word that perfectly fits this film is “fun.” It was on the screen and in the theatre.

These are funny, real people who love to have fun, and it is the fulfilling purpose for their lives.

Mark your Oscar ballot now. Best Documentary. No one else need apply.

Faithless

Quote of the day:
“I think she wants us to follow her.”
--A response to Lassie on the TV show of the same name.

Quote of the day no. 2:
“I think she’s just whining.”
--A response to Lassie never heard on the TV show.

“Faithless” is directed by Liv Ullman from a script written by Ingmar Bergman. You could call it a Bergman epilogue. The movie is about as close to Bergman as you can get without actually being Bergman. It’s a laugh a minute.

Those Swedes, they’re so much fun.

Most of the time I have a single opinion about a film--it’s either good, ok or lousy. But I have two opinions about “Faithless.”

On the one hand it is a unique, powerful and real emotional journey. The movie’s description says that it’s based on a real incident in Bergman’s life.

The acting is superb, and it is on display in beautifully shot, carefully crafted scenes that are long with no camera movement. As usual with Bergman, the movie has the feel of theatre. Up-close theatre.

This sort of intense and intelligent character study has just about disappeared from American movies, so it’s refreshing to come across a good film that is so single-mindedly about character.

I’ve always liked Bergman. Especially his earlier, funnier films. Just kidding.

I have to admit that I can’t watch “The Seventh Seal” without cracking up over the many parodies of it, and Woody Allen’s allusions to it in his films.

The fact is that Bergman will still be watched and appreciated in 100 years, while every film in theatres this weekend will be a smelly vapor in the ozone layer.

My second opinion about “Faithless” can be summed up as: “Give me a break, Liv.” The movie is way too long at 2 1/2 hours. Bergman’s unique vision could carry a film that long, but Ullman has a problem here.

It’s as if she’s decided one way to give homage to Bergman is to make a 2 1/2 hour film. The story certainly doesn’t demand that length--many things are never explained or even described. Of course, except for the basic outline, the plot is not important here--as it was never important to Bergman.

It is rather about emotional stories, and they are always both unclear and deeply felt. Putting those timeless kinds of stories on the screen was Bergman’s gift, and his enduring magic.

I suggest renting this and watching about the first 90 minutes. Take a break and see if you want to watch the rest. Maybe you will.

Better yet, rent “Wild Strawberries”--a very very fine Bergman film that especially speaks to anyone over 50.

No End in Sight

Quote of the day:
“Online input, offered in real time from legions of customers, is beginning to make traditional focus groups seem old-school.”
--AP, yesterday

Statistic of the day:
Average daily number of insurgent attacks in Iraq:
July 2003: 16
May-July 2007: 161
--Brookings Institution

The news right now is that General Petraeus is saying that we should not remove any troops from Iraq until the fall.

USA Today has published a compelling graphic with both individual information and compiled statistics about the 4,000 soldiers killed in Iraq. I highly recommend it.

At the Washington Nationals’ home opener, President Bush was loudly booed from the stands--and it wasn’t just a few cranky loudmouths. We’re talking thousands of people booing the president of the United States.

I’m a fairly respectful person. I know it’s hard to believe, but I am. If any other president in my lifetime had been booed at a baseball game, I would’ve been embarrassed--and I would consider it disrespectful. No matter how I felt about that president’s policies.

I was not embarrassed when Bush was booed, and I was surprised at myself. I never thought I’d lose respect for a president.

This is not because I disagree with the Iraq war or any other policy. It is rather because of the way this presidency has been conducted.

Specifically, this administration has repeatedly neglected or ignored good, reliable information when making decisions. It’s as if the decision is made first, and then information backing it up is cherry-picked from various sources.

If there weren’t such dangerous and deeply tragic consequences from these decisions, this would be merely ridiculous. But this is beyond arrogant. It is blithely, ignorantly cruel and deadly.

This has now been proven time and again, with many different decisions involving many different people. The case began to be made in 2004 in National Security insider Richard Clarke’s excellent book “Against All Odds,” detailing the flawed and ideological thinking after 9/11 that resulted in the Iraq war.

Since then, there has been a steady stream of former administration, military and CIA officials who have spoken of presenting detailed on-the-ground information about a situation to the president, only to have it ignored--sometimes not even read.

The documentary “No End in Sight” presents this very clearly. The film was not made as an anti-Bush polemic. It made very effort to be fair and objective--efforts that were made difficult by the refusal of several senior administration people to even be interviewed.

It is an excellent documentary, but I do have to pass along a warning. When I watched it, I found myself gradually becoming literally enraged watching highly-experienced intelligence and diplomatic people be cavalierly ignored, with the result being nothing but increased chaos, suffering and death.

That is why, for the first time in my life, I can watch thousands of Americans boo the president at a baseball game and not be embarrassed or ashamed.

Instead, I’m embarrassed and ashamed the rest of the time.

2001: A Space Odyssey

Quote of the day:
“Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.”
--Andre Gide

Today is the 40th anniversary of the release of “2001: A Space Odyssey,” one of the most influential, important and controversial movies of all time.

When it came out, there was a huge buzz about the film, and people flocked to it. Many of those people came out of theatres shaking their heads and saying “huh?”

Stanley Kubrick’s “2001” is rightly celebrated for its groundbreaking special effects. But its plot and narrative style are highly unconventional and will always leave a lot of people baffled or bored.

There’s been a ton written on the movie’s possible symbolism and meaning, including in this very long but entertaining exchange. In other places, critics and viewers, while admiring the special effects, have been skeptical about the film itself. It’s been dismissed as ponderous, pretentious and opaque.

I saw “2001” shortly after it was released. I was amazed by the visuals, and blown away by the music. But I had no idea what it was about.

In the 1980s Merrie and I rented the VHS and watched it on our 19-inch RCA TV. We were bored out of our skulls--we turned it off before it was over. We realized much later than the film depends on both the immensity and subtlety of its visuals and its soundtrack. Thus it is impossible to grasp on a small grainy screen with a tinny-sounding speaker.

In truth, “2001” is a great work of art. Think about it. All great works of art are both highly affecting and subject to ongoing interpretation. Rarely do artists explain what their work means, once and for all.

I think it’s clear that the film does contain allusions to both Nietzsche’s “Thus Spake Zarathustra” and Homer’s “Odyssey.” Kubrick points to the former by using Richard Strauss’ “Also Sprach Zarathustra” as the movie’s theme. As for Homer, “Odyssey” is part of the movie’s title, so that’s not exactly a stretch.

A key to the film is that the dialogue is sparse and banal. That’s because the movie is not about our relationships with each other.

What is “2001” about? I’m not sure anyone can say definitively. Sure, it’s about our relationship with technology. But it’s also about our relationship with everything else.

To me, it is about the scope of human life and development in the context of an incomprehensibly vast universe--a universe so vast that it contains other lives beyond our imaginings.

It’s the hugest theme possible for a movie.

Uncle Buck

Quote of the day:
“First, we must learn to count to one.”  

--Martin Luther King

Quote of the day no. 2:
"The international evidence on health care costs is overwhelming: the United States has the most privatized system, with the most market competition — and it also has by far the highest health care costs in the world."
--Paul Krugman in today's New York Times

After a morning in the hospital and an afternoon resettling at home, Merrie and I decided to watch a comedy.

I’m a sucker for the John Hughes movies of the 1980s. Some may find these films dated and lame, but to me they hold up well and are surprisingly funny and refreshingly good-natured compared to so many comedies today.

We’d never seen “Uncle Buck,” so that’s what we put in last night. Neither of us were expecting much, and we were delightfully surprised.

Yes, in many ways the movie is somewhat silly and predictable. But John Candy is terrific, and you get to see MacCauly Caulkin in his first major role.

Merrie and I love simple slapstick, and there is a big dose of that, as well as a generous helping of well-done situational goofiness.

In short, we had a fun time. It was a perfect movie after a tough day.

Atonement

Quote of the day:
““Anybody caught selling macrame in public should be dyed a natural color and hung out to dry.”
--Calvin Trillin

I was disappointed in Atonement. It was nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards, and I’m not sure why.

The novel on which it’s based got good reviews, and Merrie liked it. The critical vote on the film was mixed, but some critics just adored it.

Everything is fine--quite fine, actually--until about a half-hour in, when the action switches to World War One and stays there way too long. It’s unclear why this is necessary. It seemed to me that suddenly a second movie had begun with only a tangential relationship to the first.

I kept waiting for these pieces to fit together. But they never did. There may have been explanatory scenes edited out to keep the film to two hours. Even so, the film should’ve been about 20 minutes shorter still.

Let me back up a bit. The film begins when a 13-year-old girl witnesses a crime but identifies the wrong man as the perpetrator. I found myself caught up in wondering why she did that. It’s a compelling premise for a movie.

But then the action abruptly switches to the battlefields of the war, where the man accused of the crime is now fighting. The question of the wrong that’s been done to him has left the theatre to buy popcorn. There must have been a long line, because the question doesn’t come back until much later.

It just didn’t make sense to me. As a result, the rest of the film didn’t make sense either.

Maybe I’m missing something incredibly obvious.

Gandhi and Lord Mountbatten

Quote of the day:
“[RNC Chairman Mike] Duncan and his aides want to be ready to go on the offensive against the Democratic nominee presumptive in an effort to define the opposition candidate on GOP terms. Opposition research is already well along, and the plan is for surrogates to talk to the media around the country while a TV ad campaign in key states and media markets as soon as the Democratic nominee is determined.”
--US News and World Report

I saw the 1982 movie “Gandhi” the other day. I remember seeing it when it was first released, and later watching director David Attenborough accept the Academy award for best picture.

It must’ve been daunting for Ben Kingsley to think of playing the most-influential moral leader of the 20th century. It seems a little odd to say that he does a good job, because his portrayal is so authentic I found myself thinking I was watching Gandhi himself.

After thoroughly enjoying this film, Merrie and I decided to rent the British series “Lord Mountbatten: The Last Viceroy,” which appeared on public television in the 1980s. We had enjoyed it more than the very popular “Jewel in the Crown” series which ran at about the same time.

It’s interesting that both TV series and the movie came out within a few years of each other. They all tell the story surrounding the end of British rule in India in 1947.

Its worth seeing any or all of these productions again in 2008, just because they are all excellent. But there’s another reason.

They all provide valuable perspective on the current situation in Iraq, and in other areas of the world.

When India began planning its independence, violence broke out among its three major population groups: the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. The battles between Hindus and Muslims intensified to the point where there was a real fear of civil war.

Thus the decision was made to partition two parts of the country, creating the Muslim states of east and west Pakistan. The plan for partition created serious new problems as a major Sikh population center was divided.

Also, there were mass migrations of people into and out of the areas to become Pakistan. Violence often broke out between these two columns of refugees, moving in opposite directions.

The leadership of Pakistan was threatened by radical Muslims who claimed they were not getting enough from India. And India’s leaders were threatened by radical Hindus who thought they were giving too much away to the Muslims.

The violence continued for some time after the two nations became independent. About a year later, Gandhi was assassinated by a radical Hindu.

There Will Be Blood

Quote of the day:
“We're selecting candidates for the most important job in the world via a process that's less rational than the one used to choose Miss Kumquat of Pasco County.”
--Dave Barry, in the January 26th Miami Herald

Daniel Day-Lewis will win the Oscar for best actor. His performance in “There Will Be Blood” is something else.

If he had inhabited this character just 1% less, he would be overacting. But he is perfectly calibrated for this incredibly entertaining semi-allegorical tale of America’s values.

This kind of thing is director Paul Thomas Anderson’s specialty. “Hard Eight,” “Boogie Nights” and especially “Magnolia” were all wild yet clearly-controlled explorations of fate and what makes Americans tick.

“Magnolia” used several story lines to look at the intrusion of coincidence and spirituality into a hyperbolically perverse world of greed and egotism. It was America magnified and seen in a carnival mirror. I’m still coming to understand this 1999 movie.

Anderson adapted an Upton Sinclair story for “There Will Be Blood,” and he has marvelously taken to the next level Sinclair’s message of entrepreneurship transforming into sinister avarice. This transformation happens in the story of Daniel Day-Lewis’ oil man, and also in the story of a hometown preacher played by Paul Dano.

I find myself remembering how specific scenes looked on the screen--the pictures come back to me in a vivid and powerful way. Also, much of the soundtrack was put together by Jonny Greenwood, a trained violist who is the guitarist for Radiohead. I can’t think of a recent film in which the music so perfectly synergized with the visual narrative. It’s quite an accomplishment.

There’s been some debate about whether the last scene in the movie makes sense. I think, in Paul Thomas Anderson’s extraordinarily creative vision, it does.

I had to think about it a bit, and it’s growing on me.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Quote of the day:
“Why is it that people who cannot show feeling presume that that is a strength and not a weakness?”
--May Sarton

“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” does something no movie has ever done before. Some films have danced around it, but none have done it.

This movie takes you into the experience of waking up in the hospital, completely paralyzed and not knowing what has happened or what is going on. It’s uncanny how real it feels.

The director, Julian Schnabel, has done an exceptional job making the experience real. It’s difficult to do this without using distracting gimmicks, or at least calling attention to technique. Schnabel’s filmmaking is transparent.

You might think the premise of the film would make it dull. But it’s far from dull. We get a glimpse into the mind and memories of an active, engaged magazine editor, while also seeing what is going on around him.

And, because the movie is essentially set in a hospital room, it would be easy to assume that the story would be depressing. While the film is indeed very honest and straightforward, ultimately what comes across is a moving portrait of the value of life.

It’s something I’ve never seen in a movie before.

Hairspray

Quote of the day:
“Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock.”
--Ben Hecht

We began to watch “Hairspray” with a bit of trepidation. With a few exceptions, we’re not big fans of musicals. To us, movie musicals are too often cloyingly earnest or incoherently and unentertainingly “cutting edge.”

It turns out “Hairspray” is neither of these things. A good indicator is Christopher Walken.

While I very much like Walken, he has been in so many weird roles that he often steps into a caricature of himself. But not here. He is both immensely silly and believable--if that makes any sense. We actually smiled when he broke into a dance number.

This is the feel of the whole film. There’s a certain built-in ridiculousness that is so pitch-perfect that it really won us over.

It turns out the movie’s subject is very serious. The setting is de facto segregated 1960s Baltimore.

The film is so good-natured and so much fun that it’s hard to fathom how its theme could be prejudice against difference. But this seeming incompatibility is what makes it work.

In addition to enjoying the film MUCH more than I ever expected, I found myself thinking back on my life in 1960s Baltimore. And I though about how far we’ve come and haven’t come.

John Travolta’s good, too.

The Savages

Quote of the day:
“A lot of people like snow. I find it to be an unnecessary freezing of water.”
--Carl Reiner

“The Savages” snuck up on me.

I thought I was watching a rather ordinary story about an adult sister and brother trying to take care of their disagreeable father who has dementia.

It turns out I WAS watching a rather ordinary story about an adult sister and brother trying to take care of their disagreeable father (Phillip Bosco) who has dementia. What becomes apparent is that the brother (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and the sister (Laura Linney) are not able emotionally to care for each other or themselves.

This is a moving story about how emotions go underground, and the social awkwardness and grief that results.

When I think of a movie with that theme, I would likely think of the cliche “searing drama.” But this isn’t a searing drama. None of the actors are compelled to be searingly dramatic.

It’s just an everyday story about people in a common situation. They are trying to live their lives, but they are haunted. As so many of us are.

The power of “The Savages” is in its ordinariness. It puts both the tragedy and ultimate hope of the film in just the right perspective.

Starting Out in the Evening

Quote of the day:
“Never knock on Death's door: ring the bell and run away! Death really hates that!”
--Matt Frewer

“Starting Out in the Evening” is like a very good play. There are just four characters, and almost all the action happens in one location. The plot is minimal.

It’s a character study. I say this because the movie has been criticized a bit for both its premise and its story.

Don’t skip the movie because of that criticism. You’ll miss one of the great performances of 2007. Frank Langella is excellent.

He plays an aging novelist who composes on a manual typewriter. He lives in New York, has been quite successful and is a classic literary intellectual.

Modernity crashes into him in the form of a graduate student who wants to write her thesis on his work. Lauren Ambrose from “Six Feet Under” plays the graduate student. Some critics have said her portrayal is too ditzy to make her believable as a young literary type.

I disagree. Appearances and behavior can be deceiving these days. You could say that this is part of the old/new collision that is this movie’s heart.

Her daughter (played by Lili Taylor) is part of this collision in a different way. She and her boyfriend fight for respectability in her father’s eyes. They come from a generation that views responsibility and relationships very differently.

What makes “Starting Out in the Evening” work so well is how it makes clear the compromises built into both the “old” and the “new.”

We learn, in a very eloquent way, the cost of closed-in privacy from the “old,” and the ultimate cost of easy betrayal from the “new.”

Frank Langella will be nominated for a best-acting Oscar. His performance is reason enough to see this film.

This movie has left theatres, but will be coming out on DVD soon.

Charlie Wilson's War

Quote of the day:
“Where facts are few, experts are many.”
--Donald R. Gannon

I think the Academy should automatically give Phillip Seymour Hoffman an Oscar for three great performances this year. Maybe best supporting actor for “Charlie Wilson’s War.”

Hoffman doesn’t really chew the scenery. It’s more of a gnawing.

He nails the role of an angry, self-righteous whistle-blower who has worked for the CIA for many years. This is a very entertaining performance.

The movie is based in fact, and portrays how Congress is run. The deal making, horse-trading, perks, how money is appropriated and sometimes how history gets made. Often it’s not pretty.

We learn some things about the CIA that we may know or suspect but have never seen in action. Some of these things aren’t pretty, either.

Tom Hanks plays Charlie Wilson, a Texas congressman who almost literally stumbles into a vacuum in our foreign policy. He is very good. Julia Roberts has a role that doesn’t fit her quite right--she plays a very wealthy and politically active Texan.

Many good movies came out near the end of 2007. “Charlie Wilson’s War” is one of them.

Juno

Quote of the day:
"Homo sapiens [are] a tiny twig on an improbable branch of a contingent limb on a fortunate tree."
--Stephen Jay Gould

My, my, my, there is such a buzz around the movie “Juno.” It is a veritable hive of bees everywhere we look. Buzz, buzz, buzz.

It’s quite an enjoyable film, and it’s true that 19-year-old actress Ellen Page is mighty entertaining and quite talented. It’s fun to see that most of the actors clearly relish their roles.

I think J. K. Simmons is especially good as Juno’s father. I hope he gets a supporting actor nomination from the Academy.

This film has been compared to “Little Miss Sunshine,” and it does have a similar tone to it.

“Juno” really is a very offbeat romantic comedy. This might seem weird, but it reminded me of Frank Capra’s “It Happened One Night” from 1934.

Of course, “Juno” has 2007 sensibilities, and it deals with a younger couple than Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert. But both films share an endearing lightness and authenticity.

“Juno” is a good film for the holidays. Just watch out for the buzz.

Into the Wild

Quote of the day:
“Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day.”
--Bertrand Russell

The movie “Into the Wild” is worth seeing. Sean Penn directed and wrote the screenplay, based on the book by Jon Krakauer

It’s the true story of Christopher McCandless, who graduates from Emory University in 1990 and then heads out on the road, eventually leaving behind all his possessions, money, credits cards and ID.

He is seeking freedom but, more than this, he is seeking life. There is a scene in the film in which he quotes a famous writer that the human soul can only live through new experiences.

McCandless interprets this two ways. First, it is necessary for him to not stay in one place or with the same people too long. Second, his relationships with other human beings are not as important as his relationship to unspoiled nature--to wildness.

The interesting thing about his interpretation is that many people share it. They may find this movie disturbing.

Some people live their lives on the basis of seeking new experiences and avoiding doing the same thing twice. This must be the origin of one of my very-least-favorite expressions of all time: “Been there, done that.”

To me, that statement says: “Nothing I have done or seen is worth doing or seeing again.” And its corollary: “No one I’ve ever met is worth meeting again.”

“Into the Wild” works on many levels. It is an excellent though awkwardly structured road film. It is a fascinating portrait of family dynamics and how they influence our worldview.

I especially enjoyed the wide variety of people McCandless meets along the way. These are some very well-drawn character studies, with top-notch acting. Honestly, sometimes I found these people more interesting than McCandless.

The journey this film takes is deep into the reality of living transiently and living outside of human relationships.

And the question that comes up is: Where do we find true meaning in this life?