On supposed liberal elitism

Often heard is the accusation that liberals form an "elite," a sub-stratum of society wholly antithetical to the values of "real Americans." Characteristic of this elite are their personal choices regarding reading material, residency, transportation and other affinities. Rarely is the Internet not laden with charges that "Volvo-driving, wine-sipping, NYC/SF-dwelling, gay-loving, college-graduating, Europe-worshipping, subtitled-film watching agnostics look down on 'real Americans'."

How is this any more elite than a truck, an SUV or a Hummer?

If one is to look closely at the elements so scorned by so many of these "real" Americans, one may find that they are hardly elite at all, just different from the mainstream. To begin with, a frequent generalization concerns the mode of transportation favored by these "elites." This, of course, would be the Prius or the Volvo. The Prius starts at just over $23,000, according to the Toyota website: http://www.toyota.com/sem/prius.html?srchid=K610_p312826639 while a Volvo can fetch for between $25,000 to $40,000. Either way, purchasing a Volvo or a Prius firsthand can incur considerable expense, but so can the purchase of a Hummer or a pick-up truck with the latest accoutrements from an American car company. While some could argue that the purchase of a hybrid car can induce a smug feeling of moral superiority on the part of the owner, so could being wholly reliant on public transport, something that is considered decidedly "non-elite" by much of mainstream America.

Despite rumors to the contrary, most subtitled films do make sense!

As for entertainment, it is often generalized that this "elite" would rather spend hours being entertained by the likes of Fellini or Bergman or Truffaut than NASCAR. To many, foreign films, particularly those bearing subtitles, are considered impenetrable and thus only appealing to a small sector of our society. Undoubtedly, some of the works of Fellini and Bergman may have limited appeal; however, several of these "elite" directors have made works that are easily accessible to the masses. Fellini films such as "I Vitelloni" and "Nights of Cabiria" offer no serious obstacles to the ordinary viewer and treat universal themes. So do many of the films by Kurosawa, Herzog and Bergman, particularly "Scenes from a Marriage," and "Wild Strawberries." An affinity for foreign film is not automatically exclusionary. The presence of subtitles does not necessarily indicate that the work is only accessible to those with a background in Jungian psychology or an MFA in film studies.

With color pictures, easy-to-understand vocabulary and entire sections dedicated to the trivial, how is this publication "elitist"?

As for reading material, the New York Times is often held up as the pinnacle of elitist journalism. Although the vocabulary level of the New York Times of today is nowhere close to what it was in, say, 1960, many believe that the Times utilizes a style that excludes the multitude. The Times is hardly impenetrable. As for the charge that it is "elitist," this would be valid if the editors began charging hundreds of dollars for a single copy, but as it stands, the New York Times, for all its flaws, is a very accessible publication that can be had for the same price as its competitors.

In my own lifetime of 37 years, these "elites," these individuals who show a fondness for foreign films, the New York Times and hybrid cars, are often not of the monied class, but are often academics who earn an income that is hardly staggering. The studio-dwelling San Franciscan with a boxed set of Ozu films and posters of Tosca and La Traviata on his walls is hardly an elite who poses a threat to the values of real Americans. The real threat comes from those who see exploitation, greed and violence as the necessary staples of our society.

Shakespeare Marathon, part IX: Henry IV, Part Two

            The maturation of the future King Henry V and the bawdy displays by Falstaff are probably the most salient parts of the two Henry IV plays. Having displayed his mettle in battle, the future Henry V finds himself increasingly drawn to his familial obligations and thus forsakes the company of the raffish Falstaff.
             It is unfortunate that I have not had the chance to watch Chimes at Midnight nor the BBC productions of the two Henry IV plays, matters to which I will attend when I am alloted free time later this week.
            For now, as of 1 November 2011, my readings/viewings have included:
1. All's Well that Ends Well (read; watched the BBC production)
2. Antony and Cleopatra (read; watched the BBC production)
3. As You Like It (read, watched the BBC production and I am almost finished watching the 1936 film adaptation with Olivier)
4. The Comedy of Errors (read; watched the BBC production)
5. Coriolanus (read; watched the BBC production)
6. Cymbeline (read)
7. Hamlet (read; watched the 1996 Kenneth Branagh adaptation and the 2009 RSC production featuring David Tennant and Patrick Stewart)
8. Henry IV, Part One (read)
9. Henry IV, Part Two (read)
10. Henry V (read)
11. Henry VI, Part One (read)
12. Henry VI, Part Two (read)
13. Henry VIII (read)
14. Julius Caesar (read; watched the 1950 film version starring Charlton Heston)
15. King John (read)
16. King Lear (currently reading; watched the 1971 version by Kozintsev)

Other parts of this marathon that stand out were this weekend's viewing of Kozintsev's 1971 adaptation of King Lear.

On the persistent accusation of "America supported the IRA"

Frequently lobbed at American participants in chat forums regarding terrorism is the accusation "you Yanks supported the IRA for decades and now you want to lecture the world on how evil terrorism is!" Unfortunately, such an inane generalization has gained currency in the on-line community. As is the case with such accusations, they have a habit of being repeated to the point where they lodge themselves into the popular consciousness and cannot be extricated easily.

The recent revelations that Rep. Peter King had indeed given money to the Irish Republican Army has bolstered this accusation. Rep. King is, however, hardly representative of the entire House of Representatives. No person, when queried as to how the U.S. subsidized IRA terrorism, has been able to offer examples of legislation passed by both houses allocating money to the Irish Republican Army. Lacking proof of such official U.S. patronage, the argument often turns to two other venues: the existence of NORAID and the collections undertaken in bars in New York and Boston among the Irish diaspora.

Organizations such as Clan na Gael and Noraid have certainly existed and have provided succour of  sorts to those on the Republican side in Ulster; however, to believe that small organizations within a nation of over 300,000,000 people substantiate the claim that "America supports the IRA" is ludicrous. What should one then think of Britain, a nation that has shown itself via public demonstrations, to be the home of more than one would-be Jihadist? Of the nation's 1,500 mosques, what if 10 were found to be linked to radical movements abroad? Would that then make Britain a "supporter of Islamic fundamentalist terror"? Hardly. The actions of certain individuals outside of our lawful bodies of legislation (save for Rep. King, who appears to be an isolated case), hardly makes a nation a supporter of terrorism.

What also needs to be remembered is that the IRA bombing campaigns did not transpire in England until the 1970s. As the Troubles intensified in 1969, a great deal of sympathy was felt worldwide for the Catholic minority in Ulster. Many individuals offering material aid to those on that side of the divide acted in good faith towards those seen as oppressed unfairly. Thus, not all aid offered to the minority in Ulster was geared towards the advocacy of terrorism; in fact, a great deal of it was aid with day-to-day living, a strenuous undertaking for those often denied employment and suitable housing. Althougn NORAID is an agency that has advocated on behalf of the Catholic minority in Ulster, NORAID is hardly indicative of U.S. legislation or the charitable inclinations of the U.S. majority. As stated previously, the presence of those individuals who support radical Islam within Britain hardly makes the United Kingdom a state supporter of Islamic extremism.

One other factor to which attention should be drawn is the inordinate amount of attention drawn to the IRA itself. The IRA is not without its adversarial counterparts. One need only look at the UDA (Ulster Defence Association), active from 1971 to 2007, to see that bloodshed was not inflicted solely by the Republican side. In addition to the UDA, Royalist paramilitary groups have also included:
The Ulster Volunteer Force (responsible for over 400 civilian deaths during the Troubles)
Loyalist Volunteer Force (responsible for 18 murders)
Red Hand Commando (responsible for 13 murders)
Ulster Young Militants
Ulster Resistance
UVF Mid-Ulster Brigade

Whether it be murder, arson, or acts of petty hooliganism, Royalist groups have also perpetrated violence upon people in the United Kingdom. Such facts should not be marginalized when entering into an analysis of the IRA and its history. The actions of the UDA or UVF do not in any way exonerate the IRA, but it should never be forgotten that they do not work within a vacuum. The real issue here is not so much the IRA or its counterparts on the other side of the ideological/religious divide. What stands at the forefront is how persistent an absurd accusation has become, particularly in light of the diversity and sheer size of the U.S. populace.

True crime on film: an introduction

The legitimacy of the true-crime genre was bolstered by the publication of Truman Capote's In Cold Blood (1965). Previously, those associated with genuine artistry were leery of being affiliated with the recreation of the heinous in the modern age. Although violence has been an integral part of much of great literature, documenting real-life atrocities of recent history has drawn the indignation of some literary critics. These critics often saw the true-crime genre as exploitative and unworthy of the serious artist. Capote helped change this, and literature was further enriched by Norman Mailer's The Executioner's Song, the re-telling of the tragic destiny of Gary Gilmore and his victims. Despite such legitimacy, there is often a certain degree of suspicion directed towards aficionados of true-crime narrative. Readers are sometimes dismissed as morbid, potential miscreants who gain amusement from the misfortunes of others. While utter immersion in the field of true crime may be disquieting over the long run, criminality has inspired excellent films that merit considerable attention.

Returning to the man who helped pioneer this literary genre among respected writers, Truman Capote saw his work of literature transformed into film in 1967. In Cold Blood, starring Robert Blake and Scott Wilson, is one of the most powerful re-enactments of a senseless slaughter ever brought to screen. The story concerns two young men, no strangers to the penal system who, upon release, decide to rob the safe of a seemingly prosperous Kansas farmer. Supplied with this faulty intelligence whilst incarcerated, the two cons are disappointed to learn that the farmer is no more a man of means than the two miscreants are men of honor. Enraged, the duo slaughter the entire family, an act of violence completely incomprehensible in peacetime to those resident in Holcomb, Kansas. The film wisely avoids sensationalism and focuses more on subdued character analysis of the murderer with whom Capote formed the closest bond. Robert Blake, the diminutive, former child star, is particularly moving as a criminal who has only known disappointment and has brought suffering upon others. What is most striking about In Cold Blood is the constant reminder that without each other, these two men would likely have never graduated from hooliganism to mass murder. By focusing on one individual, we are led to see that without the malign encouragement of the other, no such cataclysm would have taken place. In Cold Blood is a most worthy starting point for anyone determined to gain a good understanding of the criminal mind via the medium of film. It was remade several years later for television and featured the sadly under-utilized talents of Eric Roberts. While the 1967 production is the worthier of the two, the remake merits viewing as well.

The theme of Folie à Deux, a madness shared by two people, is not applicable to the preceding work. While the savagery of the Clutter Family slaughter could not have transpired without the efforts of two men, no indication of madness is ever given to the perpetrators. Theirs was a crime carried out in the heat of the moment by two desperate men, both eager to prove their masculinity to the other as well as dispose of evidence. In the case of Heavenly Creatures, a genuine exploration of madness is given us. Heavenly Creatures concerns the murder of Honora Parker in 1954 New Zealand. The act was carried out by her daughter and her daughter's closest friend whilst on a hiking trip outside Christchurch. The urge to matricide is generated by the decision of the concerned parents to seperate the girls from what they see as an unnatural attachment. The cinematic treatment of one of the uglier episodes in recent NZ history was given by Peter Jackson who attained even greater acclaim with the Lord of the Rings' series. Kate Winslet and Melanie Lynskey play the principals and the performances are universally good. Most striking, however, is the near-perfect ability of the camera to recreate the New Zealand of the Post-War period.

(TO BE CONTINUED)

Shakespeare Marathon, Part VIII: Henry IV, Part One

Witnessing the evolution from rogue to man of distinction is a pleasurable experience.  Nowhere is this more evident than in a re-reading of Henry IV, Part One. Hal, the young wastrel and disappointment to his father, is, along with Falstaff, the most distinct element of the play. Henry IV, Part One is yet another work completed in my quest to read and see performed all of Shakespeare's 37 plays. The only options I have for witnessing a performance of the text will be through the BBC series. One somewhat unorthodox alternative will be, of course, a viewing of Falstaff , or Chimes at Midnight (1966) by Orson Welles. One film that borrows much from the saga of young Prince Hal is My Own Private Idaho (1991), an updating of sorts set in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. This filmconcerns a youth born into distinction who surrounds himself with Falstaffian elements that make up the world of male hustling. For now, I have had the pleasure of either watching or reading All's Well that Ends Well, Antony and Cleopatra, As You Like It, The Comedy of Errors, Coriolanus, Cymbeline, Hamlet, Henry IV, Part One, Henry IV, Part Two and Henry V. As film adaptations go, I have not had the opportunity to move beyond the offerings of the BBC, although a viewing of As You Like It (1936) is in the works.

Shakespeare Marathon, part VII: Hamlet

To assume that I could add anything to textual analysis of Hamlet would be the height of arrogance. Having stated such, all I can add to the body of work done on this oft-analyzed tragedy are a few resources for those who enjoy cinematic adaptations of the play. To begin with, it is often stated that Olivier provided the definitive screen portrayal of the tortured Danish prince. Olivier, who also gave us Henry V (1944) and Richard III (1956), filmed this version of Hamlet in 1948.

http://www.amazon.com/Hamlet-Criterion-Collection-Laurence-Olivier/dp/0780021312/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319060001&sr=8-1

Equally impressive is a Soviet adaptation by Kozintsev that premiered in 1964. To purchase it from Amazon, here is the link:

http://www.amazon.com/Grigori-Kozintsevs-Original-Widescreen-Special/dp/B004Q87DBQ/ref=sr_1_3?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1319060085&sr=1-3

1964 was also significant for this work as Richard Burton brought the character of Hamlet to life on the Broadway stage. A non-dress rehearsal of the play has been released on DVD:
http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Burtons-Hamlet-Burton/dp/B00000JMON/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1319060142&sr=1-1

The BBC has proven to be the greatest resource for Shakespeare purists, and Hamlet is part of the series undertaken in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Derek Jacobi plays the tortured Dane in this particular production.

Purists were alarmed at the prospect of Mel Gibson, previously known primarily for action films, as Hamlet. Franco Zeffirelli, who had already given us the definitive Romeo and Juliet in 1968, was at the helm for this offering. It's available at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Hamlet-Mel-Gibson/dp/B00019072G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319060818&sr=8-1

Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is, along with the BBC version, the most faithful to the original text. Although not a commercial success, his 1996 version is well regarded. One can obtain further details here: http://www.amazon.com/William-Shakespeares-Hamlet-Two-Disc-Special/dp/B00005JLCI/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1319060904&sr=1-1

Updated to modern-day Manhattan, Ethan Hawke's Hamlet  (2000) finds the tormented soul pitted against the barons of corporate America. Bill Murray and Kyle MacLachlan also star.
http://www.amazon.com/Hamlet-Ethan-Hawke/dp/B00004Z4RP/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1319061369&sr=8-2

For something even more unorthodox, Akira Kurosawa, who many believe gave us the ultimate in King Lear with Ran (1985) and Macbeth with Throne of Blood (1957), also gave a modern take on Hamlet with a corporate setting. This film is known as The Bad Sleep Well and is available at Amazon as well: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Sleep-Well-Criterion-Collection/dp/B000BR6QCI/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1319061587&sr=1-1

A collection of the dumbest things you will always hear despite the truth being within reach

If I were to collect the number of declarations uttered as though they were truthful, it would go beyond the limits of what constitutes my knowledge of numbers. So often we hear the following questions or statements that can so easily be answered or discredited. What is disturbing is that in our information age when a question can be answered or a statement invalidated, these questions and statements have a way of popping up time and time again. These are some of the most persistent ones:

Actually, we can!

1. If man evolved from apes, how come we still have apes? No matter how many times this is answered, someone will ask it again and again. Evolutionary biologists do not posit that man evolved from apes; on the contrary, the theory of evolution puts forth that we share a common ancestor with our animal cousins. Now, asking questions is the first step towards eliminating ignorance, but this question has been asked and answered so many times now that you would think it unnecessary to bring it up as many times as it has been raised.

2. The only reason Canada can afford to have 'socialized medicine' is because we Americans provide all their defense for them? Really? Defense from what? The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. Even during the Cold War, did any rational person think that the Soviets were going to attempt a land invasion of Canada? Think of the logistics involved in trying to occupy a land mass that size. The Soviets could not subordinate Afghanistan, a much smaller nation. How would they have subjugated Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, the Yukon and other provinces and territories?

3. Canada's a neutral nation....they're like America, except they're not brave like us! Right, the country that entered WWI three years before the United States, entered WWII two years before the United States, fought in Korea, the First Gulf War and has undertaken some of the riskiest combat operations in Afghanistan is a nation of cowards. I am sure you could be a great hit at a Canadian comedy club by pointing out their neutrality.

4. Canadians are always coming to America to get their health care; in fact, everyone comes here for their health care! Actually, I won't answer this. I'll just allow you to access the data that is so easily obtained. Please desist from making this statement unless you have the actual statistics stating how many, out of the world's population, come to America for health care. Please look it up!

I am sure that the CEO of IKEA will be shocked to learn that the Swedish government owns all the means of production!

5. Sweden is a socialist nation! I am sure that the CEOs of Volvo, IKEA, Scania, Saab and several other industries will be surprised to hear this! Look up the dictionary definition of socialism, please!

Doesn't look suicidal to me, which puts her in the same category as the overwhelming majority of her fellow Swedes!

6. Sweden has the highest suicide rate on Earth! No, that dubious honor goes to Lithuania. Sweden's not even in the top ten; in fact, no Scandinavian nation is!

Yes, because if ever a man embodied Hitler's ideal, it's a Black American!

7. Hitler was a socialist! Just look at the name of his party, the National Socialists! All right, please tell us five economic policies pursued by Hitler once in power that proved him to be a socialist. Also, do you believe North Korea is democratic owing to its name which has the word "democratic" in it?

8. The French are a bunch of cowards! Just look at their military history....all defeats and surrenders! Why not get a book at look at the lengthy history of French victories in battle? If you want, here is one reliable source: http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp

Wonder what percentage of the "hate-France crowd" enlisted to fill in the French vacancies during the Iraq invasion

While I am thoroughly grateful to the American military for all that it has done for us, we have not been characterized by victory after victory either. As part of an international coalition, we had a stalemate in Korea, a defeat in Vietnam, we had thousands of men evading the draft during the Vietnam war, we did not achieve our ultimate goal of ousting Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War, we withdrew from Somalia and have been entangled in Iraq and Afghanistan for a longer period of time than we were involved in WWII. Also, has anyone noticed that the types who usually belittle France are often not war heroes themselves, but overweight couch potatoes who would probably flee if they were within 100 miles of a war zone?

Why these falsehoods and inane questions continue to prevail I will never understand. It is my hope that with greater access to reliable sources of information, people will stop repeating falsehoods.