Inglorious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino’s WWII epic, it’s actually quite good.   In some ways it’s a bit overindulgent, but it has charming characters and enough wanton violence to make it all work.  I made it a point to see it in the movie theater when it came out, and when it came out on Blu-Ray I also made it a point to buy it.  Good thing, as this version has two bits which are “…very interesting….”  

First is the “full” “Stolz der Nation” (“Nation’s Pride”), the movie-within-a-movie about Zoller, the incredibly annoying German sniper (Daniel Bruhl) who chases after Shoshanna, Melanie Laurent’s character.  I say “full” because it’s really only about 10 minutes long.  But it is fun to watch.  Did I mention I have that same Mauser 98K he uses?  Well, not that exact rifle, but the same model.  Made in Austria in 1944.  Anyhow.

Second is a feature about the original 70’s film.  The director got a bit part in this movie, as an audience member.  It gave me just enough interest to rent it from Netflix and watch it.  I’d think they could have included the entire film, but once you see it for yourself, you’ll know why. 

It sucks.

First, the original.  Spelled “Bastards”.  It’s another poorly made 70s WWII film like “The Dirty Dozen”, “Force Ten From Navarone”, etc.  A ragtag team of American soldiers, all disciplinary cases for various reasons and NONE of them even remotely likeable or sympathetic – one even has a mustache and long hair, typical for 70s films where the actors have contemporary grooming out of place in the 1940s - wind up on their own after a German plane machine guns the MPs escorting them.  They make an initial attempt to escape to the Swiss border, with the help of a German deserter, until they run into a band of French resistance fighters joined up by an OSS officer – a colonel – who parachutes down and winds up commandeering this group for his mission:  to hijack a German train with the newest V2 rocket.   So these shitty soldiers wind up doing some good after all.  Whoopee.   Watch it ONCE out of curiosity and do NOT buy the damn thing.  I’m glad I didn’t.

Back to QT’s version.

Eloquent, charismatic, yet menacing Hans Landa, an SS officer known as the “Jew Hunter”, flushes out Shoshanna from her hiding place in rural France.  Oh, thank you for the milk.   She escapes and winds up running a theater in Paris which has been – how conveniently! – picked to premiere “The Nation’s Pride”, a propaganda film about a German sniper – still only a PFC despite his exploits – Fredrick Zoller (Bruhl).  Since all the big VIPs of Nazi Germany, including Goebbels, Goering and Hitler, will be at this premiere, it’s a good opportunity to end the war early with a bang.  This is where Aldo Raines (Brad Pitt) and his misfit team of Jewish “bastards” come into play.  Landa arrests them, but then – cleverly realizing that Germany probably WON’T be winning the war – persuades Raines to allow him to negotiate a deal with his superiors which will put Landa somewhere cozy in the US after the war and not in front of a firing squad, the most likely outcome for an SS officer who made a career of killing Jews. 

As you might have heard, Hans Landa steals the show.  Here’s what I find remarkable.  Several of QT’s actors are the real thing.  Christoph Waltz (Landa) is Austrian.  Diane Kruger (Bridget Von Hammersmark) is German.  Daniel Bruhl (Zoller) is half German – his father born in Brazil - and speaks fluent German.  Michael Fassbender (Hicox) (better known as the “young Magneto” in the X-Men films) is half German, half Irish, and also speaks fluent German.  The Gestapo guy even remarks, expressing his skepticism,  “I can’t quite place your accent.”  And Til Schweiger (Stiglitz) is also German.  Hell, even Mike Myers is here, as the British officer who briefs Hicox on his mission (I think he’s pretending to be Austin Powers’ WWII era ancestor).  Really it’s an all-star cast, and everyone really does a spectacular job.  Bravo.

As you can see, the plot has nothing in common with the original.  I take it as QT’s “homage” to those poorly made, lousy plot, low budget 70s films like its namesake, and the outlandish plot of his own likewise mirrors his source material.  But by adding in Landa, Raines, and an excellent cast, QT ironically makes an excellent film that’s actually worth watching more than once.  Danke!

Evil Queen, Evil King

Tempers are flaring on Facebook these days about the election.  In particular, the Trumpers and Hillary crowd are at each others’ throats, and the Johnson camp – myself included – have been caught in the crossfire.  Even nominal Libertarians are pulled in to vote for Trump or Hillary instead of Johnson.  At this point I don’t believe my blog will change anyone’s mind, but I do feel some points are worth making.

GOP Victories.   Obama won handily in 2008 and 2012 against McCain and Romney.  Not landslides, but not razor-thin margins.  George W. Bush’s victories against Gore (2000) and Kerry (2004) were razor-thin, even to the point where recounts were necessary.  For his part, Bill Clinton easily beat George H.W. Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996.  The last overwhelming GOP victory was in 1988:  Bush Sr. vs. Dukakis.  Let that sink in.

Neither major party has enough hardcore voters to carry the election by themselves.  Appealing to independents and moderates is a must.   So picking a candidate that ONLY your side likes is a recipe for failure.  The Democrats did it in 1988, and the GOP has been doing it ever since 1992.

Good vs. Evil.  A few weeks ago I discussed Machiavelli, and “The Enemy Within” episode of Star Trek, the Original Series, in which Kirk and Spock agreed that a starship captain needs some evil in him to be effective.  Ronald Reagan we could call 60/40 (good/evil), while Jimmy Carter was probably 90/10.  What’s the right balance?  Ideally over 50 on the good, but 60-75 is probably the max.  Beyond that, you wind up with a President who is too good for his own good, too naïve, and even with the benefit of experienced advisors, may still be too trusting of foreign leaders.  With dangerous bastards like Vladimir Putin out there, we need someone who can compete on his terms.  My impression is that Hillary will lock horns with him – and NOT necessarily effectively - while Trump would sell out the country if he could make a profit on the deal.  His loyalty to anyone outside his own family is nonexistent.

Remember Spielberg’s movie “Lincoln”?  Abraham Lincoln is probably our most esteemed and virtuous President.  Yet even he showed some very clever guile and duplicity behind the scenes.  My impression is that Spielberg wanted to show us that even with that, Lincoln was still a good President and a good man – but that there was more to him than we give him credit for. 

Among the current candidates, Hillary Clinton is probably no better than 50/50, and most likely 40/60.   She falls below the threshold of good vs. evil.  Disqualified?  Maybe, but Donald Trump is more like 5/95.  Finding any trace of good in this man is almost impossible.  Whatever good he has is reserved for his immediate family, and the country does not qualify.

 

Gary Johnson looks similar to Carter in this regard.  I don’t see a whole lot of cynicism or guile, but there is some there.  And Weld probably has enough.  So in addition to their superior platforms, and both being former state governors – the highest ranking executives in this country short of President – I’d say they meet the requirements.  Barely.

In fact, because both Hillary Clinton AND Donald Trump are evil, neither is an acceptable substitute for the other and neither should be President.  We should not vote for one to avoid the other.  We should not settle for less than a GOOD President, as opposed to a less evil President.   I can’t say I’ll be able to persuade anyone at this …juncture…but the least I can do I present the argument.

The Magnificent Seven Samurai

Recently I checked out the current remake of the 1960 film, and also watched the 1954 Japanese film upon which that one was based.   Here’s the deal.

Basic premise:  small village of simple, peaceful people is under attack by evil men.  Seven strangers, none of them native to the village, agree to protect same location at risk to themselves and with little or no reward.  Despite overwhelming odds, they succeed.   Sounds good, right?

The Seven Samurai (1954).  The original story.  This one is in black & white and clocks in at three and a half hours, directed by everyone’s favorite Japanese film dude, Akira Kurosawa, in Japanese with English subtitles.  Although it’s very good, its length dictates that most of us – if we see it at all – will likely watch it once and not again; having said that, it’s worth watching at least once.    

It takes place in Japan in the late 1580s.  The village is besieged by a large group of bandits.  They seek out and - after a long time – finally manage to persuade seven samurai to defend them.   The samurai train them, plot out defense of the village, and succeed at helping the villagers defend themselves.  Despite fear that the samurai will steal all the village girls, the sole interaction appears to be 100% consensual.  The final climactic battle takes place in the rain.  Some, though not all, of the samurai die in the battle.  Most of them, including the leader, are highly sympathetic.  The marginal one is likely a peasant ringer, Kikuchiyo, the most annoying and uncontrollable of them.  The bandits are numerous, equipped with some rifles, but the leader doesn’t get much screen time and they’re more or less faceless as far as the plot goes.

The Magnificent Seven (1960).  [Running time 126 minutes, just over two hours]. Up to now, the definitive version.  The village is in Mexico and the bandits are Mexican, led by Calvera (Eli Wallach, aka the “Ugly” in “The Good, The Bad and the Ugly”, and Don Altobello in “Godfather III”).  He gets the chance to display his wit and cynicism, but none of his group are particularly noteworthy.

            Faced with the constant annoyance of the bandit raid, the peasants go into town and recruit a team of mercenaries to help them out:  Chris Adams (Yul Brynner), Vic Tanner (Steve McQueen), Bernardo O’Reilly (Charles Bronson), Lee (Robert Vaughan), Britt (James Coborn), Harry Luck (Brad Dexter), and Chico (Horst Buchholz).  Remarkably this group agrees to defend the town essentially for free, though Luck does so because he believes that there’s gold in those darn hills.  Chico turns out to be a Mexican (good acting by a German actor who grew up in Nazi Germany) and somehow manages to infiltrate the bandits without arousing suspicion, thereby picking up some excellent intelligence on their numbers, motivations, and plans.  Lee has what we’d call PTSD.  Tanner, O’Reilly and Britt are just plain bad-asses.  Adams winds up as the de facto leader; I suppose he simply copied that role in “Westworld”. 

            After a plot swerve – did you really expect the group to walk away without a fight? – the group returns for what we know and expect to be a climactic showdown with the bad guys.   Cynical yet uplifting at the same time.  Life isn’t always black & white, but that doesn’t mean good can’t triumph over evil.

The Magnificent Seven (2016).  [Running time 132 minutes, about 2.25 hours].  Another all-star cast, and since it’s the PC era now, there’s a black (Denzel Washington) who is the de facto Yul Brynner leader character, an Asian guy, and an Indian (Native American, not quickie-mart).  You could also argue that the Asian and his buddy, played by Ethan Hawke, are a “couple” – it’s ambiguous enough to satisfy both sides of the issue.  Moreover, unlike the prior two films which have a female love interest – just a villager who falls in love with one of the Mag7 – this one has a strong female character who takes an active role in recruiting the men and fighting alongside them.

            Team:  Chisholm (Washington), Josh Faraday (Chris Pratt), Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke) (loosely the Lee character, formerly crack shot but losing his nerve), Jack Horne (Vincent D’onofrio), Billy Rocks (Lee Byung-Hun), Vasquez (Manuel Garcia-Zulfo), Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeier), and the bad-ass widow, Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett).

            Here the bad guy is a mining boss based in Sacramento, Bogue (Peter Sarsgard).  He’s a ruthless bastard and comes with a huge group of rogues AND a Gatling gun which is as effective as you might imagine.  No particular plot swerves but an epic final battle.  You could argue that many of the changes from the 1960 version are politically correct, and the overall tempo of the finale is somewhat supercharged, but to me the overall impact is much improved.  Cullen is both eye candy and bad-ass, so I don’t mind her role at all.  Similarly, to me Red Harvest is the coolest character, and completely absent from the 1960 version.  

Boycotts

Ages ago, back when my peers and I were still in college, my friend Phil laughed at an incident at George Mason University.   In the Brickskeller, the bar in the student union building, the couple in front of him were deciding what beer to buy.  Coors was immediately tossed out because “Coors is non-union”.  Killian’s Red?  Phil helpfully pointed out that Killian’s is made by Coors too.  Then he pointed out that the Brickskeller itself was run by Marriott, which was steadfastly non-union.  What to do?   Sorry, have to drink elsewhere.

Meanwhile, over at the University of Maryland, the students protested because UMCP had investments in South Africa, which at that time (late 1980s) still had apartheid.  Well, “the students” was more like “a handful of especially angry students” because the vast majority of us didn’t care.  The protest shanty on the Mall wound up being brushed aside as trash by maintenance workers who weren’t aware of the issues. 

More recently, the Internet helpfully clued us in on various US firms which did ample business with the Nazis during WWII.  In particular, Hugo Boss – which has a store in the WTC mall across from Mont Blanc – in fact designed the SA and SS uniforms.  We knew about Ford and IBM.   But all that is really moot, as Nazi Germany is long gone, even if these companies are still alive and well.  Drink Fanta to your heart’s content, Adolf isn’t getting your soda money.

Some boycotts seem to be because the company in question does things the boycotters don’t like.  Some seem to be because the company spends its money in ways the boycotters don’t like.  Either the boycotters are trying to change a corporate policy by withholding their business, or simply deprive an objectionable company – and/or its shareholders – of their money. 

I can’t say I have any principled objection to people who want to make sure their money doesn’t go to the wrong place.  It’s your money and you have a right to spend it any way you want to.   However, I would point out merely that as a practical matter, doing so is extremely difficult.  First there is the practical difficulty in ascertaining who owns what these days.  Conglomerates have bought up so much and continue to buy and sell companies, that at any given point it’s almost impossible to figure it out.  A corporation has millions of shareholders, each of whom may get dividends.  It might be more practical to focus your attention on companies which are closely held, like with the Koch Brothers, and avoiding trying to punish publicly held companies.  

Moreover, look at China.  Most of what we buy in the US these days is made in China, probably using labor practices we find abhorrent.  China is still a communist dictatorship and will continue to be so for the indefinite future.   Avoiding buying things made in China is practically impossible.  Much of our oil comes from the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.   Citgo Oil comes from Venezuela.  Cars are made from parts made all over the world, no matter where they are ultimately assembled and built. 

Again, as a practical matter you’d have to live in a cave or commune and grow and make everything yourself.  That is not a sensible lifestyle in 2016. 

NFL.  Recently Colin Kaepernick caused a fuss by refusing to stand for the national anthem.  Many NFL fans were livid not just at CK but also the NFL itself for failing to discipline CK for this political statement.  My subjective impression is that the majority of players keep their views to themselves, and it's the marginally performing players like CK and Chris Kluwe who make a fuss, so they can later allege that a dismissal which would have occurred anyway due to their poor performance on the field was in fact politically motivated.  The best thing to do about CK and others like him is to ignore them.  

Do boycotts work?  Sometimes, but not consistently, and not commonly.  Occasionally they force companies to do things different ways.  They’re most effective if the company has no vested interest in a particular policy, but a company with deep pockets or a dedicated leader is generally unlikely to change its policies.  At the margin they sometimes work.  So it’s neither 100% nor 0%.  

Rocky

I finally watched the last of these films, having seen a few of them in the past.  I never considered myself much of a fan of the films, but I can’t say they’re particularly loathesome, vile, unwatchable, boring, or otherwise objectionable and avoidable.  I wouldn’t advise anyone to sit down and watch them all back-to-back in a marathon, but none of them merit avoiding.  Here’s the deal.

Rocky (1976).  The first one.  Opponent: Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers).  Creed is the heavyweight champion but finds no one willing to fight him anymore – everyone’s having their hair done.  He picks Rocky, an amateur boxer from the slums of Philadelphia – he even has a part-time job as a local mob enforcer.  Eventually there’s a fight, and while Rocky loses, it’s by a decision and not a knockout, which is somewhat of a victory for him and a de facto loss for Creed.  Lots of Philadelphia featured, which is OK if you’re a fan of the city.

            I recall when this came out in the US, but it had heavy competition:  “Star Wars”.  I only watched it from start to finish recently.  I can’t say I’m a fan of boxing or Stallone, but I do feel his performance was superlative. 

Rocky II (1979).  The first sequel.  Opponent: Apollo Creed (rematch).  I believe I saw this in the theaters when it came out in Paris.  Rocky actually tastes success for a change, but the prior outcome satisfied neither of them and a rematch is the obvious solution.  I like that Rocky bought a Trans Am.  I also like that despite everything going on, Rocky and Apollo still had respect for each other as opponents and as persons. 

Rocky III (1982).  Opponent: Clubber Lang (Mr. T).   There’s a new face, and he’s NOT respectful.  Clubber Lang was the villain we could really hate.  With Mickey’s life hanging in the balance, Rocky is distracted in the first fight and loses to Lang.  Of course there’s a rematch, which Apollo helps Rocky train for at his gym in L.A. – a major change of scenery from Philadelphia.  Rocky and Adrian resolve their issues on the beach, and Rocky hits the gym with a vengeance.  In a sense he’s not merely avenging himself, but also Mickey.  To his credit, Lang seriously trains for the rematch, though it proves not good enough. 

Rocky IV (1985).  Opponent:  Vlad Drago (Dolph Lundgren). Ah, the Cold War, heating up again thanks to Vladimir Putin, Trump’s under-the-radar boyfriend.  Stallone’s real-life wife, Brigitte Nielsen (Red Sonja), played Drago’s wife.  Did Drago have ANY lines?  I don’t recall.  Mind you, this is right about the time Gorbachev took over in Soviet Union (he seems to be loosely identified if not by name) and the Soviets have one last grasp of trying to justify their prior system, while in reality glasnost and perestroika were Gorbachev’s last ditch effort to save the system from itself.  We were still seeing this as a Cold War issue, but if the two sides could resolve their differences in the boxing ring – Olympic boycotts in 1980 (Moscow) and 1984 (L.A.) failing to take care of things – rather than with nukes, so much the better for the rest of us.

Anyhow, the first fight is actually between Apollo Creed and Drago, which Creed treats as a big joke, and winds up dead.  Rocky goes to Russia and trains with logs while his opponent gets the high-tech treatment, somewhat ironic and even unintentionally humorous (were those computers using vacuum tubes?).  Somehow he manages to beat Drago AND turn the local USSR crowd in his favor as well.  “Can’t we all just get along?”  Actually somewhat of a tolerant message amidst the Reagan 80’s, when you think about it. 

Rocky V (1990).   Rocky actually fights – but only at the very end.  Upon returning from Russia (actually, Wyoming) he finds that Paulie gave his accountant a power of attorney which he used to embezzle all their money.  Oops.  Long story short, Rocky has to sell everything and go back to his original neighborhood with Adrian working at the pet store – again.   He trains a new guy, Tommy Gunn (Tommy Morrison) who turns out to be just a punk.    Not only that, Rocky’s son – played by his own real-life son – is having trouble at the local school and feels neglected because his dad is training Gunn.  The juxtaposition of his son training himself and taking care of the bully with Tommy Gunn’s crash & burn is fun to watch, and at least in my eyes salvages what might otherwise be a stinker. 

Here’s another weird thing. Up to this movie, none of the actors playing Rocky’s opponents – Weathers, Mr. T., Lundgren – were boxers in real life, though Weathers had a background in the NFL (Oakland Raiders).  But Morrison, playing probably the least sympathetic adversary in all these films, was the only one who actually was a professional boxer in real life.  Tarver (see below) was also a professional boxer.  The more you know…

Rocky Balboa (2006).  Opponent: Mason Dixon (Antonio Tarver).  After having retired and trained another fighter (prior movie) Rocky gets back into the ring to fight the current heavyweight champion, a relatively humble and sympathetic guy named Mason Dixon.  Adrian had died since the last film but Paulie is still alive and present, and just as ascerbic as ever.  Rocky’s son is now grown up (no longer played by Stallone’s actual son) but resents being in his shadow. 

            Although Dixon is undefeated, the critics complain that none of his opponents were as tough as Rocky.  A computer simulation – matching Rocky at his peak, not as he is now – predicts that Rocky would win.  With no more credible opponents to fight, Dixon – against his better judgment – is persuaded by his manager to do an exhibition fight in Las Vegas against Rocky.  For his part, Rocky also agrees.  One of Creed’s former trainers agrees to train him.  Sure enough, there’s a fight in Vegas, and it goes to a decision, which is itself a victory for Rocky.  I suppose it’s due to heavy contrast with Gunn, but I found Dixon to be highly likeable as an opponent.    

Creed (2015).   Apollo Creed’s long-long illegitimate son emerges into the spotlight to fight a nasty Everton fan in Liverpool.  Rocky trains him – fighting off cancer at the same time.  Some chick who looks like Lisa Bonet (remember her?) is the kid’s love interest:  Paulie and Adrian are permanent cemetery residents. 

The funny thing is, I am not now nor have ever been a boxing fan.  Nor can I really say I’m a fan of Sylvester Stallone.  But the films were compelling anyway, because they were flat out good stories.  Triumph over adversity, determination, and staying true to values despite opposition and difficulty.  I’d say the films have sympathetic characters, excellent stories, enough drama and action, and an overall uplifting moral message.   Watching them all back to back might get a bit tiresome and repetitive, but each is decent on its own.