Why I Love Political Partisanship
I mostly use CNN and Newsweek as my sources for the happenings of Washington D.C. One repeating message coming from many commentators is the growing partisanship of all the politicians on both sides of the aisle – how disagreements in the chamber are turning personal. And the subsequent analysis is that government is becoming paralyzed because those Republicans and Democrats just refuse to cooperate.
On the surface, this may sound scary, perhaps even signaling a growing apprehension between people on the Left with people on the Right. Political discourse over dinner may prove awkward, but it doesn't prevent the dishes from getting cleaned. So people apply the same logic to Washington D.C., attempt to identify government as worse now than it was fifteen years ago, and conclude that things are bad because, gosh darnit, those politicians just can’t get along!
I agree with everything asserted above, except that partisanship is actually a good thing for America. Here are five reasons why:
1) Accountability to constituents.
Imagine a coal mine that supports Hagensburg, a small but depressed town within the larger depressed county, Hagenopia. Someone representing Hagenopia is elected to go to Washington D.C. and advocate for Hagensburg (the largest city) in the Federal government. In a republic, we elect someone that will represent us, trying to do what is best for the people. And does this politician necessarily care about the rest of the state or country? Sure, but we hope that he puts Hagensburg ahead of Los Angeles since the people of Hagensburg gave him his job. That's the idea, right? We want politicians that are responsive to their constituents.
So this representative may personally favor moves to green energy, but acknowledges that the move destroys the life stream of this town. So when an environmental bill comes looking for his signature and support, assuming that it will somehow hurt the mining industry in favor of wind energy, what should he do? He knows his constituents don't support the bill, so should he support the bill anyway? Or should he rationalize that, despite his constituent's objections, he knows better and should just do it. Ideally, he would ask for time to try and convince Hagensburg to diversify their economy and move toward more profitable and promising industry. But if he compromises on this bill (voting in favor to get some piece of legislation in the future), he betrays the town's trust that he would act in their best interest -- and their best interest may be to keep the mine operating as it has been. The politician should be uncompromising in his devotion to representing the voices of the town, which means he either needs to convince the town they should change without force (as in, he shouldn't want to bankrupt the mining company to serve his personal energy preferences) or reject the environmental bill.
2) Let’s be mindful of which issues where we want bipartisanship.
If a politician is elected for her position on abortion, she needs to recognize her constituents weren't looking for a compromise. They didn't offer a mandate stating "be pro-life until a new scientific study reveals fetuses are 100% unconscious up until 8 months." The people wanted a stonewalled position on abortion. And if a candidate finds herself in a moral dilemma, try to convince the people. If the people refuse to be convinced, they will elect someone more responsive to their beliefs. And since so many voters choose to focus on one or two issues from a prospective candidate, it would appear the people elect many politicians for advocacy on social questions.
3) Partisan politics assures us the country will stay relatively moderate over long periods of time.
Consider what the Republican congress did when they had complete control -- moved us to the right with the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Stem Cell research and so on. Then in 2006, the country sent Democrats to congress and started a shift to the left, culminating with 2008 Democrat control of the legislative and executive branches. Democrats passed TARP, health care reform, Wall Street reform andothers. Come this November, the country will probably give congress to Republicans to help center our newly minted left leanings. Then in a few years the country will swing back again. Since 2000, we've gone to the right, then the left, and starting back to the right -- overall, everything is balanced and moderate. If we had 10 years of Republican control, we would be even further right than now. And then the likely response would be a hard swing left. It’s those firm and expedient swings that gave us McCarthyism, Roe v. Wade, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama – heroes to some, minions of Hell to others.
4) Partisan politics ensures government moves slowly.
This is a wonderful part of American democracy. Since we were born from a revolution, the founders understood that government can usurp power from the people. When government moves quickly, they usurp power from us quicker with fewer checks on their authority. What Americans really want is a government that thinks long and hard about their decisions. Consider it – do we want them to raise our taxes after long debate or because of a political compromise? Do we want them to pass unexamined legislation faster or slower? Would the Patriot Act have been better if it were passed a month earlier or later? Would health care legislation look better if passed a year earlier or later (remember it took a lot of time and debate to remove the Stupak Amendment…also a long time to remove the Public Option)? I don't think we should get into the attitude of "the time for debate is over. Now is the time for action." Debate should never be considered over -- even when the action starts, debate is essential to identify and illuminate our changing goals.
5) When all politicians are friends, are their public disagreements facades?
I prefer politicians who adamantly disagree and refuse to extend laurels of friendship to one another. Think about competing interest groups – The Brady Campaign and the NRA – going for drinks after a hard day on the job. Other than looking a little strange, would it be worth questioning the authenticity for each respective lobbyist? We all have experience with someone that possessed the exact antithesis to our personal beliefs and would never consider seeing that personal socially. Or perhaps we can tolerate the person as long as politics never comes up, but nonetheless, a precarious situation. For the same reason, if a Democrat and Republican disagreeing in the chamber end their days happily at a bar, are they really advocating for us? Or is it simply their day job – like a briefcase left at the office, lacking a legitimate reason to pick it up when nobody’s watching?
Remember, even if the government is frozen into inaction, we survived without whatever law is currently on the docket and could survive longer without the new law taking effect. Politicians tend to come together in times of great strife or emergency, and as inspiring it is to see bipartisanship in action, I hope there can be a few more disagreements when it comes to our education, taxes, health care, social security and privacy.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Au Revoir Les Enfants film review
Au Revoir Les Enfants
Directed by Louis Malle
French movies are almost always too slow and boring for American audience tastes. While cinematography is important, French movies are often criticized for their overindulgence in angles without dialogue. Finish a French movie and ask yourself, “What did I just watch?” Often times, the only redeeming part of French movies are the actors and actresses are more than willing to remove their clothes for the audiences.
So how can a twenty year old Au Revoir Les Enfants keep contemporary American attention? With an amazing script, realistic portrayals of childhood, different perspectives on world history and viewer created tension waiting for heartache as it looms on the horizon.
The story follows Julien Quentin (Gaspard Manesse) leaving Paris after Christmas Break to return to his Catholic boarding school. A new student, Jean Bonnet (Raphael Fejtö) joins his class and quickly demonstrates modest intellectual superiority over arrogant Quentin. Refusing to adopt a formulaic childhood movie friendship (animosity, followed by one person helping the other and then a flowering and transcendental relationship), Quentin and Bonnet seesaw between appreciation and apprehension. True to life, there is no single event that cements their friendship and instead several experiences grow the two closer together.
The setting takes place in occupied France during World War II, which is a situation ideal for exploring the sheer range of human experience: trust and betrayal, love and hate, fear and courage, hope and hopelessness. However, the film doesn’t try to do overextend itself and simply concentrates on the children. In fact, most of the situations that occur are not understood by Quentin. While he’s sitting in class and the camera shows a German soldier asking to confess outside the window, he doesn’t even look up from his school work. Then when his math class continues underground after an air raid siren, he nonchalantly ignores the teacher lesson and reads a different book. When the lights flicker, the children act excited; when the teacher starts praying, the children follow out of habit instead of fear. Even though the audience has evidence the story occurs sometime during the occupation, the only way we can identify the precise year is near the end when the math instructor mentions the start of a Soviet offensive. And since that signals somewhere around six months before Paris is liberated, the hope for a happy ending looms somewhere in the future.
The film proceeds somewhat directionless for a long time. This allows tension to flow from the audiences expectations that something should happen soon, although we’re not sure what or how. We mostly watch boys enjoying a sheltered life, oblivious to the dire state of world affairs. The voice over at the end is especially memorable because the free-flowing story has no buildup to a climax and we only recognize that we witnessed the climax when the voice over starts. As the German officer continues calling names, we are led to believe the movie has led us to the names called. But it doesn’t – the events are mostly over.
While it can be tedious watching a French movie tiptoe from one isolated incident to another, Au Revoir Les Enfants is absolutely amazing. Seeing children in movies that behave like children (naturally we’re not surprised when students relentlessly harass the new kid) authenticates the experience of the characters far beyond the less believable golden-heart-child-befriends-new-kid-and-receives-rewards-for-their-kindness. Witnessing world history from different eyes will hopefully serve enough interest to consider watching this movie yourself.
On Amazon:
Au Revoir Les Enfants
Update: now posted at Arts in Alabama website -- http://artsinalabama.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4836612-au-revoir-les-enfants-1987-
Directed by Louis Malle
French movies are almost always too slow and boring for American audience tastes. While cinematography is important, French movies are often criticized for their overindulgence in angles without dialogue. Finish a French movie and ask yourself, “What did I just watch?” Often times, the only redeeming part of French movies are the actors and actresses are more than willing to remove their clothes for the audiences.
So how can a twenty year old Au Revoir Les Enfants keep contemporary American attention? With an amazing script, realistic portrayals of childhood, different perspectives on world history and viewer created tension waiting for heartache as it looms on the horizon.
The story follows Julien Quentin (Gaspard Manesse) leaving Paris after Christmas Break to return to his Catholic boarding school. A new student, Jean Bonnet (Raphael Fejtö) joins his class and quickly demonstrates modest intellectual superiority over arrogant Quentin. Refusing to adopt a formulaic childhood movie friendship (animosity, followed by one person helping the other and then a flowering and transcendental relationship), Quentin and Bonnet seesaw between appreciation and apprehension. True to life, there is no single event that cements their friendship and instead several experiences grow the two closer together.
The setting takes place in occupied France during World War II, which is a situation ideal for exploring the sheer range of human experience: trust and betrayal, love and hate, fear and courage, hope and hopelessness. However, the film doesn’t try to do overextend itself and simply concentrates on the children. In fact, most of the situations that occur are not understood by Quentin. While he’s sitting in class and the camera shows a German soldier asking to confess outside the window, he doesn’t even look up from his school work. Then when his math class continues underground after an air raid siren, he nonchalantly ignores the teacher lesson and reads a different book. When the lights flicker, the children act excited; when the teacher starts praying, the children follow out of habit instead of fear. Even though the audience has evidence the story occurs sometime during the occupation, the only way we can identify the precise year is near the end when the math instructor mentions the start of a Soviet offensive. And since that signals somewhere around six months before Paris is liberated, the hope for a happy ending looms somewhere in the future.
The film proceeds somewhat directionless for a long time. This allows tension to flow from the audiences expectations that something should happen soon, although we’re not sure what or how. We mostly watch boys enjoying a sheltered life, oblivious to the dire state of world affairs. The voice over at the end is especially memorable because the free-flowing story has no buildup to a climax and we only recognize that we witnessed the climax when the voice over starts. As the German officer continues calling names, we are led to believe the movie has led us to the names called. But it doesn’t – the events are mostly over.
While it can be tedious watching a French movie tiptoe from one isolated incident to another, Au Revoir Les Enfants is absolutely amazing. Seeing children in movies that behave like children (naturally we’re not surprised when students relentlessly harass the new kid) authenticates the experience of the characters far beyond the less believable golden-heart-child-befriends-new-kid-and-receives-rewards-for-their-kindness. Witnessing world history from different eyes will hopefully serve enough interest to consider watching this movie yourself.
On Amazon:
Au Revoir Les Enfants
Update: now posted at Arts in Alabama website -- http://artsinalabama.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4836612-au-revoir-les-enfants-1987-
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
500 Days of Summer
500 Days of Summer movie review
How could you make a funny movie about a man finding his soul mate and then losing her? You cast Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the resurgent actor as Tom Hanson, and Zooey Deschanel, finally bearable for a full movie as Summer Finn, and then give them a wonderful script about love to explore.
500 Days of Summer is a fun story about moving on from your soul mate relationship and finding love vastly different from your childhood perceptions. The story is told non-linearly, often times bouncing around from various periods in the past, measured by days since Hanson met Finn. Day one occurs sometime in the past, while day 500 is the present day looking back. Since the story boomerangs, we see their flowering relationship contrasted against a fading spark. Their spontaneous kiss at work breaks your heart once you see them apathetically arguing about which movie to see. The effect draws the audience to enjoy the characters better because their relationship fluctuates between destined and doomed. We’re left unsure if we want them together or separated and the uncertainty solidifies since both are funny and likable.
Gordon-Levitt is finally starting to come into the spotlight as a major actor and this is very good for Hollywood. Many viewers may remember him from his teenage angsty role on Third Rock from the Sun, that 90’s sitcom about aliens on earth where every episode revolved around one of the characters misunderstanding normal social interactions and creating comedy from their confusion. Shallow and repetitive, most the stars sputtered escaping their TV personalities. Gordon-Levitt, coupling his suit-wearing 500 Days role with his Inception suit-wearing role, is proving he can hold a movie. His career, dating back to the 80’s, will hopefully allow him to pick smart roles and stay in audience’s mind for a long time to come. He will soon be given a main role to hold an entire movie himself – if he picks it well, he’ll be around for a while.
Zooey Deschanel, on the other hand, always seems to play the same character: free spirited and thoughtful, she challenges her romantic interest to see the world through her eyes (while only seeing her in The New Guy (2001), Yes Man (2008) and 500 Days, she sings in all three and carries a “stop being so uptight” personality). And although she is very similar to this description for 500 Days, Gordon-Levitt does a great job balancing her out – like a refreshing drink of soda after salty popcorn. But she does seem to make Summer Finn her role and possessing such ownership over the character is a testament to her acting skill.
Dripping with all the beauty of an independent movie (thoughtful soundtrack, interesting characters, enjoyable story), 500 Days is a romantic film that won’t overwhelm a jaded film goer.
Addendum:
Article is now up at http://artsinalabama.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4919199-500-days-of-summer-2010.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Remembering 9/11 and Quran burning
Franklin D. Roosevelt commented, in his first inaugural address in 1933, "...that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." He wanted to reassure Americans that the economic depression and subsequent fear regarding the future was "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified."
Since then, the quote has become one of America's firmly held beliefs. Americans don't fear war; Americans don't fear economic depressions; Americans don't fear anything. Patriotically, we are a nation that always stays one tier below fear. We will be frenzied, but not afraid. We will be paranoid, but not frightened. We will be knocked down, but get right back up. Israel's unofficial motto is "never again," the American national motto ought to be "courage in spite of adversity."
I believe this is the national consensus. I haven't done research to back up my assertions, but I feel comfortable stating that our courage exists today in roughly the same manifestation as it did in Roosevelt's days. I believe that, even though we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, if any of our allies were defensively invaded (non-instigator) by any non-allied country, we would subsequently and unflinchingly leap to assistance.
That courage is an American virtue. I think individually, Americans are the same as everyone else in history with respect to fear. When an individual is threatened, an American and Russian will react similarly, if not exactly the same. So, where does all this lead? Where do these comments come from? Frustration. I'm frustrated that my empirical evidence for a courageous America is finding counter-examples. I'm frustrated because I'm finding instances of America and Americans wincing in the face of fear. Case in point: International Burn a Quran day.
When I first heard the story, I was disappointed. I didn't appreciate the intentional (if unstated) attempt to divide religious communities. I figured the whole intended message would backfire and hurt American credibility and commitment to American ideals. All in all, I thought it was a mistake.
Despite my queasiness about the situation, I was viewing the process as a Constitutional question for freedom of speech. I remembered Skokie, Illinois, when the American Nazis wanted to march through Jewish neighborhoods with large populations of Holocaust survivors in the late 70's. I abhorred the message and process and my initial urge (if I were there and a judge) would've been to forbid the marching. But I remembered an ACLU lawyer commenting on the virtues of the First Amendment. With reluctance, I decided I would either support their right to march or admit I wasn't as committed to freedom of speech as I imagined.
The major difference between Skokie and Dove World Outreach is in the latter case, as far as I can tell, there were no attempts to silence Dove through legal means. In Skokie, lawsuits and city ordinances attempted to stifle the political message. However, I am angered to see government officials using fear tactics to silence Dove.
Fear? Yes, fear! General David Petraeus, U.S. Commander of American forces in Afghanistan, stated "It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan" (CNN). In other words, he said that if Dove burned the Quran, Americans would die and our goals in Afghanistan could fail. Even simpler, he said that he fears the consequences of Dove's demonstration.
Even more surprising, President Obama said the same thing: "It's also the best imaginable recruiting tool for al Qaeda...This is a way of endangering our troops" (CNN story here). The President takes fear one step further -- he says this demonstration strengthens our enemies AND endangers our troops. He's afraid of what will happen.
And to top it off, Dove backed down. Dove surrendered to fear -- Pastor Terry Jones essentially said that his goal was to move the Ground Zero Mosque and "accomplished" this, although Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf didn't echo the agreement. It appears as if Pastor Jones was looking for a graceful exit and intentionally misinterpreted the Imam and others. I can't fault him too badly because I don't want blood on my hands either, even if the blame is hard to confirm.
So, what are we afraid of? Are we fearing fear or something else? I'll answer -- we fear Muslim repercussions. We fear that the burning will radicalize moderates and lead non-jihadists into the arms of established terrorists. We are afraid of our enemies.
Read that last sentence again. Who was the last enemy we feared? Can we say, historically, that we feared the Soviets? Possibly, but I would argue we were more afraid of the consequences of war and not the Soviets themselves. We were afraid of nuclear war, but we stood up to the Soviets in some places (Cuban missile crisis) and backed down in others (Afghanistan 1979). Historically looking back, our several Red Scares appear focused more on lifestyle fear than physical fear -- fear that America would morph into Russia.
I agree with President Bush and Obama that we are not at war "with Islam." But I'm frustrated that our leaders (mainly President Obama and General Petraus) exhibit such wide-reaching fear -- almost begging American citizens to avoid angering Muslims.
So our leaders call political expression un-American -- contrary to the "tolerance" that was espoused by American founders (really?). President Obama stated "The idea that we would burn the sacred texts of someone else's religion is contrary to what this country stands for. It's contrary to what this nation was founded on." It seems that delivering a strong demonstration against a religion was actually the cause for American founding (leaving a "civilized" country to carve your way in the wilderness so you didn't have to be part of your country's church...looks like a giant middle finger to me).
I remember reading a few years ago, during the Bush years, several commentators criticizing the Patriot Act. They discussed that the limitations of our rights was un-American, unconstitutional and evidence for the effectiveness of terrorism. I may not be repeating their arguments as elegantly as they wrote, but I laughed a little bit: "Why did terrorists attack the U.S.? To curtail our rights and freedoms." I remember President Bush incorrectly stating "they hate our freedoms." Now we know better.
But let's try asking the question again: "why did they attack us?" I believe it was a show of strength -- "Americans attack our people and enjoy immunity on their own soil, so let's show them they're mistaken." Simple revenge. And now we're afraid. We're afraid of Iran. We're afraid of continuing Israeli support. And once we're afraid of the world, we're afraid to be a messenger of liberty to the world.
Does our fear of Muslims "paralyze needed efforts to convert retreat into advance"? When we're paralyzed by fear of demonstrating a political or religious message, that seems like a retreat.
Since then, the quote has become one of America's firmly held beliefs. Americans don't fear war; Americans don't fear economic depressions; Americans don't fear anything. Patriotically, we are a nation that always stays one tier below fear. We will be frenzied, but not afraid. We will be paranoid, but not frightened. We will be knocked down, but get right back up. Israel's unofficial motto is "never again," the American national motto ought to be "courage in spite of adversity."
I believe this is the national consensus. I haven't done research to back up my assertions, but I feel comfortable stating that our courage exists today in roughly the same manifestation as it did in Roosevelt's days. I believe that, even though we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, if any of our allies were defensively invaded (non-instigator) by any non-allied country, we would subsequently and unflinchingly leap to assistance.
That courage is an American virtue. I think individually, Americans are the same as everyone else in history with respect to fear. When an individual is threatened, an American and Russian will react similarly, if not exactly the same. So, where does all this lead? Where do these comments come from? Frustration. I'm frustrated that my empirical evidence for a courageous America is finding counter-examples. I'm frustrated because I'm finding instances of America and Americans wincing in the face of fear. Case in point: International Burn a Quran day.
When I first heard the story, I was disappointed. I didn't appreciate the intentional (if unstated) attempt to divide religious communities. I figured the whole intended message would backfire and hurt American credibility and commitment to American ideals. All in all, I thought it was a mistake.
Despite my queasiness about the situation, I was viewing the process as a Constitutional question for freedom of speech. I remembered Skokie, Illinois, when the American Nazis wanted to march through Jewish neighborhoods with large populations of Holocaust survivors in the late 70's. I abhorred the message and process and my initial urge (if I were there and a judge) would've been to forbid the marching. But I remembered an ACLU lawyer commenting on the virtues of the First Amendment. With reluctance, I decided I would either support their right to march or admit I wasn't as committed to freedom of speech as I imagined.
The major difference between Skokie and Dove World Outreach is in the latter case, as far as I can tell, there were no attempts to silence Dove through legal means. In Skokie, lawsuits and city ordinances attempted to stifle the political message. However, I am angered to see government officials using fear tactics to silence Dove.
Fear? Yes, fear! General David Petraeus, U.S. Commander of American forces in Afghanistan, stated "It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan" (CNN). In other words, he said that if Dove burned the Quran, Americans would die and our goals in Afghanistan could fail. Even simpler, he said that he fears the consequences of Dove's demonstration.
Even more surprising, President Obama said the same thing: "It's also the best imaginable recruiting tool for al Qaeda...This is a way of endangering our troops" (CNN story here). The President takes fear one step further -- he says this demonstration strengthens our enemies AND endangers our troops. He's afraid of what will happen.
And to top it off, Dove backed down. Dove surrendered to fear -- Pastor Terry Jones essentially said that his goal was to move the Ground Zero Mosque and "accomplished" this, although Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf didn't echo the agreement. It appears as if Pastor Jones was looking for a graceful exit and intentionally misinterpreted the Imam and others. I can't fault him too badly because I don't want blood on my hands either, even if the blame is hard to confirm.
So, what are we afraid of? Are we fearing fear or something else? I'll answer -- we fear Muslim repercussions. We fear that the burning will radicalize moderates and lead non-jihadists into the arms of established terrorists. We are afraid of our enemies.
Read that last sentence again. Who was the last enemy we feared? Can we say, historically, that we feared the Soviets? Possibly, but I would argue we were more afraid of the consequences of war and not the Soviets themselves. We were afraid of nuclear war, but we stood up to the Soviets in some places (Cuban missile crisis) and backed down in others (Afghanistan 1979). Historically looking back, our several Red Scares appear focused more on lifestyle fear than physical fear -- fear that America would morph into Russia.
I agree with President Bush and Obama that we are not at war "with Islam." But I'm frustrated that our leaders (mainly President Obama and General Petraus) exhibit such wide-reaching fear -- almost begging American citizens to avoid angering Muslims.
So our leaders call political expression un-American -- contrary to the "tolerance" that was espoused by American founders (really?). President Obama stated "The idea that we would burn the sacred texts of someone else's religion is contrary to what this country stands for. It's contrary to what this nation was founded on." It seems that delivering a strong demonstration against a religion was actually the cause for American founding (leaving a "civilized" country to carve your way in the wilderness so you didn't have to be part of your country's church...looks like a giant middle finger to me).
I remember reading a few years ago, during the Bush years, several commentators criticizing the Patriot Act. They discussed that the limitations of our rights was un-American, unconstitutional and evidence for the effectiveness of terrorism. I may not be repeating their arguments as elegantly as they wrote, but I laughed a little bit: "Why did terrorists attack the U.S.? To curtail our rights and freedoms." I remember President Bush incorrectly stating "they hate our freedoms." Now we know better.
But let's try asking the question again: "why did they attack us?" I believe it was a show of strength -- "Americans attack our people and enjoy immunity on their own soil, so let's show them they're mistaken." Simple revenge. And now we're afraid. We're afraid of Iran. We're afraid of continuing Israeli support. And once we're afraid of the world, we're afraid to be a messenger of liberty to the world.
Does our fear of Muslims "paralyze needed efforts to convert retreat into advance"? When we're paralyzed by fear of demonstrating a political or religious message, that seems like a retreat.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Philosophy, Politics, Movies and Wine
I think I want to start slow. I started writing my amateaur philosophy and thought, "how can I reach the world best?" Yeah, blogs are the rage (am I five years too late?) and I've kept them before for friends/family and such, but it seems like an appropriate time that I should try and broadcast my ideas.
So my theme will focus on philosophy, politics, movies and wine. To start off, I'll republish what I've written and been seen elsewhere (very little).
Originally appearing in Arts in Alabama, my film review for Oldboy (2003).
http://www.ezflipmags.com/Magazines/View/Arts_In_Alabama_Magazine/5/
Oldboy, R (2003) Park Chan-wook
South Korea is enjoying a historical-first exporting of culture to the West. Americans have long been importing European culture, but with so much noise coming from the South Korean wave, now is the perfect time to take a look out East. And, as an introduction to a large library of outstanding Korean movies, Park Chan-Wook’s 2003 thriller Oldboy will exemplify 21st century Korean art.
The story line for Oldboy is hard to discuss without spoiling too many twists. On a random night, the protagonist, Oh Dae- Su (Choi Min-sik), is kidnapped outside a phone booth. He’s then held in solitary confinement for 15 years, receiving daily meals and arbitrary hair cuts. The day of his 15th year in prison, he’s released and immediately starts investigating who imprisoned him and why.
The plot, while interesting, is not what gives this film the strength to survive a market saturated with thrillers. This movie is very smart for what one would expect in a thriller genre and carries many messages about revenge, violence, redemption and the ability to forget. When Oh figures out the reason for his incarceration, why is he dissatisfied? And even more poignant, why is the audience dissatisfied? A viewer expecting to turn his or her brain off as soon as action starts will probably miss what makes this such an amazing movie.
Oldboy’s action sequences serve more purpose than to get the audience’s heart pumping. Park Chan- Wook does an amazing job using action to reveal character motives and internal struggles. During one unedited scene, Oh battles through a hallway filled with gangsters wielding blunt weapons and knives. He isn’t stronger, faster or better trained than any of his opponents, but instead fights on pure rage. At one point, Oh is stabbed in the back and falls to the ground while everyone surrounds him and assumes he’s dead. Instead of something over the top, Oh does the only realistic thing that can be done at that point and uses a hammer to crush the feet of a few people around him. Frightened, his enemies jump back, giving Oh enough room to recover. The scene ends not when everyone is dead or unconscious, but instead the gangsters just don’t want to fight. Oh staggers out, unpursued, because nobody wants to continue fighting a frothing caged animal.
Many critics have commented on the violence in Oldboy. There is plenty of violence; enough for Quentin Tarantino to fall in love with the film and assist in awarding it a Grand Prix of the Jury at Cannes. But much of the violence occurs off-screen and in the head of the audience. During one scene, while Oh tortures someone that was in his path, the viewer sees less blood than any scene in Saw (2004) or The Expendables (2010). But many will find themselves wincing since imagination fills in the rest of the details. This is a movie that viewers will likely rewatch. Except for a few gems, this summer has been lackluster in memorable films. The best way to end summer is to grit your teeth and read some subtitles (the movie is dubbed in English, but the speakers can’t capture the same level of emotion), and take a look at how artistic and wonderful the thriller genre can be in the right hands.
So my theme will focus on philosophy, politics, movies and wine. To start off, I'll republish what I've written and been seen elsewhere (very little).
Originally appearing in Arts in Alabama, my film review for Oldboy (2003).
http://www.ezflipmags.com/Magazines/View/Arts_In_Alabama_Magazine/5/
Oldboy, R (2003) Park Chan-wook
South Korea is enjoying a historical-first exporting of culture to the West. Americans have long been importing European culture, but with so much noise coming from the South Korean wave, now is the perfect time to take a look out East. And, as an introduction to a large library of outstanding Korean movies, Park Chan-Wook’s 2003 thriller Oldboy will exemplify 21st century Korean art.
The story line for Oldboy is hard to discuss without spoiling too many twists. On a random night, the protagonist, Oh Dae- Su (Choi Min-sik), is kidnapped outside a phone booth. He’s then held in solitary confinement for 15 years, receiving daily meals and arbitrary hair cuts. The day of his 15th year in prison, he’s released and immediately starts investigating who imprisoned him and why.
The plot, while interesting, is not what gives this film the strength to survive a market saturated with thrillers. This movie is very smart for what one would expect in a thriller genre and carries many messages about revenge, violence, redemption and the ability to forget. When Oh figures out the reason for his incarceration, why is he dissatisfied? And even more poignant, why is the audience dissatisfied? A viewer expecting to turn his or her brain off as soon as action starts will probably miss what makes this such an amazing movie.
Oldboy’s action sequences serve more purpose than to get the audience’s heart pumping. Park Chan- Wook does an amazing job using action to reveal character motives and internal struggles. During one unedited scene, Oh battles through a hallway filled with gangsters wielding blunt weapons and knives. He isn’t stronger, faster or better trained than any of his opponents, but instead fights on pure rage. At one point, Oh is stabbed in the back and falls to the ground while everyone surrounds him and assumes he’s dead. Instead of something over the top, Oh does the only realistic thing that can be done at that point and uses a hammer to crush the feet of a few people around him. Frightened, his enemies jump back, giving Oh enough room to recover. The scene ends not when everyone is dead or unconscious, but instead the gangsters just don’t want to fight. Oh staggers out, unpursued, because nobody wants to continue fighting a frothing caged animal.
Many critics have commented on the violence in Oldboy. There is plenty of violence; enough for Quentin Tarantino to fall in love with the film and assist in awarding it a Grand Prix of the Jury at Cannes. But much of the violence occurs off-screen and in the head of the audience. During one scene, while Oh tortures someone that was in his path, the viewer sees less blood than any scene in Saw (2004) or The Expendables (2010). But many will find themselves wincing since imagination fills in the rest of the details. This is a movie that viewers will likely rewatch. Except for a few gems, this summer has been lackluster in memorable films. The best way to end summer is to grit your teeth and read some subtitles (the movie is dubbed in English, but the speakers can’t capture the same level of emotion), and take a look at how artistic and wonderful the thriller genre can be in the right hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)