There is just too much damn violence in this country!
I'm sorry, but we do have a serious problem with violence in this country, in particular. Nowhere else in the world do they have seemingly random shootings with such a degree of regularity. This is a suburb of Denver, probably not too far from another suburb, Littleton, which was the site of the Columbine shootings. As of right now, fourteen are reported dead, and at least twenty (possibly fifty) injured. The numbers seem to be rising as the night wears on. Thoughts are with the victims and their families at the moment.
At the premiere of a highly anticipated movie, Batman: The Dark Knight Rises, there was a massive shooting in Aurora, Colorado. People we very excited to see this movie, which many predicted to be the summer blockbuster of the year. The shooting occurred, evidently, during a shooting scene, according to news reports (but that may be subject to change as more facts become clearer) which was loud to begin with, so the sounds of shots fired confused people. No one could be sure if it was part of the movie, or if the shooting was happening right there in the theater, or if it was somehow a sick publicity stunt. By the time that people understood this was no stunt or gimmick, people had died already. Many more were injured.
The shooter was wearing a gas mask he released tear gas (again, according to reports that I heard), presumably to create chaos and confusion. He went into movie theater #9, and started shooting rather randomly, after first releasing some kind of canister that filled the room with smoke. Initial reports suggested that it had been tear gas, but then they backed away from that, and said it had caused some smoky conditions. The man then began to shoot, and given the rather violent nature of the movie that people had gathered to see, some dismissed it as just a spectacle. He shot people at random, people he did not know, presumably, personally. Strangers were shot. Kids were shot. I heard even a baby was shot in the back.
Of course, not too far from the location of this shooting is Littleton, Colorado, the site of probably the most famous school shooting in history, the 1999 Columbine school shootings.
When are we going to admit that we have a problem? We take these as isolated incidents. I was at work when this shooting broke out, and I live in New Jersey. The reaction was often detached. The first time I heard about it was from a coworker who told me the news, and followed it up with a smile, as he said, "Nice!". The same guy later was saying that he hoped this was some guy of "Middle Eastern descent", perhaps especially "from Iran", perhaps already using this tragedy to stoke the flames of yet another war. But, he claimed, he had a sick feeling that it was some "local", as he put it. Another genius said, "So long as it stays over there!" he said (meaning Colorado), waving his hand towards the television screen, as if it just stays that far away geographically, then it's not really a problem that should concern us. Many suggested that people are "weird" and have a problem in Colorado. Stupid stereotypes that go a long way towards distancing themselves and the world that they know, and isolating this particular shooting, and perhaps such shootings in general, as someone else's problem, but nothing that they should really worry about.
One problem with such thinking, of course, if that it does not tend to just stay "there". In Bloomingdale, a town I used to live in, there was a plot similar to Columbine that was thwarted, evidently. I do not know how close they were to actually executing the plan, but just the thought is chilling.
Now, I am not going to talk about how such a thing was seemingly unthinkable back when I was in high school. I am not that old, having graduated in 1992, but all of these school shootings began a few years later, and they seemed to have gained momentum. By the 1990's, there were school shootings and other shootings, seemingly every few weeks. It comes, and it goes.
But when such a shooting becomes just another news piece, when it becomes something that you can compare to with other such incidents over the years and, pretty soon, decades, then there is something seriously wrong. I mean, come on! Think about such massive, and seemingly random, mass shootings, and it really is staggering. We know it happens in other countries, granted. But when it does, life stops there for a while. When some Scottish lunatic goes into a preschool, if memory serves me correctly, and opens fire on innocent little children, life stands still, similarly to September 11th. When there is a school shooting in some rural Canadian community, life stands still for our northern neighbors. When there is a massive school shooting in Germany, life stands still. And last year, when there is a bombing in the capital, followed by a massive shooting on an island that is hosting a party youth conference, and something in the neighborhood of almost eighty people are killed, even if it is the action of one lone man, a lunatic, still nonetheless life stands still.
Here in the United States, things like that happen very often, and life goes on pretty much as normal. There were a series of school shootings in the nineties and early 2000’s, in places like Jonesboro or Flint. But the only one that we collectively really remember is Columbine, because of the unprecedented scale of it. It becomes the dominant news item for a while, but then largely goes away. When there is a school shooting done by a very young child in Flint, the head of the NRA goes to Michigan almost immediately afterwards to make sure that the main issue according to him, the right to bear arms, is not threatened in any way. Very quickly, it becomes a political football, and not just a tragedy- one of many that we have seen, and just yet another one that we chalk up as the actions either of some mad man or mad teens (or in this case, some child who did not know what he was doing). Yes, very quickly, it simply becomes an event that is used for flavor of the moment political debates.
We have seen shootings on a massive scale, all across the country, and in various different settings. Whether it is on a military base, a school out in Colorado or Arkansas (or numerous other states that have seen similar such murders), some office building somewhere, a political event in Arizona, or now, a movie theater in Colorado, showing the latest highly anticipated summer blockbuster, these shootings seem to just come and go. So familiar have we become with these events that they become part of our landscape, some kind of news piece that is not exclusive to America in terms of the actual shootings, but becomes exclusively American in terms of the number of such events that we have. It bears repeating: nowhere else do they have such random shootings as what we see here.
How often are we going to watch scenes from a helicopter, or live news reporters, reporting on the latest shooting, before we collectively acknowledge that this really is not normal, and that we have a problem?
Sooner or later, people are probably going to get tired of this story, much like they get tired of other such stories. That's what happens, because the media pounces on it, and never lets it go. The story will go on and on, angled differently here and there, and people will get sick of it. People will move on. They may not say it too boldly or loudly. They may say it in quiet tones, something like, “I feel bad for the victims and their families, and it was a horrible tragedy, but do we need to hear about it every day? I’m just going to be glad when we don’t have to keep hearing about it, already.”
Of course, the media sensationalizes these types of stories. For them, it is an opportunity to promote themselves. For reporters on the scene, it becomes an opportunity to shine in the limelight of their career, to prove themselves, or perhaps to make a name for themselves. Since most new stories tend to be mundane, it almost seems like the news stations and publications perk up when something like this occurs to capture the public imagination on an otherwise slow news day. They go on and on with the story, giving us details about the event as it unfolds, and then analyzing it over and over again, giving us what information they receive as soon as they receive it. People that were there are interviewed, and then we learn more about the victims and their families. We learn the identity of the shooter, and almost always, we hear about how quiet and unassuming they were in their real life prior to the event, by people who knew them personally. We learn about memorial services, and how lives begin to readjust. Eventually, it kind of just fades away, becomes just another part of our past. Maybe it will make the list as ranking among the most memorable moments of the year, or even of the decade – such as the Columbine shootings, or surely, the Norway attacks last year – mostly because of the scale, when they are very big. Or, perhaps, there will be a famous victim, such as the shooting at Arizona last year, when a Congresswoman was shot.
This shooting in Colorado has already become a media spectacle, quite predictably. It has and will continue to dominate our news for a few days, and perhaps eventually even weeks. But I wonder if that means that we will seriously assess what happened and the reasons for it, or if it will just become another curious conversation piece, something that gets people to talk. Another opportunity for people to clear their throat and then voice their opinions on a subject. In other words, we are, collectively, so detached from such an event, that we weigh in on it for our own purposes, without the reality of it ever actually being recognized. For most of us, it becomes much like a movie. It all seems so surreal. The media covers it, and despite their solemn faces and tones, it almost becomes like entertainment. We use it the way that we want to use it, for our own purposes. Maybe to stoke our morbid fascination, to have it front and center for a brief while, until we get bored with it and move on. The reality of this tragedy is being felt in Aurora and surrounding communities, of course. Almost everywhere else, however, lives are so detached that this will seem remote, and thus, relegated to a curiosity, a mere conversation piece, however morbid. It will be used, much like everything else in our society is used.
And that’s the real problem with events like this, isn’t it? They have happened so frequently, that we discuss them as just part of our everyday reality, which is another way of saying that we have come to accept them as part of our society. It’s just something that happens from time to time. Somebody goes nuts, gets a few guns or home made bombs ready, and then makes the news. It is relegated to entertainment of a different sort, when news programs cancel scheduled programming to bring us the latest on this “developing” or “breaking” news story. We are looking at the symptoms and weighing in, but hardly anybody is discussing the larger sickness itself, because the answers are not easy. They take time to diagnose, and time to try and address in a serious, mature manner. Plus, they are probably pretty polarizing, divisive, and in this American society of ours, where we shed any controversial material in order to promote a universal appeal, that is a de facto taboo. In other words, we shy away from it, in order not to offend people. That’s a problem. These things are allowed to grow and grow. Eventually, all that’s left are the questions specific to this or that tragedy, and we see the tree, but not the forest. There is no real attempt to see the underlying problems behind all of these tragedies.
We ask the more limited questions, and not the larger questions. That is why we do not learn anything from such incidents, except those details applying specifically to a particular news story.
The question is, should we just move on after shrugging our shoulders and thinking of this as an isolated incident, one of far too many that we have seen through the years? Or are we finally going to acknowledge that something is not merely a little off, but deeply, terribly wrong? When are we going to get serious about looking at the problems we seem to have, and why this kind of thing is considered just "another" random shooting?
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
Concert Review: The Mahoney Brothers
Concert Review: The Mahoney Brothers "Long Live the Beatles" - Free Concert Series at Village Green, Summit , NJ
For a free concert by a tribute band, this group was actually quite good! The voice of John Lennon on this band in particular was spot on! He really actually did sound a lot like Lennon.
The costumes were cool, also, and enhanced the show. The first part featured the famous matching gray suits during the early days of the Beatles, as seen on the Ed Sullivan Show clips. The middle part of the show saw them in the Sgt. Pepper's outfits, and the latter part of the show saw them in their Abbey Road , late era Beatles look, with much longer hair, as well as facial hair.
They played well, and sounded good, all told. Whenever you hear Beatles music, it takes you away to another place, and you just want to keep listening. This show was over much too soon, but I do understand the time constraints involved. It was a Tuesday evening in a public square in an otherwise quiet, suburban town, after all. Of course they have to wrap it up relatively early. Maybe it would have been good to get a slightly earlier start?
According to the band's website, this band is, at least allegedly, the longest continuously running Beatles show in the world. Now, I am not sure how to prove that, but they are celebrating thirty years, so that's something! Nor are they restricted to merely covering Beatles material. They have another act called "Juke Box Heroes", where they cover chart toppers throughout the years, including Elvis, the Beatles (again), Buddy Holly, the Beach Boys, Willie Nelson, and Neil Diamond, among other acts. All that, and the band has their own, original music as well – they are a country act. Pretty impressive credentials.
I enjoy all of those free concerts that are offered during the summer season. Many towns seem to offer these types of things, usually for a four or five week stretch during the peak of the summer season. At the end of this blog entry will be posted a couple of websites that I have used and personally recommend, if you live in the New York/New Jersey area, and are interested in such things. The concerts tend to cover older acts. If you are a teenage girl and want to see, let's say, a Justin Bieber cover band, well, that's not likely to happen. Also, frankly, if you are a teenage girl that enjoys Justin Bieber, you have some bigger problems to worry about. Over the years, I have seen numerous acts that were actually really cool shows, and cheap alternatives to high priced concerts these days (although I enjoy seeing major acts as well). Some of the most notable cover acts included Strawberry Fields (which is another Beatles tribute band), Bobby and the Jets (Elton John Tribute band), Big Shot (Billy Joel tribute band, and they also do some Journey material), the Machine (Pink Floyd cover band), as well as the New York Philharmonic (not a cover act, but they do offer free concerts in the park on occasion).
Overall, though, this is a nice location for the show, as well. Everyone there seemed to be having a good time. I was not all that familiar with Summit , but having heard about a free Beatles tribute act coming to town for a free concert allowed me the opportunity to pay a visit, and it was a nice setting for such an event.
Again, these concerts are a cool way to spend an evening, and all at the best price – free! Can't beat that! So, get your picnic stuff ready, choose an act that sounds interesting, and give these shows a shot. Maybe I'll see you there!
Below, please find the links that I mentioned earlier, for some information via websites offering information on free concerts:
New Jersey :
http://www.njfreesummerconcerts.com/index.html
New York City :
http://www.nycgo.com/free?i=098_freeconcerts_75x75
New York Philharmonic:
http://nyphil.org/concertsTicks/parks.cfm
New Yorkers used to be able to look forward to the Siren Music Festival, but that was yanked from Coney Island last year, although it is still available in another part of New York City (although I could not find any information on this year's show – yet!
For a free concert by a tribute band, this group was actually quite good! The voice of John Lennon on this band in particular was spot on! He really actually did sound a lot like Lennon.
The costumes were cool, also, and enhanced the show. The first part featured the famous matching gray suits during the early days of the Beatles, as seen on the Ed Sullivan Show clips. The middle part of the show saw them in the Sgt. Pepper's outfits, and the latter part of the show saw them in their Abbey Road , late era Beatles look, with much longer hair, as well as facial hair.
They played well, and sounded good, all told. Whenever you hear Beatles music, it takes you away to another place, and you just want to keep listening. This show was over much too soon, but I do understand the time constraints involved. It was a Tuesday evening in a public square in an otherwise quiet, suburban town, after all. Of course they have to wrap it up relatively early. Maybe it would have been good to get a slightly earlier start?
According to the band's website, this band is, at least allegedly, the longest continuously running Beatles show in the world. Now, I am not sure how to prove that, but they are celebrating thirty years, so that's something! Nor are they restricted to merely covering Beatles material. They have another act called "Juke Box Heroes", where they cover chart toppers throughout the years, including Elvis, the Beatles (again), Buddy Holly, the Beach Boys, Willie Nelson, and Neil Diamond, among other acts. All that, and the band has their own, original music as well – they are a country act. Pretty impressive credentials.
I enjoy all of those free concerts that are offered during the summer season. Many towns seem to offer these types of things, usually for a four or five week stretch during the peak of the summer season. At the end of this blog entry will be posted a couple of websites that I have used and personally recommend, if you live in the New York/New Jersey area, and are interested in such things. The concerts tend to cover older acts. If you are a teenage girl and want to see, let's say, a Justin Bieber cover band, well, that's not likely to happen. Also, frankly, if you are a teenage girl that enjoys Justin Bieber, you have some bigger problems to worry about. Over the years, I have seen numerous acts that were actually really cool shows, and cheap alternatives to high priced concerts these days (although I enjoy seeing major acts as well). Some of the most notable cover acts included Strawberry Fields (which is another Beatles tribute band), Bobby and the Jets (Elton John Tribute band), Big Shot (Billy Joel tribute band, and they also do some Journey material), the Machine (Pink Floyd cover band), as well as the New York Philharmonic (not a cover act, but they do offer free concerts in the park on occasion).
Overall, though, this is a nice location for the show, as well. Everyone there seemed to be having a good time. I was not all that familiar with Summit , but having heard about a free Beatles tribute act coming to town for a free concert allowed me the opportunity to pay a visit, and it was a nice setting for such an event.
Again, these concerts are a cool way to spend an evening, and all at the best price – free! Can't beat that! So, get your picnic stuff ready, choose an act that sounds interesting, and give these shows a shot. Maybe I'll see you there!
Below, please find the links that I mentioned earlier, for some information via websites offering information on free concerts:
New Jersey :
http://www.njfreesummerconcerts.com/index.html
New York City :
http://www.nycgo.com/free?i=098_freeconcerts_75x75
New York Philharmonic:
http://nyphil.org/concertsTicks/parks.cfm
New Yorkers used to be able to look forward to the Siren Music Festival, but that was yanked from Coney Island last year, although it is still available in another part of New York City (although I could not find any information on this year's show – yet!
Thursday, July 19, 2012
A Day at the Beach
Yesterday, I did something that I rarely ever do - spent the day at a beach. Okay, well, not the entire day, but the afternoon and evening.
Now, normally, that is something that I do rarely, despite the hot summers and the relatively close proximity of the infamous Jersey Beach . You see, I am one of those people with fair skin, which is to say that my normal complexion is pasty year round. I don't so much tan as burn. It seems either I look like Casper , with nearly translucent skin, or I look like the walking, talking red lobster.
Still, I have never gone an entire year without getting sun burnt once, and figured why would this year be any different? Plus, although spending an entire day at the beach, taking a dip in the waves, but mostly just laying there, doing nothing, and working on my tan, tends to be seen as a very enticing thing for most people (the phrase “a day at the beach” comes to mind), this just isn't my "thing", if you will. Yes, most people seem to really enjoy that, and for a great percentage of the people, that is their foremost idea of a vacation to have a good time in.
Me, I think of skin cancer and all of those warnings about spending too much time at the beach, under the sun. Also, there are other unpleasant realities with the beach, including the massive traffic jams to and from (unless you specifically choose to go at a time when that will not be an issue, but most people do not seem to want to wake up at three in the morning in order to get a head start on their day at the beach). Then, there is the problem of the beaches being overcrowded, as well as the other perks that go along with that, such as overpriced and low quality food and souvenir stands, parking issues, and being charged entirely too much to actually enter the beach.
Overall, there just seem to be a lot of annoyances and inconveniences, and for someone like me, who is not interested in working on a tan, those inconveniences quickly detract too much from the actual beach-going experience. I am of the mind that the ocean should not be considered private property. Yet, people have their beach front properties, and they block others from entering (or try their best to). Many townships straddling the beach have little to offer in terms of revenue, so they take advantage of the one thing that they really have to offer- that being the ocean – and charge an arm and a leg for everything, like they are trying to make up for almost an entire calendar year’s worth of generating virtually nothing, by squeezing every possible thing that they can from out of town visitors and beach goers.
In other words, people ruin it. On it's own, the shore is beautiful beyond compare, and is perfect for relaxing and dreaming of things beyond the everyday.
But too often, when you go, you have to endure the everyday (all of those stresses that I just mentioned) in order to finally get to the beach. Almost like a prerequisite, and frankly, it should not be that way.
There are places where the coast is open and available, where a conscious effort was made not to allow too much build up right by the coast. There are some in Europe . There are some in other countries, and there are some in this country, as well. I have even seen it, personally, on a trip to the Pacific Northwest, where there are, if memory serves correctly, hundreds of miles of coastline that has been allowed to remain completely natural, and not built up or privatized.
But I presently live in built up New Jersey , and there really is not anything like that here to speak of. We even have television shows about the Jersey Shore , and they are none too flattering.
Yet, the beach is the beach, and once there, it is beautiful, and a pleasure. I specifically visited the beach at Belmar. Although the beach is not something I normally do, especially on a hot day like the one that I actually went on, it was very pleasant. It seemed somehow not quite as hot as everywhere else, and when the evening came, I swear it cooled off beautifully, and you could even feel a slight breeze in the evening.
I was in the water, allowing the waves to crash over me, sometimes swimming with them and allowing them to do with me as they will (without going too far with this), while the sunset beyond the shore was spectacular. The pastel colors in the sky were perfect, and it was just such a joy to be there.
It is indeed a privilege, and a privilege beyond price, beyond this society's baser instincts of "ownership". It is a natural site, and nothing that human beings created, or should be allowed to lock away and prevent people from coming to of their own accord.
Now, normally, that is something that I do rarely, despite the hot summers and the relatively close proximity of the infamous Jersey Beach . You see, I am one of those people with fair skin, which is to say that my normal complexion is pasty year round. I don't so much tan as burn. It seems either I look like Casper , with nearly translucent skin, or I look like the walking, talking red lobster.
Still, I have never gone an entire year without getting sun burnt once, and figured why would this year be any different? Plus, although spending an entire day at the beach, taking a dip in the waves, but mostly just laying there, doing nothing, and working on my tan, tends to be seen as a very enticing thing for most people (the phrase “a day at the beach” comes to mind), this just isn't my "thing", if you will. Yes, most people seem to really enjoy that, and for a great percentage of the people, that is their foremost idea of a vacation to have a good time in.
Me, I think of skin cancer and all of those warnings about spending too much time at the beach, under the sun. Also, there are other unpleasant realities with the beach, including the massive traffic jams to and from (unless you specifically choose to go at a time when that will not be an issue, but most people do not seem to want to wake up at three in the morning in order to get a head start on their day at the beach). Then, there is the problem of the beaches being overcrowded, as well as the other perks that go along with that, such as overpriced and low quality food and souvenir stands, parking issues, and being charged entirely too much to actually enter the beach.
Overall, there just seem to be a lot of annoyances and inconveniences, and for someone like me, who is not interested in working on a tan, those inconveniences quickly detract too much from the actual beach-going experience. I am of the mind that the ocean should not be considered private property. Yet, people have their beach front properties, and they block others from entering (or try their best to). Many townships straddling the beach have little to offer in terms of revenue, so they take advantage of the one thing that they really have to offer- that being the ocean – and charge an arm and a leg for everything, like they are trying to make up for almost an entire calendar year’s worth of generating virtually nothing, by squeezing every possible thing that they can from out of town visitors and beach goers.
In other words, people ruin it. On it's own, the shore is beautiful beyond compare, and is perfect for relaxing and dreaming of things beyond the everyday.
But too often, when you go, you have to endure the everyday (all of those stresses that I just mentioned) in order to finally get to the beach. Almost like a prerequisite, and frankly, it should not be that way.
There are places where the coast is open and available, where a conscious effort was made not to allow too much build up right by the coast. There are some in Europe . There are some in other countries, and there are some in this country, as well. I have even seen it, personally, on a trip to the Pacific Northwest, where there are, if memory serves correctly, hundreds of miles of coastline that has been allowed to remain completely natural, and not built up or privatized.
But I presently live in built up New Jersey , and there really is not anything like that here to speak of. We even have television shows about the Jersey Shore , and they are none too flattering.
Yet, the beach is the beach, and once there, it is beautiful, and a pleasure. I specifically visited the beach at Belmar. Although the beach is not something I normally do, especially on a hot day like the one that I actually went on, it was very pleasant. It seemed somehow not quite as hot as everywhere else, and when the evening came, I swear it cooled off beautifully, and you could even feel a slight breeze in the evening.
I was in the water, allowing the waves to crash over me, sometimes swimming with them and allowing them to do with me as they will (without going too far with this), while the sunset beyond the shore was spectacular. The pastel colors in the sky were perfect, and it was just such a joy to be there.
It is indeed a privilege, and a privilege beyond price, beyond this society's baser instincts of "ownership". It is a natural site, and nothing that human beings created, or should be allowed to lock away and prevent people from coming to of their own accord.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Hunting War Criminals
Earlier this morning, Laszlo Csatary, who is three years away from reaching the age of 100, was living a relatively quiet life in his later years. He seemed normal in every way. On the news, I saw footage of him carrying his groceries to his home, as quietly as could be done when you live in the city.
Also, as quietly as he could when all sorts of cameras and such are pointed at him, trying to catch a glimpse of him.
Why is a nearly 100-year old man such a hot item for cameras and such? Well, it is because of his past.
You see, the quiet and relatively peaceful life I just described, a life that belongs to the older version of Laszlo up until very recently, hid a more disturbing version of his life when he wore a younger man’s clothes.
When he was still a relatively young man, during the chaotic days of the Second World War and the Holocaust, he helped to organize the deportation of over 15,000 Jews to Auschwitz.
After the war, he fled to Canada, and lived a fairly normal life there as an art dealer under a false name. However, in the 1990’s, he had to leave Canada after being stripped of his citizenship. He went to Hungary.
Csatary is number one on the list of the Nazi hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center, and they warned the Hungarian government about him.
On Wednesday (the 18th), he was surprised to be placed under arrest.
State prosecutor Tibor Ibolya said, “He denies being guilty of the crimes he is accused of. One of his arguments in his defence is that he was obeying orders.”
That has been the standard reasoning for those accused of war crimes since the days of the Nuremberg Trials.
According to Ibolya, Csatary “is in good physical and mental health. He is being cooperative. He was surprised (about the arrest) but he expected to be questioned.”
There have been some questions in recent years about Nazi hunting, and the image of these very old men being imprisoned and made to pay for crimes that took places the greater part of a century ago.
That said, this world seems filled with such criminals, and I, for one, do feel that there is considerable legitimacy in hunting them down. You do the crime, then you do the time. Also, have your name dragged through the mud, if it comes down to it. It is a sad state of affairs, of course. But how else can we fight against those who would carry out these horrific war crimes?
There has been some progress on this score, of course. Earlier this year, former Liberian President Charles Taylor was convicted of war crimes. What made that particular case unique was that he was a sitting President of a country, and was not physically present in the area (the crimes took place in the neighboring nation of Sierra Leone) where the war crimes were supposed to have taken place, yet he was found guilty of having largely caused it. That was unprecedented. He was charged with 11 offenses, amounting to war crimes, including murder, rape and other violent acts, enslavement and the use of child soldiers, pillaging, and even terrorism.
Of course, Charles Taylor, like Nazis and many others accused before him, claimed that he himself was just a victim. He compared his actions with those of George W. Bush, during the War on Terror (another reason that perhaps future Presidents should be a little more careful, intelligent, and thoughtful before taking action and invading a country – because the whole world is indeed watching, and will hold the President, and the American people in general, accountable).
Whenever we try and allow some people to be above the law (and they almost always use the excuse that they are protecting the freedoms of the people in who’s name they are taking such actions), we giving them carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want. This often works out disastrously, as it did in Nazi Germany. As it did in turkey, in the declining years of the Ottoman Empire, when up to a million Armenians were murdered. As it did in the former Soviet Union, particularly under the reign of terror of Stalin. As it did in Nigeria, during the Biafran Civil War. As it did in Mao’s China. As it did under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. As it did in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990’s, and again in the late 1990’s, during the rule of Slobodan Milosevic. As it did in Rwanda in 1994. As it did under the reign of President Charles Taylor in Liberia. As it did in Darfur most recently.
These crimes are too numerous to list, and they almost literally span the globe. And that, only since around the midway point of the twentieth century.
After the end of World War II and the Holocaust, a familiar refrain that was often repeated was “Never Again”. But that has proven not to be true, actually. If anything, these crimes seem to be gaining in momentum and frequency.
So, it seems logical to me that such criminals should be hunted, much like they themselves did the hunting, when they had the power to do so. Yes, Csatary is nearly 100 years old, and these crimes that he is accused of took place around 70 years ago. Does that mean he should no be held accountable? If so, what kind of message is that? Perhaps there is a statute of limitations in place within the legal framework of the still yet developing world court. But are there not exceptions to those who escape justice by going overseas under a false identity, such as Csatary did (as well as many, many others). Is it not right to go after them?
Again, a lot of time has passed since the Holocaust, and many of those who were around to play an active part in this terrible chapter of history have since died. A lot of them, but not all of them.
Yet, when one is still found, as Csatary has now been found, is it not right to persecute them for war crimes, even those that took place a long time ago?
How else are we going to try to prevent these things from happening in the future, without letting the perpetrators know that, yes, they will be hunted, literally, for the rest of their lives?
It might not be the ideal solution, but it is better than doing nothing, isn’t it?
Also, I would add that it seems ridiculous to me that anybody would want to make an exception and exempt people, simply because they belong to a certain nationality. I mentioned Charles Taylor, and how he compared himself with George W. Bush. There are countries that either Bush nor former Vice-President Cheney or former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld can go to, because they would indeed technically be guilty of war crimes there.
Many Americans feel that their fellow countrymen should be exempt from these charges, but I feel this is an absurd and contradictory stance for anyone to be taking. When Americans supported the crusades of Bush and his team, largely on the grounds that international terrorists were conducting all sorts of horrors around the world and needed to pay for their crimes, they are hardly being fair or logical when they themselves want a status that exempts them from the same such crimes, if indeed they are guilty of them. The war in Iraq was waged largely on the premise of Weapons of Mass Destruction, but those were never found. Bush and his team claimed to be shocked, and suggested faulty information. They were misled, in other words. But the only misleading that they were involved with was the propaganda that helped tog et the ball rolling with the war. They wanted it, and got it. I am not going to get into the whole Haliburton thing here, but what they did was nothing short of a crime, and they should be held accountable. Yes, even if they are Americans. I am not a believer in this notion of systematic American exceptionalism.
Some Americans have suggested that Americans are incapable of crimes against humanity like that. Tell that to the families of innocent victims during the Iraq War. Tell that to the families of those killed by the American soldier earlier this year, who was described by neighbors as completely normal in every sense.
So, yes. Let war criminals around the world be brought to justice. If they run and hide, as Csatary did, and as well as many other Nazis, let them know that they are being hunted. Let them know that they will never be left in peace, because these rimes are unique, being on such a scale. Let them not be allowed to live the rest of their lives in peace, since they did not allow their victims to live in peace when they had the chance to, however long ago it may have been.
Also, let us recognize the dangers of the jingoistic propaganda campaigns that have been evident in all of these cases that I mentioned, and let us understand better the fine line between actual defense, and inexcusable aggression.
“Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. ”
- Hermann Goring
Below is the link to the Yahoo! article "Top Nazi "war criminal" Csatary arrested in Hungary", by Florence La Bruyere, which provided much of the information in this blog entry, as well as all of the quotes used here:
http://news.yahoo.com/hungarian-nazi-war-crimes-suspect-csatary-custody-092553444.html
Also, as quietly as he could when all sorts of cameras and such are pointed at him, trying to catch a glimpse of him.
Why is a nearly 100-year old man such a hot item for cameras and such? Well, it is because of his past.
You see, the quiet and relatively peaceful life I just described, a life that belongs to the older version of Laszlo up until very recently, hid a more disturbing version of his life when he wore a younger man’s clothes.
When he was still a relatively young man, during the chaotic days of the Second World War and the Holocaust, he helped to organize the deportation of over 15,000 Jews to Auschwitz.
After the war, he fled to Canada, and lived a fairly normal life there as an art dealer under a false name. However, in the 1990’s, he had to leave Canada after being stripped of his citizenship. He went to Hungary.
Csatary is number one on the list of the Nazi hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center, and they warned the Hungarian government about him.
On Wednesday (the 18th), he was surprised to be placed under arrest.
State prosecutor Tibor Ibolya said, “He denies being guilty of the crimes he is accused of. One of his arguments in his defence is that he was obeying orders.”
That has been the standard reasoning for those accused of war crimes since the days of the Nuremberg Trials.
According to Ibolya, Csatary “is in good physical and mental health. He is being cooperative. He was surprised (about the arrest) but he expected to be questioned.”
There have been some questions in recent years about Nazi hunting, and the image of these very old men being imprisoned and made to pay for crimes that took places the greater part of a century ago.
That said, this world seems filled with such criminals, and I, for one, do feel that there is considerable legitimacy in hunting them down. You do the crime, then you do the time. Also, have your name dragged through the mud, if it comes down to it. It is a sad state of affairs, of course. But how else can we fight against those who would carry out these horrific war crimes?
There has been some progress on this score, of course. Earlier this year, former Liberian President Charles Taylor was convicted of war crimes. What made that particular case unique was that he was a sitting President of a country, and was not physically present in the area (the crimes took place in the neighboring nation of Sierra Leone) where the war crimes were supposed to have taken place, yet he was found guilty of having largely caused it. That was unprecedented. He was charged with 11 offenses, amounting to war crimes, including murder, rape and other violent acts, enslavement and the use of child soldiers, pillaging, and even terrorism.
Of course, Charles Taylor, like Nazis and many others accused before him, claimed that he himself was just a victim. He compared his actions with those of George W. Bush, during the War on Terror (another reason that perhaps future Presidents should be a little more careful, intelligent, and thoughtful before taking action and invading a country – because the whole world is indeed watching, and will hold the President, and the American people in general, accountable).
Whenever we try and allow some people to be above the law (and they almost always use the excuse that they are protecting the freedoms of the people in who’s name they are taking such actions), we giving them carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want. This often works out disastrously, as it did in Nazi Germany. As it did in turkey, in the declining years of the Ottoman Empire, when up to a million Armenians were murdered. As it did in the former Soviet Union, particularly under the reign of terror of Stalin. As it did in Nigeria, during the Biafran Civil War. As it did in Mao’s China. As it did under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. As it did in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990’s, and again in the late 1990’s, during the rule of Slobodan Milosevic. As it did in Rwanda in 1994. As it did under the reign of President Charles Taylor in Liberia. As it did in Darfur most recently.
These crimes are too numerous to list, and they almost literally span the globe. And that, only since around the midway point of the twentieth century.
After the end of World War II and the Holocaust, a familiar refrain that was often repeated was “Never Again”. But that has proven not to be true, actually. If anything, these crimes seem to be gaining in momentum and frequency.
So, it seems logical to me that such criminals should be hunted, much like they themselves did the hunting, when they had the power to do so. Yes, Csatary is nearly 100 years old, and these crimes that he is accused of took place around 70 years ago. Does that mean he should no be held accountable? If so, what kind of message is that? Perhaps there is a statute of limitations in place within the legal framework of the still yet developing world court. But are there not exceptions to those who escape justice by going overseas under a false identity, such as Csatary did (as well as many, many others). Is it not right to go after them?
Again, a lot of time has passed since the Holocaust, and many of those who were around to play an active part in this terrible chapter of history have since died. A lot of them, but not all of them.
Yet, when one is still found, as Csatary has now been found, is it not right to persecute them for war crimes, even those that took place a long time ago?
How else are we going to try to prevent these things from happening in the future, without letting the perpetrators know that, yes, they will be hunted, literally, for the rest of their lives?
It might not be the ideal solution, but it is better than doing nothing, isn’t it?
Also, I would add that it seems ridiculous to me that anybody would want to make an exception and exempt people, simply because they belong to a certain nationality. I mentioned Charles Taylor, and how he compared himself with George W. Bush. There are countries that either Bush nor former Vice-President Cheney or former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld can go to, because they would indeed technically be guilty of war crimes there.
Many Americans feel that their fellow countrymen should be exempt from these charges, but I feel this is an absurd and contradictory stance for anyone to be taking. When Americans supported the crusades of Bush and his team, largely on the grounds that international terrorists were conducting all sorts of horrors around the world and needed to pay for their crimes, they are hardly being fair or logical when they themselves want a status that exempts them from the same such crimes, if indeed they are guilty of them. The war in Iraq was waged largely on the premise of Weapons of Mass Destruction, but those were never found. Bush and his team claimed to be shocked, and suggested faulty information. They were misled, in other words. But the only misleading that they were involved with was the propaganda that helped tog et the ball rolling with the war. They wanted it, and got it. I am not going to get into the whole Haliburton thing here, but what they did was nothing short of a crime, and they should be held accountable. Yes, even if they are Americans. I am not a believer in this notion of systematic American exceptionalism.
Some Americans have suggested that Americans are incapable of crimes against humanity like that. Tell that to the families of innocent victims during the Iraq War. Tell that to the families of those killed by the American soldier earlier this year, who was described by neighbors as completely normal in every sense.
So, yes. Let war criminals around the world be brought to justice. If they run and hide, as Csatary did, and as well as many other Nazis, let them know that they are being hunted. Let them know that they will never be left in peace, because these rimes are unique, being on such a scale. Let them not be allowed to live the rest of their lives in peace, since they did not allow their victims to live in peace when they had the chance to, however long ago it may have been.
Also, let us recognize the dangers of the jingoistic propaganda campaigns that have been evident in all of these cases that I mentioned, and let us understand better the fine line between actual defense, and inexcusable aggression.
“Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. ”
- Hermann Goring
Below is the link to the Yahoo! article "Top Nazi "war criminal" Csatary arrested in Hungary", by Florence La Bruyere, which provided much of the information in this blog entry, as well as all of the quotes used here:
http://news.yahoo.com/hungarian-nazi-war-crimes-suspect-csatary-custody-092553444.html
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Movie Review: The Dictator
I remember that while watching Borat, there were literally tears in my eyes from laughing so hard, and it rather made me self-conscious. Almost everyone I know that saw that movie says the same thing: that they enjoyed it, and it was really funny. Perhaps, the lofty expectations that this produced made it more difficult to follow this up – especially when Sacha Baron Cohen returned the Borat character following the movie!
It was the funniest movie I had seen in years, personally, and was it not natural to hope that there might be a follow up movie?
The commercials for The Dictator seemed enticing enough, although not quite on the level of Borat. Still, it looked like it had potential.
Unfortunately, much of the funniest material was in the commercials. It was not a bad movie by any stretch, and was in fact enjoyable. It had it's funny moments, for sure. That said, it certainly is not funny enough to bring tears to your eyes, like Borat did.
The premise of the movie, you could more or less guess at just by having seen the commercials. Cohen plays Aberdeen , a dictator of the fictional, oil rich, North African Republic of Wadiya. Aberdeen rules his country with an iron fist, and is trying to amass a weapons arsenal that sends chills to the world community outside of it's borders. Tensions are mounting, and Aberdeen is pressures into paying a visit to New York City in order to give an address before the United Nations, to allay the concerns of the global community.
Of course, it does not go as planned.
Aberdeen finds himself the target of a plot to assassinate him during his stay in New York . Moreover, the double cross goes two ways, as those that he hired to protect him actually wind up capturing him and attempt to torture him. Ultimately, the best torture they can think of is to shave his beard, making him instantly unrecognizable.
So, Aberdeen makes his escape, but soon finds that he has already been replaced by a lookalike. He finds himself largely nameless and faceless in the Big Apple, and he has to try and navigate some way to get by, while he still hopes, ultimately, to regain the political power he once held with an iron fist.
While he is among the nameless and faceless, he goes to where the Wadiyan contingency is, and finds protestors there who hate his dictatorship, and all that he stands for. Luckily, he is unrecognizable, and blends in. He eventually meets a girl doing this, and while she holds some strange ideas initially, challenging everything that he has long believed, and he represents everything that she takes a strong, anti-dictatorship stance, they nonetheless eventually find themselves irresistibly attracted to each other. Of course, he has to hide who he really is, or she will be repulsed by him.
In the meantime, he watches, horrified, as his fill in look alike is being led to make sweeping changes in Wadiya, bringing a new, democratic constitution to liberalize and modernize his nation. There are already under the table deals with corporate interests to take over as soon as the nation opens it's doors to democracy and capitalism. On some, strange level, Aberdeen stands between this excess greed and the preservation of an older way for his nation, although all he wants is the privileged lifestyle that his unchallenged power provides for him, in the comfort of his home palace, instead of eking out a modest living in a foreign city, in a foreign country.
This movie was fairly funny, overall, but again, not on the level of Borat. Still, it does poke fun at a lot of things that have been in the news lately, including the tension of Middle Eastern dictatorships in the process of change, as well as the numerous plots and attempted coup d'etats, excessive self-indulgence of the very rich, the anti-establishment protests here in the West, and the moneyed interests that seem always at the heart of these power struggles and political changes. All in all, it's an entertaining movie, and at about an hour and change, not exactly a long movie. Go ahead and watch it just for kicks, but don't expect this to be a follow up to Borat.
It was the funniest movie I had seen in years, personally, and was it not natural to hope that there might be a follow up movie?
The commercials for The Dictator seemed enticing enough, although not quite on the level of Borat. Still, it looked like it had potential.
Unfortunately, much of the funniest material was in the commercials. It was not a bad movie by any stretch, and was in fact enjoyable. It had it's funny moments, for sure. That said, it certainly is not funny enough to bring tears to your eyes, like Borat did.
The premise of the movie, you could more or less guess at just by having seen the commercials. Cohen plays Aberdeen , a dictator of the fictional, oil rich, North African Republic of Wadiya. Aberdeen rules his country with an iron fist, and is trying to amass a weapons arsenal that sends chills to the world community outside of it's borders. Tensions are mounting, and Aberdeen is pressures into paying a visit to New York City in order to give an address before the United Nations, to allay the concerns of the global community.
Of course, it does not go as planned.
Aberdeen finds himself the target of a plot to assassinate him during his stay in New York . Moreover, the double cross goes two ways, as those that he hired to protect him actually wind up capturing him and attempt to torture him. Ultimately, the best torture they can think of is to shave his beard, making him instantly unrecognizable.
So, Aberdeen makes his escape, but soon finds that he has already been replaced by a lookalike. He finds himself largely nameless and faceless in the Big Apple, and he has to try and navigate some way to get by, while he still hopes, ultimately, to regain the political power he once held with an iron fist.
While he is among the nameless and faceless, he goes to where the Wadiyan contingency is, and finds protestors there who hate his dictatorship, and all that he stands for. Luckily, he is unrecognizable, and blends in. He eventually meets a girl doing this, and while she holds some strange ideas initially, challenging everything that he has long believed, and he represents everything that she takes a strong, anti-dictatorship stance, they nonetheless eventually find themselves irresistibly attracted to each other. Of course, he has to hide who he really is, or she will be repulsed by him.
In the meantime, he watches, horrified, as his fill in look alike is being led to make sweeping changes in Wadiya, bringing a new, democratic constitution to liberalize and modernize his nation. There are already under the table deals with corporate interests to take over as soon as the nation opens it's doors to democracy and capitalism. On some, strange level, Aberdeen stands between this excess greed and the preservation of an older way for his nation, although all he wants is the privileged lifestyle that his unchallenged power provides for him, in the comfort of his home palace, instead of eking out a modest living in a foreign city, in a foreign country.
This movie was fairly funny, overall, but again, not on the level of Borat. Still, it does poke fun at a lot of things that have been in the news lately, including the tension of Middle Eastern dictatorships in the process of change, as well as the numerous plots and attempted coup d'etats, excessive self-indulgence of the very rich, the anti-establishment protests here in the West, and the moneyed interests that seem always at the heart of these power struggles and political changes. All in all, it's an entertaining movie, and at about an hour and change, not exactly a long movie. Go ahead and watch it just for kicks, but don't expect this to be a follow up to Borat.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Movie Preview: Ted
Now, I can admit when I am wrong.
After seeing the commercials for this one, I will admit to dismissing it, assuming that it was cliché and corny. A teddy bear that somehow comes to life, and becomes a sarcastic bad ass type.
On some level, this is true. Yet, the movie offers much more than that.
The story begins in a small suburban town in Massachusetts , outside of Boston . There is a kid named John Bennett, who feels completely alone. None of the other kids like or respect him, and all poor John wants is a single friend, and he swears he would hold onto that friend for life.
One Christmas, he gets a teddy bear as a gift, and he really enjoys it. It is a talking bear, and says "I love you" in a sweet little voice whenever you press on button in his chest. But John wants more and, one night, he makes a wish that the bear would suddenly come to life, and be his best friend.
Of course, the wish is granted, and the bear comes alive. Everyone is startled and even scared at first, but before too long, he catches on. The stuffed animal, named Ted, captures the imagination of the entire nation! He becomes a celebrity, and everyone is fascinated by him. He goes on the Johnny Carson Show, and everyone wants to get to know the living teddy bear. It seems he is on top of the world.
But it is short lived. Before too long, he is forgotten, and it is just him and John, once again. They both grow up, and are still best friends.
The problem is that John has a girlfriend that he is in a serious relationship with of around four years, and she sees John spending so much time with Ted as a hindrance to John's life. She sees herself attached to a 35 year old man who still spends entirely too much time with a teddy bear that does not allow him to grow up and take more responsibility in his life, and she begins to push him to distance himself from Ted.
Ted, in the meantime, has become an overgrown teddy bear, of sorts. He does not own a job or have any responsibilities, but in every other sense, he is a very typical adult male. His New England accent fits well and adds to the feel of the movie. He struggles to create an identity for himself, but even as he manages to move out and find his own place, he and John see each other everyday, and cannot seem to put any distance between one another.
One thing that they have a peculiar interest in is the old Flash Gordon movie. It is even acknowledged that it is a bad movie (but so good!), yet they both seem completely taken by it. So, when Ted is hosting a party at one point, and who should show up but Sam Jones, of course Ted instantly calls John. John has been obsessed with Flash Gordon since childhood, so there is no way he is missing this, but the problem is, he is already at a prior engagement, a party that his girlfriend's boss is hosting, and which John has absolutely agreed to attend. He goes to Ted's place, with the idea of just going in and out, to meet Flash Gordon.
But, of course, it does not go quite that way. He gets carried away, tries cocaine for the first time in his life, and loses pretty much all sense of control, setting up a crisis with the girlfriend, who is not pleased.
In the meantime, Ted feels bad and tries to get the couple back together, but finds himself in trouble personally, when he is captured by an obsessed fan and his son.
Of course, the story line is there mostly to allow this comedy to flourish, and for the most part, it does. It was much funnier than I thought (I'll admit to assuming this was going to be very cliché and corny, with the image of a teddy bear beating up Mark Wahlberg as the major selling point on the commercials really not seeming all that enticing).
Wahlberg and Mila Kundis worked well together in this movie, and made the romance believable. Of course, Seth MacFarlane as the voice of Ted worked trmendously, as well, and probably helped to really make this movie.
When I heard from some people that it was a very funny movie, and even heard a couple of people claim it was the funniest movie that they had ever seen, I was a bit skeptical, but it was enough to pique my curiosity. Still, I did not expect to be pleasantly surprised.
However, it really is a pretty funny movie. There is, predictably, a lot of sexual references, and some of them are pretty damn funny!
After seeing the commercials for this one, I will admit to dismissing it, assuming that it was cliché and corny. A teddy bear that somehow comes to life, and becomes a sarcastic bad ass type.
On some level, this is true. Yet, the movie offers much more than that.
The story begins in a small suburban town in Massachusetts , outside of Boston . There is a kid named John Bennett, who feels completely alone. None of the other kids like or respect him, and all poor John wants is a single friend, and he swears he would hold onto that friend for life.
One Christmas, he gets a teddy bear as a gift, and he really enjoys it. It is a talking bear, and says "I love you" in a sweet little voice whenever you press on button in his chest. But John wants more and, one night, he makes a wish that the bear would suddenly come to life, and be his best friend.
Of course, the wish is granted, and the bear comes alive. Everyone is startled and even scared at first, but before too long, he catches on. The stuffed animal, named Ted, captures the imagination of the entire nation! He becomes a celebrity, and everyone is fascinated by him. He goes on the Johnny Carson Show, and everyone wants to get to know the living teddy bear. It seems he is on top of the world.
But it is short lived. Before too long, he is forgotten, and it is just him and John, once again. They both grow up, and are still best friends.
The problem is that John has a girlfriend that he is in a serious relationship with of around four years, and she sees John spending so much time with Ted as a hindrance to John's life. She sees herself attached to a 35 year old man who still spends entirely too much time with a teddy bear that does not allow him to grow up and take more responsibility in his life, and she begins to push him to distance himself from Ted.
Ted, in the meantime, has become an overgrown teddy bear, of sorts. He does not own a job or have any responsibilities, but in every other sense, he is a very typical adult male. His New England accent fits well and adds to the feel of the movie. He struggles to create an identity for himself, but even as he manages to move out and find his own place, he and John see each other everyday, and cannot seem to put any distance between one another.
One thing that they have a peculiar interest in is the old Flash Gordon movie. It is even acknowledged that it is a bad movie (but so good!), yet they both seem completely taken by it. So, when Ted is hosting a party at one point, and who should show up but Sam Jones, of course Ted instantly calls John. John has been obsessed with Flash Gordon since childhood, so there is no way he is missing this, but the problem is, he is already at a prior engagement, a party that his girlfriend's boss is hosting, and which John has absolutely agreed to attend. He goes to Ted's place, with the idea of just going in and out, to meet Flash Gordon.
But, of course, it does not go quite that way. He gets carried away, tries cocaine for the first time in his life, and loses pretty much all sense of control, setting up a crisis with the girlfriend, who is not pleased.
In the meantime, Ted feels bad and tries to get the couple back together, but finds himself in trouble personally, when he is captured by an obsessed fan and his son.
Of course, the story line is there mostly to allow this comedy to flourish, and for the most part, it does. It was much funnier than I thought (I'll admit to assuming this was going to be very cliché and corny, with the image of a teddy bear beating up Mark Wahlberg as the major selling point on the commercials really not seeming all that enticing).
Wahlberg and Mila Kundis worked well together in this movie, and made the romance believable. Of course, Seth MacFarlane as the voice of Ted worked trmendously, as well, and probably helped to really make this movie.
When I heard from some people that it was a very funny movie, and even heard a couple of people claim it was the funniest movie that they had ever seen, I was a bit skeptical, but it was enough to pique my curiosity. Still, I did not expect to be pleasantly surprised.
However, it really is a pretty funny movie. There is, predictably, a lot of sexual references, and some of them are pretty damn funny!
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Movie Rental Review: The Pink Panther (2006)
I had been curious to see the new Pink Panther movies, with Steve Martin as Inspector Jacques Clouseau. I had kind of subconsciously chosen not to see them out of a sense of loyalty to Pete Sellers, who had played the Chief Inspector brilliantly in the movies that I grew up on (well, at least the reruns of those movies, in any case). So, this was the first time that I saw anyone else play him, to my knowledge (I don't believe I saw Roger Moore portraying him).
But I got the opportunity to see it recently, and was not sorry that I did. The face playing the famous character was different, but the humor was recognizable. Steve Martin added a new feel to the character, and it was not necessarily for the worse, either. He really played the character quite well, although it is still a bit difficult to picture anybody but Pete Sellers in the role. What I mean is that, although I enjoy martin as a comedian, and think he did the job fairly capably in this movie, I nonetheless saw Steve Martin, not Inspector Clouseau. With the older movies with Pete Sellers, I see Inspector Clouseau. Does that make sense? That''s not even Martin's fault. He is just quite famous, and has a very distinct look from most Hollywood stars.
This movie has many funny parts to it, much of it slapstick style comedy. This movie was a bit more daring sexually than the predecessor movies were, although that also is more a sign of the times, simply put.
Another difference was that Cato, Clouseau's constant fighting companion to help keep him on his toes, is not actually in this movie. In his place is Gilbert Ponton, played very capably by noted actor (and actually French!) Jean Reno. He seems Clouseau's superior in every way, and is essentially appointed to be Clouseau's constant companion by Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus, played by Kevin Kline.
Dreyfus's character had some funny moments in the movie, but there is not the same sense of intense loathing and scorn for Clouseau, like there clearly was in the original movies. Not sure if it was the acting (Kline is usually a pretty good actor, particularly in comedic roles), or the scrip, or what. But the borderline mental breakdown of the original Dreyfus was not present here.
The movie essentially begins with a highly publicized murder mystery, where a famous coach who owns an even more famous diamond is killed in a very public setting under a cloud of mystery. Dreyfus picks some obscure, incompetent police officer who is unqualified and in over his head, more or less as a screen, before he himself will take over the investigation. For a while, that seems to be exactly how it happens, too, as everything goes according to plan.
Of course, not everything goes according to plan, especially with the infamous Inspector Clouseau. Much like in the original movies, Clouseau often gets lucky, credited with things that we, the viewer, know very well he should not receive credit over, thus fueling Dreyfus's madness.
Eventually, while trying to solve the case, Clouseau and his new counterpart, Ponton, go to New York City. Some of the funniest parts of the movie revolve around this, including the accent coaching of the hopeless Clouseau, who's accent is just too strong, and who himself is simply too clueless, to sound even remotely American. He also has some very funny scenes once in New York, as he marches a certain way that he assumes Americans must march like when crossing a public street.
Nicole Durant, played by Emily Mortimer, is Clouseau's love interest in this film, and she provides ample opportunities to enhance his idiocy throughout. She was a pleasant addition.
Overall, this is a good comedic movie. I have yet to have seen a bad or unfunny Pink Panther movie, and although I still probably prefer Sellers over Martin as Clouseau (and this is not even Martin's fault), this movie still delivers on the laughs. It was a fun couple of hours or so (I think it was probably a little shorter, actually), and if you enjoyed the other Pink Panther movies, like I did, you likely will not be disappointed. Go ahead and rent it or download it or borrow it, or however else you might wind up viewing it. It is not Peter Sellers, and that does indeed bother some people. But that said, it is a funny movie, and you will likely get a kick out of it.
I watched it, and not only did I not feel like it was a waste of time or money, but it was enticing enough to allow me to explore more on the Pink Panther 2 movie that followed this up, or perhaps to watch this one again, for that matter. Go out and watch this one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)