The Meaning of Mulholland Dr. ...Sort Of

David Lynch's films have a reputation for their subjective nature and their puzzling narratives. One of Lynch's most famous movies, Mulholland Dr., is a great example. This was the first film of his I ever saw, and I went in expecting a straight forward film noir. Boy, was I mistaken, yet within a week or so I felt hungry for more, and picked up a copy of Blue Velvet, and from there every other Lynch movie I could obtain (I now own DVD copies of all of his feature films outside of Eraserhead).

Mulholland Dr. can be described as a surreal deconstruction of Hollywood. It does have a bit of a weird history, supposedly originating as a concept for a spin-off to Twin Peaks, a vision which was never realized due to the show's abrupt cancellation. Later on, Lynch tried to rework it into an independent series, and when he couldn't get the pilot picked up Lynch reworked it further into a standalone movie. The story plays out in a manner vaguely reminiscent of a classical film noir, but opts for a much more ambiguous and subjective tone, with a very enigmatic resolution.

Many have tried to explain the mystery behind this strange film's events. The most common explanation I have heard is that most of the story is a dream experienced by one of the main characters and the final act is her waking up to the reality they have tried to escape (similar to how I explained Lost Highway). I have a slightly different theory of my own. It's far from perfect, and may even be a bit radical, but I think it is an interesting idea to explore.

So my theory would suggest the main narrative starts with the events we see in the resolution. Diane Selwyn is in a relationship with fellow actress Camilla Rhodes, but there are implications that the latter may be in a relationship with the director. Later on, Diane has a "surprise" meeting with Camilla in the middle of the woods and they go to a party through an isolated path. The two of them are alone, and Camilla acts very affectionately toward Diane, the two of them holding hands as they walk. Diane is extremely happy, if a little nervous.

However, when they arrive, things don't turn out so great. Diane tries to be polite, but from the moment they confront Adam she seems left out. As they go inside, Diane is quickly separated from Camilla, who seems more interested in spending time around Adam. Diane tries to be polite about it but then she sees Camilla kissing another woman, and as if this wasn't painful enough for her she then hears Adam announce his engagement to Camilla.

As a result, Diane is understandably hurt. The betrayal of her lover has left her upset and not thinking straight, and in a fit of anger she decides to hire a hitman named Joe to kill her. Joe himself even warns Diane of what she is about to do, pointing out that as soon as she hands over the money "it's a done deal". Diane is certain this is what she wants, but it is clear she is not in her right mind. Shortly after, she starts to have second thoughts and is haunted by the inescapable guilt of her actions. The only thing she can do is reinvent herself, effectively killing herself and becoming an entirely new person. Whether she simply creates a new identity or escapes into delusion as I have speculated happens to Fred Madison in Lost Highway,  I can't say for sure, but the person that was once Diane is gone.

This brings us to the opening scene of the film, wherein the attempted hit is carried out. By chance, a group of drunk drivers crash into Camilla's car, killing her would-be assassins. Camilla herself survives, but at the cost of her memory. Outside of an understanding of English and vague recollections of something happening on Mulholland Dr., she has no memory of her past self. Meanwhile Diane, now under the name of Betty, had fled from Los Angeles but has since decided to return, acting under the guise of an upcoming actress.

Camilla, in her disoriented and confused state, finds herself wandering into an apartment complex where Betty just happens to be staying. She sneaks into Betty's apartment and adopts the name of Rita. When the two women meet again, Betty recognizes Camilla, or at the very least, sees something familiar about her. In essence, Betty, perhaps still haunted by her guilt (despite suppressing it under a cheerful attitude), sees an opportunity to make amends. 

The two women become exceptionally close, just as they were before everything went wrong, and they even begin to rekindle their old romance. However, Rita still has the problem of not knowing who she is. Diane, wanting to redeem herself, tries to slowly ease Rita into understanding the truth of Camilla piece by piece (if only on a subconscious level). Finally, after confessing their love, the two women decide to go somewhere, and end up at the mysterious Club Silencio, where a strange man demonstrates how recorded audio can be used to create illusions of things happening.

This finally inspires Rita to confront the truth, having been prepared for it by Betty. Rita opens the mysterious blue box, and finally learns who she really was. She learns about how much she hurt Betty and what the latter had done to her.

In the final moments of the movie, we see footage of both women together against the backdrop of Los Angeles, reunited at last. With both having confronted the past and realizing what they had done to each other, Betty and Rita--or if you rather Diane and Camilla, have forgiven each other and subsequently have another chance at their relationship.

This is far from a perfect interpretation of the movie. In fact it may well be full of problems I haven't considered. For the purposes of this theory I have focused exclusively on Betty and Rita, and it may be harder to tie in other parts of the movie. Still, I think it is an interesting out-of-the-box approach to look at Mulholland Dr. at least on some level as a story of redemption.

The Issue of Jar Jar Binks

Of course, it's become popular since it's release to hate on The Phantom Menace (and to a lesser extent the following to films of the Star Wars prequel trilogy). The precise reasons vary. Some have criticized Jake Lloyd's performance as Anakin, others cite George Lucas's very strange decision to suddenly try to have the force explained scientifically despite not exactly giving much regard to science anywhere else in the franchise, and plenty of others have mocked Qui-Gon for not exactly making the smartest choices. The one area that seems to be universally hated about The Phantom Menace was the character of Jar Jar Binks.

If Jar Jar has any fans at all, they are greatly outnumbered by those who hate him. I can't deny this guy was rather annoying. Even back in my days as a Star Wars nerd I was never particularly fond of him (though granted it may also have to do with me being the kind of person who preferred to follow human characters, since I was never a big fan of Wookies either). Even George Lucas himself toned down the character in the later films, reducing Jar Jar to a small supporting role in Attack of the Clones and having a brief cameo in Revenge of the Sith where he doesn't even have any lines.

Heck, I don't know if there is any way you could defend his character. He's loud, he's got a really annoying way of talking (which I have also heard described as being potentially racist, as it vaguely resembles "jive talk" stereotypically associated with African American culture), and most of his scenes consist of him just being stupid or overly goofy without really contributing anything to the plot. In fact, there's even a fairly well-received fan edit simply called The Phantom Edit that, among other things, removes most if not all of Jar Jar's scenes.

Now, to be fair Jar Jar does have one contribution to the narrative, though given the movie's poor contribution it's one that probably could have been done without him. When Jar-Jar is first introduced, he talks to Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan about the Gungan City which is safe from battle droids for the moment (apparently having forgotten that the reason he was living in the swamp was because he was banished from said city). This allows the Gungan civillization to be introduced to the audience, setting up part of the climax. If there was no scene introducing the Gungans early on, than they would seem to come out of nowhere and confuse viewers when they started playing a role in the final battle.

That said, it is a fairly small contribution and there probably are several better ways that same exposition could have been handled. We had Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon on the run from these massive armies through a swamp, and they have breathing equipment for swimming underwater (a bit odd, given they expected to simply be negotiating aboard a spaceship). They could have cut out Jar Jar entirely and just had Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon get cornered at a large body of water, dive in, and find the city by accident. That would have allowed a brief confrontation with the Gungans just long enough to ensure we know who they are when they show up later. Alternatively, Jar Jar could have had his role toned down, perhaps if he provided the necessary exposition but after that point took more of a background role, or at the very least staying on Naboo during the scenes set on Tattooine or Coruscant.

In fact, you could make a case that Jar Jar actually contributed more to the plot of Attack of the Clones despite his reduced role. In The Phantom Menace, Jar Jar provides some important exposition at first and then spends the rest of the movie getting into unfunny slapstick shenanigans that don't really contribute anything to the overall movie. In Attack of the Clones, Jar Jar only has a few scenes in which he has somehow gained a position of government,

However, he actually is responsible for a crucial plot point in that he is the one to give Palpatine complete control over the senate. That of course pretty much sets in motion the entire downfall of the republic and of course everything that happened in the classic trilogy. To paraphrase the Nostalgia Critic: everything that happens between A New Hope and Return of the Jedi you can blame entirely on Jar Jar.

Among other things, Jar Jar Binks was single-handedly responsible for all the people who died when Alderaan was obliterated by the Empire.

Jar Jar was never really even a necessary addition to begin with. George Lucas loves to have a bit of comic relief, but he already had that under control. After all, what fan of the Star Wars saga doesn't remember C-3PO and R2-D2? These two characters provided plenty of moments of humor while also actually being complex and interesting in the way they play off of each other. Even when they do get separated, they usually have something to contribute to the story. R2 definitely has his share of heroic moments, and while C-3PO's contributions may not always be obvious, his interactions with the other characters usually makes up for it. Jar Jar just kind of bumbles around and doesn't really have anyone to play off of. 

In fact, it's especially ironic that George Lucas decided to make a new comic relief when you consider that both C-3PO and R2-D2 actually appear in The Phantom Menace, the latter even getting to save everybody at least once. Now granted, C-3PO's role is more of a cameo in that film, but these two droids are probably the second or third most popular characters across the entire franchise (after Darth Vader and maybe Han or Leia). Perhaps The Phantom Menace might have worked better if George Lucas stuck to his successful efforts at comic relief rather than trying to force in an unnecessary new character.

50th Article

Alright, so I've hyped this up a lot. Hopefully, you've all got your bets in on the subject matter of my fiftieth article. I promised you a movie that meant a lot to me and I'm going to deliver. You're probably excited to hear what movie I've decided to talk about. It is a story of courage, determination, and survival in the face of impossible odds. This is Cy Endfield's 1964 movie war film Zulu.

I was first introduced to this film near the end of middle school. I never was quite like the other kids in my class. They lived in the present, keeping up with the latest sporting events and quoting lines from Family Guy, Robot Chicken, and South Park. Meanwhile here I was living in the past, studying military history in my spare time and even reading my textbook for fun, watching old movies, and getting huge laughs out of the Marx Brothers and Monty Python, who I was excited to find out touched on the same time period as Zulu in one of their sketches featured in The Meaning of Life.

It was more specifically near the end of Grade 8, shortly before I was to make the transition into high school that my parents acquired a copy of this film. Having an interest in military history as I did it quickly caught my imagination, and I must have watched it a thousand times throughout the following summer. It sparked an interest in a period of history I never even knew existed beforehand (even if it's depiction of that time isn't perfectly accurate). It also got me exposed to a few older actors, particularly Jack Hawkins, who I would later see a lot more of in movies like The Bridge On the River Kwai, Ben-Hur, and Lawrence of Arabia.

The film's story is inspired by the real-life battle of Rorke's Drift during the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879, in which a handful of British soldiers managed to successfully defend a small mission station from an army of Zulu warriors despite being hopelessly outnumbered... after a much larger and seemingly more formidable group of soldiers was massacred by the Zulus earlier that same day.

Michael Caine (who you may know better now as that guy who keeps popping up in Christopher Nolan movies) appears in his first starring role as Lt. Bromhead, the professional veteran from a long line of soldiers, who is initially in charge but finds himself subordinated to the inexperienced engineer Lt. Chard. Together these two men must put aside their differences to figure out the tactics necessary to succeed against all odds. 

There's a number of other characters, and that is one area where this film works surprisingly well. There are a lot of characters, but none ever takes too much focus and they're even fairly easy to tell apart despite most wearing similar uniforms. In fact, there's so many characters it takes about 45 minutes to introduce all of them, but even with the later introductions, when we suddenly meet another soldier they don't seem to come out of nowhere and their presence never appears forced.

Nigel Green co-stars as Color Sergeant Bourne, the stern officer who likes to remind his soldiers that nobody told them to stop working. Gert Van Den Bergh plays the Boer Adendorff, an expert in Zulu tactics who serves as a consultant for the officers and may have a strange admiration for the Zulus' skills in combat. Jack Hawkins plays the role of Otto Witt, a Swedish missionary who wants to help the sick and wounded, convinced that the soldiers have no chance if they stay and fight. Ulla Jacobson plays Otto's daughter Margareta, who is every bit as determined to help the sick as her father.

Meanwhile, in the hospital we have a whole other group of characters. James Booth plays the role of Private Hook, a scoundrel "malingering under arrest" who tries to get out of work and wants some brandy, but ultimately manages to prove a capable soldier and a hero. Peter Gill appears as his partner Private 612 John Williams (it's explained that numbers are used as a way of distinguishing soldiers who share a name), a Welsh soldier who also plays a major role in the climax. There are plenty of other soldiers with names and personalities, perhaps too many for me to go any further in detailing all of them.

The story itself is presented in a fairly straight forward manner. Essentially, the first half of the film is the preparation for the battle, and the second half is the battle itself. The first half takes its time but it never really seems to drag on the same way I felt a movie like Solaris did. In fact it is very compelling on some level because it sets up everything for the second half, giving us time to get to know as many characters as possible (even if it takes a full 45 minutes to introduce all of them) as well as to learn about the tactics of the Zulus and how the soldiers plan to counter those methods. As I mentioned before, I also like how you can actually tell the soldiers apart, averting a common problem with even some of the best war movies.

Once we do get to the battle scenes, they get appropriately tense and chaotic. The violence is a bit tame by modern standards, as there isn't a lot of gore (barring one medium close-up of a soldier taking a spear to the chest), probably because this was being made when the film industry was just coming out of the strict regulations enforced during the "Golden Age" between the 1930's and 1950's (though movies like this may have helped pave the way for more daring films like Bonnie and Clyde and A Clockwork Orange a few years later). Still, the action is solid and does keep the viewer going.

This is also an interesting film to examine from a sociological perspective. It was shot on location in South Africa (we do get several impressive landscape shots) with actual Zulus being cast. In fact, the historical figure of King Cetawayo was portrayed by his own descendant. There are stories of the relationships between the filmmakers and the Zulus they worked with that are quite inspiring. One account is that the filmmakers weren't able to pay the Zulu extras equally to the actors due to the apartheid laws prevalent in South Africa at the time, so the former party got around the law by letting the Zulus keep the cattle used for filming in order to ensure they got some sort of reward for their work.

This is reflected a bit in the movie itself. As the film is told from the perspective of the British, the Zulus are naturally cast as the antagonists. Some of the characters utter some... period appropriate remarks, but in the end, there seems to be a mutual admiration between both sides. Chard and Bromhead manage to emerge victorious, but aren't necessarily proud of their victory. and the Zulus are seen to salute them as "fellow braves".

Compare the way they are treated here to say... the depictions of Native Americans in westerns of the 1930's. While Zulus are antagonists, it is made clear that they are human beings. Whereas the Native Americans were often seen as bloodthirsty savages who needed to be eradicated, the Zulus here are treated more as a worthy opponent to the protagonists. They are a complicated and intelligent people capable of posing a great challenge even for the might of the British army. Not bad for a film shot in a country with a racist government at a time when civil rights were just starting to be recognized.

Overall, Zulu is a great addition to the war genre and an example of British cinema at its finest. It might not be the most accurate rendition of the Battle of Rorke's Drift (though as I have argued previously, to depict any historical event precisely as it happened is impossible), but it is still a compelling story of bravery, ingenuity, and determination in the face of impossible odds, with solid acting and great action.

The Fascinating and Baffling World of Tommy Wiseau

I'm not normally a huge fan of "so-bad-it's-good" movies, but when I saw the Nostalgia Critic's review of The Room and heard him recommend checking it out, I was inspired, and learning more about the strange cult following it had made me determined to see it. I have only had the honor of seeing the film in its entirety once, although I have frequently watched specific moments on their own. It is definitely something peculiar that has to be seen to be believed.

The basic plot (if you can call it that) of The Room is fairly straight forward. The intention appears to be that it is a story about a well-meaning fellow named Johnny (played by producer, executive producer, screenwriter, and director Tommy Wiseau) who has a good life and plans to marry his "future wife" Lisa. Unfortunately, Lisa has second thoughts about the wedding, and ends up having an affair with Johnny's best friend Mark, ultimately turning everyone against Johnny.

Of course, the reason this movie is so fascinating likely has to do with the ever-mysterious star: Tommy Wiseau. Many people have suggested crazy explanations for where he came from, but nobody can seem to agree on the precise origins of his accent. Co-star Greg Sestero recently published a book called The Disaster Artist (which may even get made into a movie in the near future) in which he provides plenty of bizarre anecdotes about the making of The Room. I personally have only read a small excerpt, though admittedly a bizarre anecdote nonetheless (the short version is Tommy showed up ridiculously late on the first day of shooting), which is hardly surprising given how he sees the world in his film.

It'd be an understatement to say the acting is really bad, especially on the part of Wiseau. The dialogue is also very bizarre and has plenty of often-quoted lines ("I feel like I'm sitting on an atomic bomb waiting for it to go off!"), and many a fan has imitated Tommy's bizarre tendency to greet everyone with "Oh hi". He also certainly doesn't seem to understand how the world works, with strange moments like throwing a water bottle on the ground in a fit of anger (while sounding more or less like he usually does and ending a rant with "Oh hi Mark"). Oh, and you are chicken reader, chicken: CHEEP, CHEEP, CHEEP, CHEEP CHEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPP!

That's not even getting into the bizarre behaviour of his characters. We get some really odd moments, like Denny's weird obsession with Lisa. There are heavy implications he has a crush on her and he casually enjoys watching her and Johnny have sex. That said, Johnny's treatment of Denny can be a bit weird at times, like going upstairs to have sex within minutes of him showing up at his house. There's also the supporting characters of Johnny's friends Mike and Michelle, whose first scene involves breaking into Johnny's house to have sex on his couch. Later on, Mike spends a few minutes recounting a "tragedy" that happened in this scene lasting a few seconds. Mark has a tendency to fall for Lisa's not-so-subtle advances, and I could probably go on listing weird things the characters do.

Most of the guys in the film have a favorite hobby of standing a few feet away from each other and tossing a football back and forth. It's insane how many scenes there are where Johnny tosses the football around with at least one other guy, and let's not forget the infamous scene where they spontaneously decide to play football while trying on tuxedos. I swear, this is real. One moment, they're trying on tuxedos then suddenly Denny suggests they go play football, and everyone (except Peter) just goes along with it.

Of course, from a narrative standpoint, The Room is also interesting just in how it does pretty much everything you could possibly do wrong when making a movie. The pacing goes all over the place, with quite a few scenes that don't seem to go anywhere (the "tuxedo football" scene for instance"). Scenes can range from being overly melodramatic to extremely rushed (as in the infamous flower shop sequence).

Also infamous are the numerous sub-plots that have a tendency to be introduced straight out of nowhere, last a single scene, and then never come up again afterwards. One of the best examples would be the scene where Lisa's mother delivers the line "I got the results of the test back, I definitely have breast cancer", to which Lisa acts surprisingly casual and continues to complain about her disliking of Johnny. This never comes up again in the movie.

I got the results of the test back, this scene has nothing to do with the rest of the movie.

Also equally infamous would be the scene with Chris R. the drug dealer. It starts with Denny playing basketball on the roof Johnny's apartment for some reason, when Chris R. suddenly walks in. As we see later on, Chris R. broke in while at least four people were inside and made his way to the roof to confront Denny about money he's owed. Chris R. quickly proceeds to pull out a gun and start shouting at Denny (very subtle and definitely a way to avoid drawing unwanted attention) but he is easily overpowered by Johnny and Mark (who then take him to the police and return to the roof in a matter of seconds). Meanwhile Lisa tries to ask Denny what's going on and the most he says is that he bought some drugs off Chris R. so that he could get "some money to pay off some stuff". Once again, this scene has no build-up, comes straight out of nowhere, and the only purpose it might be meant to serve is justifying Johnny's possession of a gun in a later scene (though they don't bother to explain how Johnny came into possession of Chris R.'s the actual gun when it could have been used as evidence for convicting a drug dealer).

Then of course we get into the technical stuff. In particular the editing can be pretty weird, with scenes constantly cutting to extreme long shots of San Francisco, and one instance where a scene is actually interrupted by a random panoramic shot of San Francisco. Another behind the scenes story goes that Tommy actually purchased his cameras, rather than simply renting them, and he always had both running simultaneously so that he could compare the shots.

The Room is a very interesting experience to see. It can be a good lesson in how not to make a movie, but is also fascinating in the mystery of just what went through Tommy Wiseau's head. What led him to make the choices he did? The mystery of Tommy Wiseau deepens as we attempt to penetrate his warped mind and find fewer answers than we can to the origins of his accent.

Women in War Films

The war genre has always been an extraordinarily male-dominated field, perhaps moreso than any other genre. I've previously written on how old science fiction movies used to think female astronauts would never exist, but female characters were still prevalent in that genre even if they weren't usually the central focus. Another great contender would be the western, but even there we usually have at the very least a woman in a supporting role, and once in a while even a female protagonist.

Of course, with the war genre, the reason why we see so few women is a little bit different than for other male-dominated genres. The reason why so many old science fiction stories never considered the possibility of female astronauts probably has to do with the way gender roles were viewed at the time. The genre has changed with society. In fact nowadays, barring exceptions like Moon you'd be hard-pressed to find any space-themed science fiction story that doesn't show female astronauts at some point. The war genre is a bit different, especially when looking specifically at war films focusing on actual combat.

There are a variety of possible settings for war films but based on experience, the two most common backgrounds would be World War II and the Vietnam War. Both these conflicts were happening at a time when the army was very exclusive towards men, so it is understandable that, even with changes to society, films set in these wars don't have more female characters.

Now granted, there are some exceptions. We Were Soldiers provides some focus on the wives of some of the soldiers, even if the emphasis is on the battle itself. Passchendaele had at its core the relationship between a soldier and a nurse. The Redux version of Apocalypse Now did feature a few extended scenes with female characters, even if their role in the plot itself was fairly small. Still, you rarely find women as anything more than extras.

Now let's shift focus a bit more to films set in the present day. Obviously, it would seem a little out of place to start showing female soldiers in the midst of World War II (at least disregarding any film from the point of view of Russia) or the war in Vietnam, but how often do we see female soldiers depicted even at a time when they're more common?

This is kind of a weird case because female soldiers do show up in other genres. Even James Cameron got in on the act back in the 80's when the cast of Aliens included three female marines. In the war genre, however, they don't seem to appear much even when it makes sense. Black Hawk Down, Jarhead, and The Hurt Locker are all films dealing with contemporary wars that never have any indication of female soldiers being present.

I suppose I could bring up In the Line of Duty, which does have a female combat medic as one of its central characters, plus three female soldiers and plenty of other instances where women are shown to be every bit as equal as the men. Unfortunately, In the Line of Duty only exists in the form of a screenplay right now, and it probably will until such a time as I manage to somehow get in touch with someone willing to finance it, unless of course you include the high school version.

Anyway, there does seem to be a strange trend more recently regarding female protagonists. It seems that a lot of the sorts of movies to feature female soldiers are ones that take place off the battlefield. Movies like the British independent film In Our Name along with the upcoming Fort Bliss both feature female protagonists with army experience, but in either case it's about their struggle with the mental effects of war after returning home, rather than their involvement with any actual combat. 

It is curious that we see so few women in war films. Even today, as women are being integrated into the army, we see very few films which actually depict women in combat roles. In most cases, the female characters seem to be either in a non-combat role, they're not stationed in a combat position, or the story focuses on their return home... and that's assuming they're even there at all.

Based on a True Story...

Adaptations are very interesting. It's not hard to find a great deal of intrigue simply comparing two versions of the same material. Adaptations in film come in all kinds, though the most obvious type of source material would be literature. When adapting a book to screen, a lot of changes have to be made. Certain things that might have worked on paper in the book don't translate so well to the screen. Details have to be simplified to work in a two-hour running time.

Naturally it is common for plenty of changes to take place. If there's too many characters for the screenwriter to handle, they may try to make things easier by combining two or more people, so that one character fills multiple roles. They may have to simplify certain details to make the narrative flow better on screen. Sometimes creative liberties have to be taken to make the story seem more interesting or exciting on film. These types of changes are common in adaptations of literature, but also extend to any other type of adaptation: video games, theater, and of course history.

This brings me to an interesting question: is it possible to make a true historical film? The short answer is simply no, it cannot be done. You might be able to capture the spirit of an event, emphasizing an amazing triumph or terrible tragedy, and you may be able to create an approximation of what could have happened. You can do piles and piles of research all you want but most likely you'll still make a mistake somewhere down the line.

Gettysburg, for instance, is a movie that proudly displays its extensive research, to the point where the production crew even went out of their way to ensure the actors all closely resembled the people they played. They seem to have done a pretty good job making it seem authentic, but there probably are mistakes, if very small ones. For instance, while there may be detailed records of the battle's key events, we can't really be sure of the exact words used by the people involved. Maybe during one of the skirmishes the real Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was actually standing a few inches to the left of where he is shown standing in the movie.

In other cases, there is the issue of how reliable the information available is. David Lynch's The Elephant Man is said to be based strictly on the memoirs of the real-life Dr. and Fredrick Treves. By most accounts the movie follows the book quite closely, but when compared to real life has a number of differences. One that I've heard brought up frequently is that the real Joseph Merrick was said to have actually been employed at two different freak shows run by different people, one Belgian and the other English. In the movie, they're both combined into the character of Mr. Bytes. The movie also simplifies the extensive surgery Joseph Merrick went through to be able to speak into a series of therapeutic sessions in which Treves helps John Merrick work up the confidence to talk to people.

They actually do manage to make John Hurt resemble the real Joseph Merrick (using prosthetic designed from a cast of the real person), though in keeping with Treves' writing the name Joseph is replaced with "John". It's likely that the source material in this case was extremely biased, and thus not necessarily accurate.

To bring up another example, A Night To Remember was an attempt to depict the sinking of the Titanic as realistically as possible (yes, there were actually several films about the sinking of the Titanic long before James Cameron came along with his version). The movie was based on various accounts from survivors of the disaster (which were much easier to find in 1958), but when asked about exactly how the ship sank, most of the survivors insisted it remained in one piece rather than breaking in two. Naturally, this is how it is shown in the film, but once we found the actual wreckage of the Titanic it became clear that it broke apart in the process, something that would be depicted clearly in Cameron's version.

Now in this case, while the survivors were giving accounts to the best of their knowledge, they also were probably not thinking straight when it happened. It is one thing to describe the experience of being on a ship and knowing that the majority of the people aboard are going to die, but the actual sinking happened quickly and was probably such a shock that anyone who saw it might not have remembered it clearly. After all, it's not like there was anyone photographing it step by step or some person in the lifeboats who thought "I think I'd better make a bunch of notes just in case someone decides to make a movie about this."

Of course, with any story about the Titanic we do have something to go on. In other instances that's not always the case. To bring up a film based on a more recent nautical tragedy, Wolfgang Petersen's The Perfect Storm had even less information available on the actual events than could be found by anyone trying to film the sinking of the Titanic. The reason for this is that, while it was based on a book, none of the actual crew of the Andrea Gail survived its sinking, which means that the filmmakers had no reliable witnesses, eliminating any way to find out what really happened aboard that ship outside of rough extrapolations from perhaps radio transmissions and accounts of the individual people from anyone who knew them. Though the movie is based on real events and most of the people seen did exist, the drama aboard the Andrea Gail is little more than an educated guess as to what could possibly have happened, since there is no way to be completely sure.

The truth is, it is impossible to make a perfect rendition of history. Adaptations of history are no different from adaptations of any other medium. In fact if you pay attention to the opening credits many historical movies are in fact based on books detailing the event in question. You can do all the research you want, you can capture key moments of the event and present characters who closely resemble the real people, but no matter what you do there are bound to be mistakes or creative liberties taken in some form.

The Film That Ruined My Childhood: Thomas and the Magic Railroad

As a kid, I recall I had a lot of shows I used to enjoy that made an impact on my life. I never really bought into the standard fare like Transformers, Power Rangers or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. One show in particular that had quite the impact was the classic British series Thomas the Tank Engine.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the series, it used to be something really special. Episodes were usually about five minutes long, and they centered on a number of locomotives (the title refers to Thomas, but he wasn't always the central focus) living on the fictional British island of Sodor. The stories usually centered around said locomotives taking jobs for "The Fat Controller" (A.K.A. Sir Topham Hat) and going about their business, possibly running into trouble and/or learning an important lesson along the way.

The original series did have a very strong charm to it, especially the first few seasons in which the crew seemed to really take the time to learn how railways work (not surprising, given it was originally based on a series of children's books by a railway enthusiast). Structurally, the episodes were presented in a storybook-like format with a narrator providing all the voices. Quite a few famous people have narrated the show, including Ringo Starr of the Beatles and comedian George Carlin in the American version (yes, he narrated a kids' show). Visually, it was very simplistic, but in a good way, with everything being represented by well-crafted models.

That is of course, the original series. The show is still running today, but it's lost just about every trace of the dignity it once had. The models are gone and everything is replaced with terrible CGI, the stories are idiotic and full of holes at best, and it just has none of the charm it once did. What could be responsible for this sudden change? Perhaps it has something to do with the one attempt to make this wonderful show into a feature-length movie: Thomas and the Magic Railroad.

Where to begin with this film? It actually has a surprisingly decent cast, all of whom really waste their talent here: Alec Baldwin, Peter Fonda, Mara Wilson, and Didi Conn (Frenchy from Grease). Alec Baldwin plays Mr. Conductor, a magical conductor who can teleport through space and time and between alternate dimensions with the power of a whistle powered by "gold dust" while Mara Wilson plays a young girl going to see her grandfather who is trying to repair a broken engine- WAIT WHAT?!

Okay, I guess that brings us to a major problem with this movie, which is that the movie doesn't really seem to understand the show (though this may have been due to the studio's interference). Mr. Conductor was part of the cast of a spinoff show titled Shining Time Station. 

The short version is that in order to broadcast episodes in America they had to fit them neatly into thirty minute timeslots, so they created a sitcom centered around a bunch of kids who hang out in a train station and their interactions with the people who worked there. Mr. Conductor was a train conductor who for some reason was really tiny and had a tendency to teleport around the station. Usually, about twice an episode, Mr. Conductor would be talking to the kids and find some way to connect with something that happened on Sodor. He'd then blow his whistle and we'd fade into an episode of Thomas the Tank Engine.

Alec Baldwin does seem like a strange choice to play the role, since in the show the character was played first by Ringo Starr and later by George Carlin, and there isn't even an effort to make Baldwin look similar. However, a bigger problem is in how Mr. Conductor treats Sodor. In the series, Sodor was a fictional British island. They talked about it a lot in Shining Time Station, but since that show was set in America, it was usually just treated as a distant land (which make sense, given it would be on the other side of the world). In Thomas and the Magic Railroad, however, Sodor literally becomes a separate dimension that can only be accessed through a magic railroad. I am not making this up.

The star of The Hunt for Red October.

So of course, a large part of the movie is less so about Thomas and his friends, and more about Mr. Conductor wandering around trying to figure out how to get more gold dust for his magic whistle while also doing silly and unnecessary slapstick moments. We also get a few supporting characters in Peter Fonda, who is desperately trying to fix the engine that is meant to travel the "magic railroad" and Mara Wilson as his grandaughter, and of course there's also Michael E. Rogers as Mr. Conductor's cousin Junior.

The world of Sodor itself is also quite a bit different from the show, given its only inhabitants are Thomas, his immediate friends, and the villains, with no sign of any of the other thousand trains from the show or any of the people. Sir Topham Hat is referred to but never seen (though granted this could just because finding an actor to play a role usually played by a wooden figure is a somewhat awkward task). The trains are therefore able to move freely on their own even though the original series made it clear they needed drivers to control their movement (though it was never consistent on exactly what degree). 

That also brings us to the villains of the film. As was common in the series, the conflict comes from a diesel engine wanting to dominate the railroad. The original series could get pretty dark on this front, including at least one instance of two diesels attempting to murder a steam engine (and almost succeeding). Of course, in the movie, the diesel is one of a ridiculously over-the-top design with massive claw (why any sane person would actually put that on I have no idea). He also has two henchmen who more closely resemble the diesels in the show, but they have little characterization and abruptly decide to ditch the villain for some reason towards the end.

This was definitely not a dignified fate for Thomas the Tank Engine. Now the show has lost all the charm it once had, and yet it still keeps going. I suspect that this movie is to blame for that change.

Religious Satire in Monty Python's Life of Brian

There is no doubt that Monty Python is one of the greatest geniuses of comedy. Between a TV series and three movies they have produced an incredible range of work and indeed some hilarious material. There is also no doubt they can spark quite a bit of controversy, and nowhere is that more evident than in their second feature film Life of Brian. This is a hilarious movie in itself, but it does have some deeper meanings compared to Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.

The plot of Life of Brian can be summed up quite simply as one man's ongoing quest to be left alone. Graham Chapman plays the role of Brian, an ordinary fellow who just happened to be born in a stable next door to the Nativity. He grows up to be a respectable young man who finds himself joining one of several anti-Roman groups in the hopes of helping his people, but that eventually leads to unforeseen consequences, and he spends much of the movie either running away from both the Romans and the hoard of people irrevocably convinced that he is their messiah.

Of course, given the movie is obviously influenced by Biblical epics such as Ben-Hur it is natural that it generated a lot of controversy when it was initially released. It is not a story about Jesus, nor any other religious figure, but it clearly draws inspiration from those stories, and in doing so provides a satirical commentary on how religion can affect people, as is especially noteworthy in the scenes with Brian's "followers".

This massive crowd of people that we see is stubbornly convinced that Brian is their messiah (when in fact he really just wants to be left alone), but they take that idea at face value and just assume they're always right. In fact, they never even really bother to listen to their supposed messiah. When Brian tries to tell them to go away, they just declare that "a blessing". When he tries to explain that he is not the messiah, the crowd just makes up an excuse in response like "I'll say you are, and I should know. I've followed a few." or "Only the true messiah denies his divinity."

That in itself is frustrating enough, especially when the whole crowd shows up at his house. There Brian tries to tell them to think for themselves. They say they agree, but the fact that every single one does so in unison seems to suggest otherwise. Even his overbearing mother telling them to go away is seen as "a blessing", leading to one of the best lines in the movie ("He is not the messiah, he is a very naughty boy!")

The movie also emphasizes the inevitable conflicts people can end up in when driven by blind faith. How many people have died over disagreements about religion throughout history? We see the absurdity of such disagreements happen throughout the movie. They do allude to it on a few fronts, with one good example being the fact that the various anti-Roman groups who all have very similar names (Judean Peoples' Front, Peoples' Front of Judea, etc.) and more or less the same goal (getting rid of the Romans) seem to spend more time fighting against each other than actually doing anything about the authorities they supposedly oppose. One of the more obvious examples, of course, is in Brian's "followers". Brian loses a shoe, and upon finding it they immediately interpret it as a sign, but can't agree on what it means. Then they become divided over whether they should "follow" the gourd or the shoe. 

Finally, we see the violence that comes with blind faith. How many "peaceful" religions have committed horrible atrocities. The scene with the Hermit brings this aspect to the forefront. After getting annoyed with all the trouble Brian's "followers" are causing him, he starts to take out his anger on Brian himself. One of the "followers" tries to tell him he's the messiah, to which the Hermit replies "no he's not". The immediate reaction of course is to "kill the heretic". The part that really ties it all together is the hypocrisy of these "followers", who proceed to drag the Hermit away to have him killed all the while ignoring their own supposed messiah's pleas to leave the poor guy alone.

How many of these concepts could be applied to actual religions in the world? Quite a lot I'd say. Life of Brian is a hilarious movie with lots of great moments, but underneath all that great humor is a strong social commentary on just how far people will go for their beliefs.

Duck, You Sucker!... Or Maybe Don't

Sergio Leone had a very small (though influential) body of work, but there are a few films of his that tend to be overlooked. Many forget his (uncredited) directorial debut in The Last Days of Pompeii as well as the feature that followed: The Colossus of Rhodes. Those two were followed by Leone taking a job working on a cheap spaghetti western to make up for the studio's previous failure, which would become A Fistful of Dollars and which in turn would become such a success that Leone was launched to fame and given incresingly larger budgets with which to make For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. He then went on to direct Once Upon a Time in the West and Once Upon a Time in America.

There is one movie I left out of that description. It is an easy one to forget of Leone's known in English by one of two different titles: Duck, You Sucker or A Fistful of Dynamite (even DVD copies tend to print both titles). If you've been to my YouTube Channel you may have heard of this film, in which case I'd imagine the first thing you'd think of is John Mallory's relentless determination to blow up Hitler for no readily apparent reason.

But what of the original movie? The parodies are hilarious but let's look at the film as Leone originally intended it. Rod Steiger plays the role of Juan Miranda: a Mexican bandit trying to provide for his family who is really only as rough as he is because it's the only way to survive.

James Coburn plays the role of John Mallory, an Irish demolitions expert who has a tendency to blow things up (though it is taken up a few notches in the parodies). He also has a dark past involving a friend who betrayed him, which becomes a major impact on his actions in the present.

Both men cross paths in the midst of the Mexican revolution, and team up to rob a bank. However, that plan soon takes an unexpected turn and Juan finds himself forced to join the Mexican rebels. Most of the movie centers around the relationship between these two characters: a sort of uneasy friendship that develops between them (though they're not above double crossing each other).

When you get down to it, the whole movie is really about deconstructing the concept of a "revolution". The Mexican revolution provides a backdrop, but at its core it's really about the ethics of revolutions in general. Revolutions are violent and ultimately never justified. Even if the people conducting the revolution have noble intentions, thousands of people will die for nothing, and ultimately the rebels seem no better than the oppressive government they are fighting against. There's even a really good scene where Juan pretty much sums up the whole theme of the movie:

There's no doubt the movie can be pretty disturbing at times, especially in the second half when we really start to see the darker side of revolutions. It does take a strong stomach to sit through the scenes of mass executions by firing squad.

From a technical standpoint, Duck, You Sucker! is also a pretty well-done movie. Coburn and Steiger do play well off of each other, the action scenes are appropriately tense, and the darker scenes can get pretty emotional. As you might expect from a Sergio Leone film, we also get a great soundtrack by Ennio Morricone, some very interesting ways to utilize sound to different effects, and plenty of great landscapes. It is definitely an underrated film of his, and one worth checking out, so don't duck, you sucker, or you might miss it!

A Tribute to Mickey Rooney

I found out this morning that legendary actor Mickey Rooney died at the age of 93. I'll confess that I mainly knew him by name, and had only seen the man himself in a handful of movies, but I respected his talent. There was no doubt he could act, and he did have a variety of characters.

The film I've often found myself identifying him with is Breakfast at Tiffany's, where he plays a character that would probably be considered a racist stereotype by modern standards. Even with the glasses and buck teeth, however, I always find that every time I see the film I still enjoy his performance and can't help but laugh at his slapstick antics, not to mention he plays really well off of Audrey Hepburn.

There is no doubt Mickey Rooney was good at humor. It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World saw him play a very different sort of character who gets into equally hilarious situations, especially after he gets stuck at the controls of the plane while the pilot is passed out drunk in the back.

I can't find much to say about Mickey Rooney as an actor or as a person. What I can say is he was a great actor with a lot of talent that was put to excellent use. According to IMDB he was even still acting before he died, playing a part in a still-upcoming adaptation of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which is quite impressive given the span of his career.