Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Children of Men. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Children of Men. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Children of Men

Written at the time of the film's release.

"Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men."
Psalm 90 (89): 3

What is that sound high in the air
Murmur of maternal lamentation
Who are those hooded hordes swarming
Over endless plains, stumbling in cracked earth
Ringed by the flat horizon only
What is the city over the mountains
Cracks and reforms and bursts in the violet air
Falling towers
Jerusalem Athens Alexandria
Vienna London
Unreal
                                         T.S. Eliot "The Waste Land"*

You can do a lot of things with science-fiction...or speculative fiction, if you'd rather. You can take a common problem, take it out of your world or your dimension and force people to look at it with a new eye, empty of pre-concieved visions or prejudices.

And you can do this in the movies, too. Couch a radical concept in a chase movie...say, The Road Warrior, and you immediately wake millions of people up to the concept of non-renewable resources. Al Gore knew what he was doing making An Inconvenient Truth.

So does Alfonso Cuarón.

Cuarón started his career with the charming A Little Princess and a not-too successful modernization of Great Expectations. He broke out a few years ago with a very entertaining film out of Mexico called Y tu Mama Tambien about a pair of immature teen boys (read: your target audience), hooked them up on a road-trip with a worldly-wise older woman and, amazingly, created an art-house hit that went mainstream in this country. The fact that it was entertaining, engaging and highly sexual was the several spoonfuls of sugar that would occasionally make Cuarón's political detours go down when he would stop the film (cold) to make them. His next film was the third film in the "Harry Potter" series, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which managed to shake the non-magical dust off the series, streamlined the story and seamlessly integrated the elaborate effects more fluidly into the mix. It felt more like a film than the stodgy musical adaptations the previous films seemed like. The reward for showing less respect to the sacred Potter text was the opinion of high-priestess J.K. Rowling that it was the best of the films. 
Fans of P.D.James'**1992 novel "The Children of Men," should have the same respect for Cuarón's distillation for he's made it both more complicated and slimmed it into a hellish chase film that keeps one on the edge of their seat and keeps one guessing every step of the way, while at the same time turning James' version of man's last gasp into something more relevant in a post-9-11/post-Iraq invasion world. James' basic concept and characters are for the most part there, but Cuarón and his army of scriptwriters fashion a future on the eve of destruction: Babies are no longer being born and mankind is facing its last generation...ever. A global flu pandemic may have been the cause, but whatever happened there is no new generation for a world on the brink. When the Earth has no future, what happens? Global destruction, and as billboards around London proclaim "The World Has Collapsed! Only Britain Soldiers On." Literally. The cities are police states. Illegal immigrants are caged and thrown into gulags run by Homeland Security, and the world mourns as the last child born..."Baby Diego," now 18, is gunned down for not giving someone an autograph.
It would be more horrific if it wasn't so familiar. It would be funny if you hadn't already seen it happen.

On November 16th 2027, Theo Fallon (Clive Owen) sees the "Baby Diego" story on the 24-hour news station at the coffee shop, and as he exits, it explodes. He's left with a constant ringing in his ears ("It's your cell's last swan song," his ex-wife, now an revolutionary, tells him. "Enjoy it while it lasts."), and for his pains is given a mission to obtain "letters of transit" for a cargo wanted by the revolutionaries and probably anyone else wanting an edge: a very pregnant woman named Kee, who in this world is looked on...as a miracle. Fallon has been put-upon to to see to the safety of madonna and child. Echoes and echoes of stories we've heard before run through this movie as we follow Fallon and his miracle try to reach a group called "The Human Project" via a ship called "Tomorrow."
It sounds precious. But in Cuarón's telling its horrific. And any lapse into sentimentality is seen as relief. Much has been made of the (apparently) continuous takes of "action sequences"...one takes place inside a car traveling in reverse...and they are jaw-droppingly marvelous things (and all the more effective because there's no editing to be seen, and events happen in seamless "real" time). There's also a sequence that has to be the slowest chase scene ever filmed, but is just as nerve-wracking because of it.
Still...it's not so overwhelming that questions don't come up. Much is made of Fallon's being irresistible to animals...but that would mean the animals are still being born eighteen years after the last human child was born. Maybe it's that flu thing not crossing species, but that the question comes up means you have the time to think about it. I also wondered why no hell-bent revolutionaries would think of shooting out car-tires. Friend FarmerScott wondered if British cars in the future had dome-lights...or for that matter, key alarms. Little chinks in an otherwise armored-up film adaptation that has extraordinary cinematography, production design (as much work went into this vision of the future as in Blade Runner but seems much more real) and stunt coordination. And terrific acting by Michael Caine, Julianne Moore (less neurotic that usual), Chiwetel Ejiofor (who's in every third film I see these days) and Clive Owen as the man who has big shoes to fill.
It's an amazing, hard-hitting, relentless, passionate, smart film. But I can't say I enjoyed myself.


* Both "The Waste Land" and "Children of Men" share the last line "Shantih Shantih Shantih"

** She of "
Commander Dalgleish" fame...

Thursday, June 27, 2019

Dark PhoeniX

Jean Therapy
or
Screwing up "The Dark Phoenix Saga", Part DeuX

"The Dark Phoenix Saga" (done in two parts—"The Uncanny X-Men" Issues 101-108 and "The Uncanny X-Men" Issues 129-138) is considered to be THE great story of the Chris Claremont/John Byrne run of the "X-Men" comics, when the series was at its apex, not only in terms of sales but also creativity. It seems inevitable that if you're going to do something with "The X-Men" (in whatever media), you're going to get around to do a version of that particular story, so dominant is it in the canon. How could one resist? It's simple, it's tragic, and it involves that gut-buster of the comics field—killing off a principal character, in this case, the character of Jean Grey, considered the heart and soul of the X-men (as well as the love of the group's leader, Scott Summers, aka Cyclops).*

Well, (as they say in Monty Python) she "got better."

But, the run was controversial and revered. Just that—point of fact—despite its high regard in fan circles, the story is not that great. Claremont was playing with issues of god-like powers and how such abilities can corrupt the weak**—not a big revelation there (although, truth to tell, i get the sneaking suspicion that not many voters are familiar with it). What made the story interesting came from editorial interference. At one point ("The Uncanny X-Men #135), Grey, in deep space in her Phoenix state, decides to recharge her depleted powers by snuffing out a distant sun, thus wiping out billions of beingsthe D'bari (remember it, it'll show up later)—in another solar system. She suffered no consequences. Claremont seemed okay with that. But, then Marvel Editor-in-Chief Jim Shooter found the idea abhorrent—comparing it to Hitler going unpunished for the Holocaust. It was Shooter's insistence that Jean Grey die, which was dramatized as an act of self-sacrifice. It terminally limited what Claremont could do with such a conflicted character (you gotta keep your creative options open), but it allowed for some rough justice and a kind of penance, balancing the moral scales just a smidge'. But, it tinkered with the mythological (which, really, all superhero stories do, to a point) in an extremely obvious and melodramatic fashion. Fan-boys love that stuff.
The first X-Men movie series—the one with Hugh Jackman's Wolverine—rushed into the story, making it cross between X-Men 2: X-Men United and X-Men 3: The Last Stand. But, it did so in a clumsy and quite heretical way; in The Last Stand, Grey's Phoenix (played by Famke Janssen) atomizes her lover Scott Summers—aka Cyclops (James Marsden)—in one of her first acts, giving one of the comic's major characters extremely short-shrift,*** then compounding it by having her disintegrate Professor X (Patrick Stewart) as well. This allowed series star Jackman to be the one X-Person who could defeat her (as he had regenerative healing powers, which was fine as long as she disintegrated him REAL SLOW—if she just "blowed him up real good" that would have been less of a conceit, and one HELL of a writer's conundrum to solve). But, then, The Last Stand chose the easy way out in all matters. It was a huge letdown for both fans of the comic and the film series and the response was quite vocal. Also—as The Last Stand was extraordinarily expensive for its time (even by super-budget standards) it was deemed a financial failure, as well as artistic failure to the point where Singer's "return" X-Men movie, X-Men: Days of Future Past "x'd" it out of existence.

I wish I could say that Dark Phoenix does a better job of it with the "First Class" X-Men, but it does not, although its path is not as radical. There were issues during filming—most of the cast and crew admit that the third act, involving an elaborate trains sequence, replaced an earlier more cosmic resolution (supposedly because preview audiences found it too similar to Captain Marvel's ending, although this is a guess as Marvel is being mum about it). Who knows if it would have been better? But, it doesn't solve the main problem—timing.
The character of Jean Grey (as portrayed by Sophie Turner, who does great work with what she can) was introduced in X-Men: Apocalypse and she had barely enough screen-time for the character to generate any emotional stakes with the audience. This film tries—putting a young Jean Grey into a life-shattering traumatic event (interestingly, the same one as turned Dr. Sivana to the "Dark Side" in Shazam! (I guess Marvel doesn't watch too many DCU movies—they should, if only to see what not to do).
Cut to the efforts of Professor Xavier (James McAvoy) to take on guardianship—and care-taking—of the young Jean at the Xavier School for Gifted Children, where he provides a mental block band-aid to keep Jean from going down a dark path. Unfortunately, he's the one who induces the event that pushes her over the edge. At the notification of the President—the government trusts the X-Men now?—the core team—Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee), Quicksilver (Evan Peters), Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) and Jean are sent to space ("raise your hands if...") to rescue the crew of the space shuttle Endeavour from a virulent energy source (fulfilling the classic Marvel trope—"I dunno what it is, but it sure is big"). Nightcrawler *BAMFS* over to rescue the crew, but manages to leave Jean on the shuttle where her efforts to keep the vehicle together exposes her to the energy's attack, which she absorbs. It dramatically increases her psycho-kinesis, but puts the emphasis on the "psycho" part by breaking the mental block Prof. X had established.
Pretty soon, she's having to deal with the awesome powers she possesses, the inhibitions it dispels and the fact that she enjoys it to a destructive degree. There is a lot of room to snark that the plot is a cautionary tale about giving a woman to much power, which is quite the opposite of the line Marvel should take especially given its Captain Marvel film and the too-brief tip of the cowl to super-women in Avengers: Endgame.
The results are damaging to the X-Men—one prominent A-lister is killed—and it results in all the mutants taking sides—Xavier's group on one side trying to get Jean back to school to try to mute her instincts, and the group headed by Magneto (Michael Fassbender) and Beast to try to eliminate her. Both groups are challenged by the shape-shifting D'bari (ah, reader, you made it this far!) led by the power-hungry Vuk (Jessica Chastain, who shoves portraying intelligence aside for a serene lizardish entitlement), who have been tracking the Phoenix Energy and want to suck it out of Jean for themselves...
Attack in New York. Attack on the mutant-train (which is quite dynamic and well-realized, actually). But, again, we've spent more time with Evil Jean than with the sympathetic one. The consequences of the actions don't resonate and seem less than a tragedy than a sensible outcome to avert disaster. Timing. 
Another X-Men movie with Turner's Grey might have helped, but 20th Century Fox (which has the movie rights to the characters) wanted to wrap up this version of X-men (2.0?) so that it could be "re-imagined" under the auspices of their new Masters, Disney-Marvel. And so the potential for a good film is once again sacrificed for corporate interests. As they used to say on "The Bullwinkle Show," "That trick never works."
You can bet they'll try it again for a third time (unless the "re-boot" tanks) because it's not like there are a lot of other X-Men stories to tell. How many times have we seen Krypton explode and Bruce Wayne's parents get shot? Maybe "re-boot" and "re-imagining" shouldn't be the terms used but "recycling," instead. Send the old stuff to the burn-bin and start anew?

Seems appropriate. Phoenix's may rise. But, first there have to be a lot of ashes.


* No one dies in comics. Not really. And especially in the Marvel Universe ("The House of Ideas"). In 1986, writer Kurt Busiek and Bob Layton revived the character as part of their team in "X-Factor" with the first issue.

** File under: "Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely." You can file it, but it'll probably take you a year to find it again, because a lot of people do that one. I find it...thought-provoking that the director so dominant in bringing most of the X-Men movies to the screen, director Bryan Singerwho could learn a thing or two about the abuse of power—did not direct the two "Phoenix" films.

*** Lord knows why, probably to shock the expectations of those familiar with the original, in much the same way that Stanley Kubrick in The Shining had Jack Nicholson's Jack Torrence kill the guy who, in Stephen King's book, ultimately saves the Torrence family, giving more power to the wife and son to triumph and save themselves, but also to shock the hell out of the complacent fans. Worked great. With Cyclops, not so much, although one could make an argument that she had to kill her former lover to "detach" herself from her Jean Grey past. Pfft.
Rockin' roller-blades, it's Dazzler! (Marvel's dumbest superhero)

Saturday, February 4, 2023

Women Talking

Only Women Bleed
or
...Then What's a Heaven For?
 
"The Following is a Product of Female Imagination" says the title once the opening narration of Women Talking is finished—opening line: "This all happened before you were born"—and it's a bitterly defiant statement as we've just learned that the women of a Mennonite colony--who are being systematically drugged with cattle tranquilizers, raped, beaten and often impregnated--have been chastised by the men of the colony that their accusations are hysterical, or that they're being visited by ghosts or demons or that it is all a product of "wild female imagination," and holds no truth in reality. Their reality.
 
"Wild female imagination." "Female Imagination" does not bruise and it cannot make pregnant. Men do that in their male imaginations and plots. Because they can. Because they think they can get away with it. Because they can't do it any other way. Because they're allowed to get away with it. Because their authority can't be questioned.
 
And because accusing the men of it (they say, because it's "their colony") will mean that the women won't be able to go to Heaven for their "lies." The men, presumably will, because there's nothing in The Ten Commandments about hypocrisy.
The men have now gone into the neighboring town to try and make bail for the accused attackers. They will be gone for more than a day, and, when they return, the women are expected to apologize...and if they don't recant, they will face excommunication and, of course, not be able to reach the Kingdom of Heaven.
So, while the men are gone, the women take a vote—their first—and because they are prohibited from learning to read or write, It's done with pictographs and X's. 
There are three choices. Stay and Submit. Stay and Fight. Flee. Leave the colony.
The vote is split between "Stay and Fight" and "Leave the colony" and so, the women choose representatives to discuss what will be done, the ramifications, the logistics, what will come next. And to keep a record of their discussion, they recruit the one male left behind, August (Ben Whishaw)—whose family was excommunicated due to his mother's objections to the men's dictates—to record the minutes of their meeting, a record to be left behind.
Three generations of women discuss what comes next: elders Agata (
Judith Ivey), Janz (Frances McDormand), and Greta (Sheila McCarthy), daughters Ona (Rooney Mara), pregnant with the child of her attacker, Mariche (Jessie Buckley) and her children, and Salome (Claire Foy) all gather in a barn-loft to discuss their options and make the decisions before the men-folk come back. They know the situation is intolerable—although Jenz decides that she will stay and leaves the discussions early—and they have to decide what sort of life they want for themselves. And for their children, who are also subject to the men's attacks—the most recent attack was on
Salome's four year old daughter.
It's a particularly appropriate time to have movies like this, as women's autonomy is under attack in this country and throughout the world (it's why the recent adaptation of "The Handmaid's Tale" recently resonated so much in the collective zeitgeist—while the 1990 film of it couldn't make its costs back—and as the #MeToo movement exposed the pervasive inequities in the power structures as women cemented their places in the workplace and in government). The only way to fight the entrenched power structure is in an organized group-dynamic that can up-end the status quo and maybe drown it out.
Women organizing and re-asserting power is as old as "Lysistrata," but writer-director Sarah Polley (Away From Her and Stories We Tell), has other things to discuss in Women Talking besides Fight or Flight. Good Lord, one of these days the Library is going to have a "Revenge" genre in their DVD selections, and that easy solution is dissected and vivisected in the course of the movie, because some of the women just want revenge. This multi-generational congress weighs options based on need, principals, philosophies, and viable futures...which includes going to heaven. In a way, it is it's own version of Twelve Angry Men—call it Eleven Angry Women—where prejudices are revealed, motivations are explained, and minds are changed. And it's performed by some of the best and subtle actors in the field.
If there's a complaint, it's that the introduction is a little rushed, some of the circumstances of the women involved not made clear from the outset, leaving an audience-member confused rather than intrigued. And Polley desaturates her images so far into the gray scale that it could almost be black-and-white. As some directors (Welles and Bogdanovich and Ford) have pointed out, sometimes color can be just too pretty for what you're trying to convey and the film-matter, though set on acres of fields is far from verdant. The film is a tough-sell, anyway, perhaps the distributors insisted on a color film, and this was Polley's solution.
And for anyone who grouses that the film is any sort of "stretch" it's based on a book that took as its inspiration, what was called "The Ghost Rapes of Bolivia," where, beginning in 2005, women in a colony began to be subjected to this type of outrage and decided to leave, trusting in God that She would provide.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Hitler's Madman

Hitler's Madman (Douglas Sirk, 1943) Of all the butchering that has gone on in the world since Cain slew Abel, one episode has always fascinated me—the murder of Lidice, Czechoslovakia by the Nazi's during World War II, Hitler's revenge for the murder of his favorite SS man Reinhard Heydrich. The events were recently documented in the film Anthropoid, but I'd often wondered why a version hadn't been made before.

The answer is...of course, it had. 


Hitler's Madman was made at Producers Releasing Corporation, a small, low budget studio not long after the real-time events took place. Filming took place over one week. It's highly fictionalized; only one Czech assassin (Alan Curtis) makes it to Lidice to carry out the attack on Heydrich, helped by his lover (Patricia Morrison) and a local partisan, and Heydrich is ambushed on a forest road and not a city street in Prague.
As in real life, the assassination of Heydrich is weeks in the planning, lightning-fast in its execution, but its ramifications are huge, as Hitler takes his revenge by decimating a Czech town and murdering its citizens (Lidice was chosen as a practical alternative to the city suspected of keeping the assassins hidden, which had a strategically valuable munitions plant). Hitler's Madman spends a lot of time among the Lidice people, living their lives (as best they can) under the yoke of "The Protector" (as Heydrich was designated), an SS sadist, who takes a hands-on approach to occupation, making University visits to root out sedition, choosing daughters of suspected dissidents to send to the Russian front as prostitutes, and taking a supremely cavalier attitude to the populace, who are kept alive only if they're useful—like the mayor, a Nazi loyalist who will turn in any sign of talking against the Germans. One suspects he would have served the Communists equally well, if he'd lived.
Carradine's Heydrich takes a sadistic joy out of goose-stepping on the citizens. For instance, during the town's celebration of St. Mark, intended to bring the town together and inspire a good planting season, Heydrich goes straight for the jugular—the town priest, who stands up to him without provoking him or doing anything that might get him arrested. When Heydrich sees that his presence doesn't inspire any threat that he might take action against and intimidate the towns-folk, he takes the priest's vestments draping the statue of St, Mark and wipes his boot with them. When the priest charges at the front, he is machine-gunned in front of his parishioners. Heydrich has the last word: "So, I can't provoke you, eh?"
Well, he almost has the last word...

Hitler's Madman boasted one movie veteran of note—John Carradine, a well-established character actor, who plays Heydrich with an amused detachment and sardonic menace, a villain role he plays with a restrained relish. Carradine is the only "name" in the cast, but the material and the production values (for a Z-list studio) so impressed M-G-M that they bought it for distribution, their only addition being that previously mentioned "line-up" of Lidice daughters, thus alloying them to make use of their stable of starlets—including Ava Gardner (her 15th film appearance including shorts)—for extra exploitable appeal.
Ava Gardner is the third woman on the right hiding her face.
Credit for that production value must go to its German expatriate director Douglas Sirk (born Hans Detlef Sierck in Hamburg Germany, 1897) who, along with Fritz Lang and Billy Wilder, fled Germany and Europe in the late 1930's, while Hitler was just paying lip-service to the damage he'd do. Sirk, even under the skid-road conditions of the studio, still manages to make memorable images, despite having dull heroic leads, and a screenplay that's all over the map drawing from rumor, remembrance, and, as its propagandistic spine, the poem "The Murder of Lidice"** by Edna St. Vincent Millay
Sirk had more than artistic inspiration to draw upon while making Hitler's Madman—he had actually met Reinhard Heydrich, whom, he said "made my blood run cold."
For me, who's known of the events for years, it is an interesting film to view, especially as it contains a scene at Heydrich's death-bed (with little basis in reality as Heydrich was in so much pain from his injuries that he was slipping into and out of coma the last days of his life) that is chilling and fitting, as it shows the dying nazi-crat with no remorse, no sentimentality, and has the added ironic conclusion that Heydrich is just another layer in the tissue of lies the Nazi's use to prop themselves up, with filled with mythic lies that had no basis in reality. At the end, face-to-face with the reality of his own death, Heydrich has no constitution for Nazi theatrics and platitudes, and in his last words, reveals himself to be even more of a monster near-death than he was in life.
HIMMLER: Heil Hitler.
HEYDRICH: Don't bother me with that nonsense. I am in pain.
HIMMLER: Nonsense. You don't know what you're saying, Heydrich. I bring you greetings from our beloved fuehrer.
HEYDRICH: I don't want his greetings. Or yours. I want to live. Did you catch the assassins?
HIMMLER: Everything possible is being (done).
HEYDRICH: Everything possible is being done, that's all I hear.
HIMMLER: You mustn't strain yourself.
HEYDRICH: Can't you send some doctors from Berlin? Instead of these horse-doctors?
HIMMLER: You may leave
DOCTORS: Heil Hitler! (They exit, leaving Himmler alone with Heydrich)
HIMMLER: A soldier dies with courage, Herr Heydrich.
HEYDRICH: A true Nazi, eh? I would like to see how you and your feuhrer would act if your insides were shot out. Why can't I get morphine? It's getting dark. I want to live!
HIMMLER: You are dying for the fuehrer, Heydrich.
HEYDRICH: I don't want to die. I'm not going to die for the fuehrer or anyone else. I want to live. You'll face death one of these days, Himmler. And your fuehrer. All of you will face death. All of you. There's another thing I'll tell you. Here. Closer. We'll lose. The Russians will win. The Poles, the British, the Czechs. The Americans will win. We'll be the only ones to lose. And why? Why will they win? I'll tell you. You were too weak, that's it. Every day, I had to shoot thirty. It should have been three hundred, Himmler. Three thousand. Day for day, three...I should have done away with them all. All of them. All of them. Kill them if you want to be safe. Every day. All of them. Shoot them. Shoot them. All of them.

His fellow countryman, Fritz Lang, would direct his own version of events, Hangmen Also Die!, in 1943. We'll look at that very different film tomorrow.

**
The Murder of Lidice
by Edna St. Vincent Millay (abridged in The Saturday Review, 10/17/1942)

IT was all of six hundred years ago,
It was seven and if a day.
That a village was built which you may know
By the name of Lidice.

Not a stick, not a stake and stone remain
To mark where the fair Danubian plain
Was rich in cattle and rich in grain
In far Bohemia,
In a village called Lidice.
(At least, that is what they say)

But all of the villagers worked as one
(As ever since then these folks have done)
To build them a village to sit in the sun
As long as the Danube River should run
Through far Bohemia;
And they named it Lidice . . .

They built them a church and they built them a mill,
And on the fair Danubian plain.
For to shrive their souls and to grind their grain,
 And to feed them wholesomely . . .

And close together like swallows' nests
They built their houses on the low crests
Of the banks of the river that turned the mill.
And each man helped his neighbor to lay
The stones of his house, and to lift its beams;
Till strong in its timbers and tight in its seams
A village arose called Lidice . . .

How did the year turn, how did it run.
In a village like Lidice?
First came Spring, with planting and sowing;
Then came Summer, with haying and hoeing;
Then came Autumn, and the Harvest Home . .

And always in Winter, with its brief bright day,
Toward the end of the quiet afternoon,
(Children at school, but coming home soon,
With crisp young voices loud and gay;
Husband at Kladno, miles away.
But home for supper, expected soon)
Toward the end of the Winter afternoon .
 . .
The wise, kind hands and contented face
Of a woman at the window, making lace . . .
A peaceful place .. . a happy place . . .

How did the year turn—how did it run
In the year of nineteen-forty-one ?—•
In a village called Lidice?
First came Spring, with planting and sowing;
Then came Summer, with haying and hoeing;
Then came Autumn, and the Harvest Home . . .

Then came Heydrich the Hangman, the Hun . . .

"Mirko, the Rakos barns are full;
It's time to harvest the sugar beets."
"Hush with your clack while a man eats!
I'll think of the harvest and sugar beets
When the evening meal is done.
I've much on my mind, wife—I heard say
From the metal-workers in Kladno today
That Heydrich the Hangman comes our way—
God's curse on him!"
                   "Husband, the things you say!
Heydrich's but Hitler's tool."

"What do you take me for,—a fool?
God's curse on him, anyway."
"Cross yourself, Mirko!" "I did." "And pray."
"I'll pray when my supper's done."

"Husband why is your face so grey?"

"My face is grey from fear.
Heydrich the Hangman died today
Of his wounds, the men in Kladno say."

"Good riddance to wicked rubbish, I say . . .
No man was he, but a ravening beast . . .
Do they know who killed him? "
"Not yet, they say:
Though they've smoked him out for many a day . . .
But they claim we hid him here."

"Here? Here in Lidice?"
"Here in Lidice."
"If I knew where they hid, I'd not give them away."
"Yes .. . All of the village feels that way.
But heavy's the price we'll have to pay,
If they're not found, I fear.
How it will turn I could not learn . . .
But my face with fear is grey."

An officer walked in Wilson Street,
A German officer jaunty and smart;
A sabre-cut on his cheek he bore.
And tailored well were the clothes he wore,
His uniform dapper and smart.
And he hummed a waltz, as he strolled toward
A group of men by a high bill-board,
And he smiled and softly stopped in his tracks
As he studied the stooped and troubled backs
Of poor men reading the word "Reward!"

(REWARD! . . . REWARD! . . . REWARD! . . . REWARD! . . .
TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND CROWNS I N GOLD! . . .
FOR INFORMATION LEADING TOWARD
THE CAPTURE OF THE COWARDLY AND RUTHLESS KILLERS
OF REINHARD HEYDRICH!
REINHARD HEYDRICH! . . .
HEYDRICH THE PURE I N HEART!)

He looked at their backs and smiled, and thought,
"Heydrich's killer's as good as caught!"
For well he knew what money can do
To a poor man's mind (and a rich man's, too—
For the more a man owns the more he owes.
And the more he must have, and so it goes).

They marched them out to the public square.
Two hundred men in a row;
And every step of the distance there,
Each stone in the road, each man did know—
And every alley in doorway where
As a carefree boy, not long ago.
With boys of his age he would hide and run
And shout, in the days when everyone
Was safe, and free,—and school was out . . .
Not very long ago . . .
And he felt on his face the soft June ciir,
And thought, "This cannot be so!"

The friendly houses, the little inn
Where times without number he had been
Of an evening, and talked with his neighbors there
Of planting and politics—(not a chair
At any table he had not sat in)
And welcomed the newcomer coming in
With nod of greeting, of "Look, who's here!"—
Spoken friendly across the rim
Of a mug of Pilsen beer . . .

And the men he had greeted with loving shout.
And talked about football with, and about
The crops, and how to keep Hitler out . . .
Were lined up with him here . . .

And one man thought of the sunny row
In his garden, where he had left his hoe;
And one man thought of the walnut trees
He had climbed, and the day he broke his arm,
But it had not hurt, as his mind hurt now—
How happy his boyhood, how free from harm!

And one who was dying opened his eyes.
For he smelled smoke, and stared at the skies
Cloudy and lurid with smoke and flame;
From every building it billowed; it came
From every roof, and out it burst
From every window,—none was the first;
From every window about him burst
The terrible shape of flame,
And clawed at the sky, and leapt to the ground,
And ran through the village with a crackling sound
And a sudden roar where a roof fell in;
And he thought of his mother, left alone
In the house, not able to rise from her chair;
And he got to his elbows, and tried to crawl
To his home, across the blood in the square,
But at every step did slip and fall,
For the slippery blood was everywhere.

Oh, many a faithful dog that day
Stood by his master's body at bay.
And tugged at the sleeve of an arm outflung;
Or laid his paws on his master's breast,
With panting jaws and whimpering cries,
Gazing into his glazing eyes
And licking his face with loving tongue;
Nor would from his dead friend depart,
Till they kicked in his ribs and crushed his heart . .

The women and children out to the Square
They marched, that there they might plainly see
How mighty a state is Germany!—
That can drag from his bed unawake, unaware,
Unarmed, a man, to be murdered where
His wife and children must watch and see;
Then carted them off in truck and cart
Into Germany, into Germany,—
The wives to be slaves of German men;
The children to start life over again,
In German schools, to German rules,—
As butchers' apprentices.
And hail and salute the master mind
Of the world's chief butcher of human-kind . . .

They knocked on the door where a young wife bore
Her first, her last man-child;
She heard them coming down Wilson Street,
She heard from the square the machine-gun shots
That told her her man was dead;
And she bit and tied in a slippery knot
The cord of the fine man-child he'd got,
And slung him under the bed . . .
She rose on trembling arms to greet
The men who entered Wilson Street;
"There's nobody here but me!" she cried;
And her eyes were bright and hot in her head . . .
"I'm far too sick of the fever," she said,
"Into Germany, into Germany
For to be marched or led ... "
But the baby wailed from under the bed—
And they by the heels with a harsh shout
Did drag him out—but the baby bled—
So against the wall they banged his head,
While the mother clawed at their clothes and screamed.
And screamed and screamed, till they shot her dead.

Now, not a stake was left on a stone,
Nor the frame of a window-sill
Where a woman could lean in the dusk alone,
Her arms aware of the warmth of the stone,—
In Lidice, in Lidice—
Yet they say that it stands there still!

Yes, those who have been there solidly say
That every night when the moon is right.
That during the tenth of June all day,
And thin and strange when the sun sets
And the moon comes out, Ste. Margaret's—
Spire and nave and people at prayer
Are plainly seen and you can pass
Your hand through the beautiful colored glass
And draw it back . . . and no blood there!

And they say that men of an evening meet
And talk together in Wilson Street
And draw deep breaths of the air . . .
Though Wilson Street with the rest of the town
Burned down on the tenth of June, burned down,
And there is nothing there . . .
The Germans say there is nothing there.

Good people, all from our graves we call
To you, so happy and free;
Whether ye live in a village small
Or in a city with buildings tall,
Or the sandy lonesome beach of the sea.
Or the woody hills, or the flat prairie;
Hear us speak; oh, dear what we say;
We are the people of Lidice.
Hear us speak; oh, hear what we say,
Who and where soever ye be . . .
Unless ye would die as we!

Dead mouths of men once happy as you.
As happy as you and as free,
Till they entered our country and slaughtered and slew,
And made us do what we hated to do.
And then—oh, never forget the day!—
On the tenth of June in '42
They murdered the village of Lidice!

Dead men, dead men.
Up through the ashes of Lidice
Telling you not to be caught as they
All in the morning of a June day
Were caught, and shot and put out of the way . . .
(At least, that is what they say)
Telling you not to eat or drink
One morsel of food, one swallow of drink
Before you think, before you think
What is the best way
To keep your country from the foe you hate—
Keep it from sloping bit by bit
Down to what is the death of it—

The whole world holds in its arms today
The murdered Village of Lidice,
Like the murdered body of a little child
Happy and innocent, caught at play.
The murdered body, stained and defiled,
Tortured and mangled, of a helpless child,—

And moans of vengeance frightful to hear
From the throat of a world, must reach his ear.
The maniac killer who still runs wild,
Where he sits, with his long and cruel thumbs.
Eating pastries, rolling the crumbs
Into bullets (for the day is always near
For another threat, another fear.
Another killing of the gentle and mUd)
But a moaning whine of vengeance comes.
Sacred vengeance awful and dear;
From the throat of a world that has been too near
And seen too much, at last too much—
Whines of vengeance sacred and dear.
For the murdered body of a helpless child—
And terrible sobs unreconciled!

Careless America, crooning a tune!—
Catch him! Catch him and stop him soon!
Never let him come here!

Think a moment: are we immune ?

Oh, my country, so foolish and dear,
Scornful America, crooning a tune,
Think. Think: are we immune?—
Catch him, catch him and stop him soon!
Never let him come here!

Ask yourself, ask yourself: What have we done?—
Who, after all, are we?—
That we should sit at ease in the sun,
The only country, the only one,
Unmolested and free?
Catch him! Catch him! Do not wait!
Or will you wait, and share the fate
Of the village of Lidice?
Or will you wait, and let him destroy
The Village of Lidice, Illinois?
Oh, catch him! Catch him, and stop him soon!
Never let him come here!


Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Judgment at Nuremberg

Judgment at Nuremberg (Stanley Kramer, 1961) It was Katharine Hepburn who shepherded this film from its origins as an episode of "Playhouse 90"* to this version as a three hour epic.** The movie is padded with shots of Spencer Tracy touring the city (still in rubble in 1960, twelve years after the judges trials at Nuremberg***), and background of the characters, including a chaste meeting of minds with a Nazi widow (Marlene Dietrich, still oozing mystery at the age of 60). Screenwriter Abby Mann makes the citizenry complicit in his expanded screenplay, despite their protestations of ignorance. And the military at the time of the trial was in the middle of the Berlin Airlift, their attention now turned to "the Bolsheviks" and cozying up to Germany for strategic advantage, casting the worth and even the result of the trial in question for political expediency. The movie is allowed much more cynicism than the Playhouse 90 broadcast, where the words "gas chambers" were subject to censorship by sponsor The American Gas Association.
The movie threatens to swamp itself with star-power but leavened it by Tracy disappearing into his role. Maximilian Schell repeats his television performance (winning an Oscar in the process, as did Mann for his adaptation). Of the newcomers, the best performances are Montgomery Clift in face and body language denoting a characters damaged by the brutality of the Nazi regime. And Judy Garland, who'd always seemed like a raw nerve in her films, acts merely from the neck up—and that's all that's required. Not as controlled are Richard Widmark, whose prosecutor is a bit too demonstrative in private for a courtroom strategist, and Burt Lancaster, given a great speech but, a weakness of the actor, aware of it. Laurence Olivier was intended to play German Ernst Janning, but dropped out. I'm not sure that would have been an improvement, but it would have been interesting.
Kramer struggles with the material; he would later become an expert on courtroom directing. But here, he's more intent on making the drama look interesting with camera moves by circling witnesses and, most egregiously, using a fast zoom to zero in on a dramatic moment. It's used sparingly, but even that's too much for the material. He would learn to trust his actors and inherent drama of the scene to carry it.
But, Judgement at Nuremberg manages to be something that eludes most Kramer films—it's a bit more timeless, especially in regards to the short-sightedness of chipping away at bedrock principles for today's political viability and the future's further erosion. One could be speaking of water boarding as torture in Abby Mann's summation speech.
****
Read it. Read the whole thing. But linger on the words after the picture below.

Judge Haywood: The trial conducted before this Tribunal began over eight months ago. The record of evidence is more than ten thousand pages long, and final arguments of counsel have been concluded.

Simple murders and atrocities do not constitute the gravamen of the charges in this indictment. Rather, the charge is that of conscious participation in a nationwide, government organized system of cruelty and injustice in violation of every moral and legal principle known to all civilized nations. The Tribunal has carefully studied the record and found therein abundant evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt the charges against these defendants.


Herr Rolfe, in his very skillful defense, has asserted that there are others who must share the ultimate responsibility for what happened here in Germany. There is truth in this. The real complaining party at the bar in this courtroom is civilization. But the Tribunal does say that the men in the dock are responsible for their actions, men who sat in black robes in judgment on other men, men who took part in the enactment of laws and decrees, the purpose of which was the extermination of humans beings, men who in executive positions actively participated in the enforcement of these laws -- illegal even under German law. The principle of criminal law in every civilized society has this in common: Any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime, any person who is an accessory to the crime -- is guilty.

Herr Rolfe further asserts that the defendant, Janning, was an extraordinary jurist and acted in what he thought was the best interest of this country. There is truth in this also. Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and the death of millions by the Government of which he was a part. Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial: If he and all of the other defendants had been degraded perverts, if all of the leaders of the Third Reich had been sadistic monsters and maniacs, then these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake, or any other natural catastrophe. But this trial has shown that under a national crisis, ordinary -- even able and extraordinary -- men can delude themselves into the commission of crimes so vast and heinous that they beggar the imagination. No one who has sat at through trial can ever forget them: men sterilized because of political belief; a mockery made of friendship and faith; the murder of children. How easily it can happen.
There are those in our own country too who today speak of the "protection of country" -- of "survival." A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient -- to look the other way.

Well, the answer to that is "survival as what?" A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult!

Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.


* if you want to see it, it is here. 
 
** Probably to give her love and paramour Spencer Tracy another plumb acting role. His health (owing to his tendency to drink to excess) was always improved when he was working.

*** Although shots of Richard Widmark driving through the city are obvious process shots.

**** William Shatner's sitting in front of Tracy. Tracy was Shatner's hero and when he saw Tracy do the speech in one take, he blurted "I didn't know film actors could DO that!" Tracy shunned him for the rest of the shoot.