Third Eye Film Society Forum Index
Author Message

<  Third Eye Film Forums  ~  Couch With A View

gromit
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:46 am Reply with quote
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 9010 Location: Shanghai
That's 4.
I have a whole number of ideas for a 5th, but want to think about it more. Some lesser known Bunuels in the mix, but I'd like to come up with something more obscure but worthy.

_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
gromit
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:17 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 9010 Location: Shanghai
I did make time to watch Focus.
Interesting film.
I like how the eyeglasses serve as such a tiny detail that threatens Macy's livelihood, home, and safety. So even though the film is about anti-semitism and fascist groups in America during WWII, the reactionaries define who is in and who is unacceptable, and might base this on anything -- an accent, effeminacy, skin color, looking Jewish, etc.

Everything is a little amped up. I think the key line is when Finklestein tells Macy that there aren't that many Jews, that the real target are people like him who don't go along with the mob. The mob wants conformity and power and attacking a minority group is a way to get the majority with them. (Well, the other key line is at the end of the film in the police station). Macy and Dern have that throwback appearance and are good. I liked Meat Loaf as the reactionary neighbor and local leader of the fascist group.

Interesting film.

_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Marj
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:32 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 10497 Location: Manhattan
I agree with you gromit. It is an interesting film. Not much more and one that I wouldn't pester friends to see. But I'm glad I saw it. I also agree about the glasses. But I do think the film hints at some groups going further than wanting to segregate just Jews. My take was that someday, if they succeeded, every group other than WASPS would live in its own community or town. Maybe I read it wrong, but I saw it as a cautionary tale to what America could turn into. Or better said, any group that doesn't go along with the mob.

And yes, Meatloaf was very good.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
gromit
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:54 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 9010 Location: Shanghai
I agree. The film was specifically about anti-semitism, but being Jewish has a creeping definition in the film to potentially include anyone who doesn't conform or seems different. I thought it was definitely intended as an allegory for oppression of others of whatever sort. And segregation might only be a first step.

I liked the sets and the look of the film.
And the Macy freakout on the train where he does morph into some kind of other.
It all worked pretty well for me.
Thanks, a good rec.

_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
gromit
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:59 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 9010 Location: Shanghai
LORNE, we need a New Forum started and some posts shuffled from here to there.

My 5th Overlooked Film:
Seance on a Wet Afternoon (1964).
Terrific acting by Richard Attenborough and Kim Stanley. Impressive camerawork.
Real creepy tale, well-told. Very impressive.
Tension builds as their plot slowly unfolds.
I thought this was a stellar film.
One of those films where the progression of things just leads inexorably downward and it feels creepy to watch things slide out of hand.

_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Befade
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:03 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 3784 Location: AZ
I'm all for the overlooked.

_________________
Lost in my own private I dunno.
View user's profile Send private message
gromit
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:18 am Reply with quote
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 9010 Location: Shanghai
Marj, I just stumbled upon some background on Father Coughlin and the Christian Front which Arthur Miller used for the basis of Focus:

Quote:
But Beck is no Coughlin. Beck’s comments and work certainly aren’t defensible. But the comparison to Coughlin is not only flawed—it is historically illiterate, denying Coughlin, pastor of the Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak, Michigan, his rightful place as one of the most odious characters in American history.

Coughlin was a giant in the history of radio, both the prototypical televangelist (he raked in the bucks) and the first political loudmouth with a mass following: He drew 40 million listeners in the early thirties to his Sunday afternoon program, double the 20 million that Rush Limbaugh has claimed for his audience. But he didn’t just talk; he urged action—illegal and terrifying. By1938, increasingly unhinged and openly anti-Semitic, Coughlin was using his radio pulpit and his 200,000-circulation newspaper, Social Justice, to advocate for the creation of a violent hate group, the Christian Front. The group soon boasted members numbering in the thousands throughout the cities of Northeast.
It has largely been forgotten that Coughlin’s “platoons,” as he called them, were responsible for a months-long campaign of low-level mayhem in New York City: They attacked Jews with fists and sometimes knifes. They boycotted Jewish-owned businesses (guided by a “Christian index” of shopkeepers) and sometimes smashed their windows in the German fashion. This ugly episode culminated when 17 Coughlinites were arrested by the FBI in January 1940 and charged with planning acts of terrorism against Jewish individuals and institutions (and those deemed their allies).

Although he didn’t have a role in orchestrating the plan, Coughlin, after a brief hesitation, gave his full-throated support to the “Brooklyn Boys,” saying in a January 21,1940, broadcast that “I take my stand beside the Christian Fronters … [and] … reaffirm every word which I have said in advocating [the Front’s] formation.” Beck hasn’t come close to scaling those heights.


Yet.

Miller alters the timeline so that this is occurring in the middle of the war, instead of pre-war (/pre-US involvement). I liked the menacing threat that these groups might expand and take over once the soldiers returned home. Of course, the war itself, and the scale and ruthlessness of the Nazi killing of undesirables made such an outcome highly unlikely, but in the film, the fear of the unknown and the passions stirred up by demagoguery add a palpable uncertainty. There is even an implicit threat that the returning soldiers are armed and trained and capable of violence to achieve their aims.

_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Marj
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:59 am Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 10497 Location: Manhattan
gromit, I have to admit that while I've heard of Father Coughlin and recently too, I never knew what he did or why he was well known, so this is quite a shock to me.

I also agree with what you said about Miller's take.

but in the film, the fear of the unknown and the passions stirred up by demagoguery add a palpable uncertainty. This is from your quote and that which I felt was the most unnerving.

I think for whatever reason, Focus, perhaps because it was written by Miller or perhaps for another reason I can't articulate, is the most unsettling of any pro-Nazi films I've ever seen. Of course I don't think I've ever seen such a film that takes place right here. Hitchcock's Saboteur had a small contingent working in the city, but it was clearly a suspense film and never pretended to be anything else but fiction.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
gromit
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:19 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 9010 Location: Shanghai
The wiki article on Coughlin is interesting.
I knew he started off as an FDR backer, but didn't realize he coined the phrase, "Roosevelt or Ruin."
Basically he was against capitalism and communism, preferring essentially a national socialism.

Quote:
On December 18, 1938 two thousand of Coughlin's followers marched in New York protesting potential changes to the asylum law that would allow more Jews (including refugees from Hitler's persecution) into the U.S., chanting, "Send Jews back where they came from in leaky boats!" and "Wait until Hitler comes over here!" The protests continued for several months.


What's interesting is that the FDR Admin took some rather questionable steps to silence Coughlin:
Quote:
New regulations and restrictions were created to force Coughlin off the air. For the first time, operating permits were required of those who were regular radio broadcasters. When Coughlin's permit was denied, he was temporarily silenced.

Coughlin worked around the restriction by purchasing air time and having his speeches played via recordings. However, having to buy the time on individual stations seriously reduced his reach and strained his resources.

&
Quote:
In October 1939, one month after the invasion of Poland, the Code Committee of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) adopted new rules which placed "rigid limitations on the sale of radio time to spokesman of controversial public issues". Manuscripts were required to be submitted in advance. Radio stations were threatened with the loss of their licenses if they failed to comply. This ruling was clearly aimed at Coughlin due to his opposition to prospective American involvement in World War II.


and then they denied him standard mailing for his newsletter:
Quote:
the Roosevelt Administration stepped in again, this time revoking his mailing privileges[26] and making it impossible for Coughlin to deliver the papers to his readers. He had the right to publish whatever he wanted, but not the right to use the United States Post Office Department to deliver it.


Not exactly a great moment to see the gov't squelch political speech. Soon enough, the govt would be interning American citizens of Japanese heritage and confiscating their property. The govt's dirty tactics pretty much wiped out Coughlin's voice, and the start of the war -- Coughlin was a supporter of Germany and Italy -- took down the remainder of his movement. Somewhat of an ugly chapter all around.

_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
marantzo
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:07 pm Reply with quote
Guest
Not sure what your point is, gromit, there is hate speech legislation now (there is in Canada anyway) and do you think that's a dirty trick.

Freedom of speech has never been absolute. Incitement to violence is prohibited for example.
Marj
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:42 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 10497 Location: Manhattan
Gary, gromit is talking about Hate Speech. If you read back to all of our posts on the movie Focus, I think you'll see his point. It's a film I think you'd find interesting too.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
gromit
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:52 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 9010 Location: Shanghai
marantzo wrote:
Not sure what your point is, gromit, there is hate speech legislation now (there is in Canada anyway) and do you think that's a dirty trick.

Freedom of speech has never been absolute. Incitement to violence is prohibited for example.

You can prosecute someone for incitement to violence or conspiracy to commit a crime, but the gov't doesn't have any right to block normal avenues of communication (radio, mail) merely because they don't like the message. Free speech, freedom of the press. And in the US, political speech is the most protected form of speech.

Veering off slightly, I strongly doubt that a hate speech law, or laws disallowing holocaust denial as in Germany, would be constitutional in the US.

_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
gromit
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:01 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 9010 Location: Shanghai
Re the new airport scanners and patdowns, Juan Cole as usual has a good perspective and adds hard facts to the discussion:

Quote:
In all the furor about the new TSA scanners and pat-downs at airports, what surprises me is that there is very little discussion of what exactly the inspectors are now looking for and why they are shifting tactics.

The old scanners and procedures designed to discover metal (guns, knives, bombs with timers or detonators) are helpless before a relatively low-tech alternative kind of explosive that is favored by al-Qaeda and similar groups.

The inspectors are looking for forms of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, which is from the same family of explosives as nitroglycerin and which is used to make plastic explosives such as Semtex.


Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, used PETN, as did Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the crotch bomber, last year this time over Detroit. PETN was in the HP cartridges sent by a Yemeni terrorist in cargo planes recently. And, a suicide bomber put some up his anus and used it in an attempt to assassinate the son of the Saudi minister of the interior (which does counter-terrorism). Yes, he was the first ass bomber, and he missed his target, though he no longer cares about that, what with being dead and all.

The problem with PETN is that it cannot be detected by sniffing dogs or by ordinary scanners. But if you had a pouch of it on your person, the new scanners could see the pouch, and likewise a thorough pat-down would lead to its discovery.


The TSA guys are trying to look more systematically for PETN. That is why they have adopted these more intrusive methods. And, there has been chatter among the terrorist groups abroad about launching attacks on American airliners with this relatively undetectable explosive.


His conclusion is quite provocative, if pretty speculative:
Quote:
And, you have to wonder whether air travel was not anyway a bubble. It depends on inexpensive fuel, which probably won’t be with us for long. It has a very big carbon imprint, which may soon be illegal. And it is vulnerable to low-tech chemical sabotage. Our generation perhaps, and the next one almost certainly, will have the unprecedented experience of having their world become larger and less accessible, after two centuries during which it shrank and seemed conquerable.

_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
gromit
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:02 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 9010 Location: Shanghai
The Overlooked Film Forum has been Overlooked.

_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Marj
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:07 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 10497 Location: Manhattan
AHHHH. I doubt it will be for long. At least I hope not.

Re:your hate speech comment. I agree. It will never be illegal, though hate crimes are a different issue altogether.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger

Display posts from previous:  

All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1897 of 2427
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1896, 1897, 1898 ... 2425, 2426, 2427  Next
Post new topic

Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum