Tuesday, March 20, 2007

He Asks for Patience...

Happy Fourth Anniversary of the Iraq War, one and all. Four years ago this morning, I was arguing with trigger-happy fans on the now-defunct Kingdom/Swamp boards, furious over the war's launch. "You've got your fucking war," I posted, prompting mucho heat from those who wanted war, but didn't want to fess up to war mongering.

Everything those of us who opposed this war said would happen before it began has not only come to pass, but every reason we gave for not launching war has proven to be valid. The only lies that have been uncovered were the always-dubious reasons to go to war -- lies, lies, and more lies.

And on this anniversary,
  • sans irony, President Bush

  • asked for patience this week.

  • Four years since he ignored all calls for patience with the inspection process,

  • since he recklessly plunged our country and our allies and Iraq (and the world) into this maelstrom of violence,

  • since he ignored all calls, pleas, protests for patience, diplomacy, due process,

  • since ignoring reality to pursue his own insane agenda, heedless of the consequences (save the fantasy he and his compadres fabricated), he asks for patience.


  • In preparation for this momentous call for patience, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow patiently
  • told CCN's Ed Henry to "zip it,"

  • a demonstration of Snow's impeccable, Fox-News-cultivated tact you can see here for yourself.

  • Of course, the momentous occasion of the anniversary has resulted in this event being downplayed (CNN's own immediate followup, to Ed Henry: "Ed, if it weren’t such a solemn day we could do about five minutes on that whole zip it exchange, but because of the the anniversary, we will let it go at that..."), though it is the most succinct summary imaginable for the rampant arrogance, hubris and power abuse that led us down this bloody path.

    Fuck these clowns; their arrogance is at last being challenged by the inevitable toll of reality -- not their manufactured reality, but reality -- and time.

    May it all crash down around their ears without taking the rest of us out.

    Happy fucking anniversary, U.S. of A.
    ___________

    U R Invited!

    I'd be remiss not to mention, after the attention I gave to Frank Miller's invite to yours truly to attend the NYC premiere of 300, the fact that Jeanine Atkins and Peter Laird invited Marge and I to this week's Massachusetts premiere/preview of the new CGI Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles feature. Alas, it's timing (late afternoon) didn't jive with Marge's or my work schedule -- especially given the additional hour the drive entails for us now, living further north up I-91 -- but the invitation is greatly appreciated!

    As with 300, reckon we'll (or I'll) see it with the rest of the country.

    Former Mirage Studio compadre, Cowboys of Moo Mesa and Bog creator, and all around sweet guy Ryan Brown also sent the invite, here, to a parallel TMNT event in Ohio; again, distance prevents our taking advantage of this, but such is life.

    [It was great to hear from Ryan, in part because of Bog -- I'm making some plans that (if Ryan approves) will bring some new life to Bog after a number of years laying fallow, as bog-beasts do at times. More on that later, after Ryan and I can talk...]

    It's been fun, too, seeing the anticipation among some of the Center for Cartoon Studies students for this new TMNT movie. I've no idea how it might be impacting on Peter, Kevin or the remaining Mirage crew, but a whole generation that grew up on the Turtles will soon get their shot at seeing this new take on the now-venerable heroes of their childhoods that played such a key role in their own lives. I hope to attend one of the opening night shows, if only to see what the audience is like, and how they react.

    It's fascinating to me, personally, how little of any substance has been written about the Turtles phenomenon and Mirage Studios in particular. It's the great untold story of comics in particular and the pop culture in general, and it's one well worth someone telling one day, in all its ups, downs and compelling human dimensions.
    _________________

    "Frank Miller invites you to attend a screening of 300 IMAX on March 8, 2007 at 7:30 pm at Lincoln Square IMAX 1998 Broadway, NYC. Please see attached invitation..." (visible here, now that the event itself is safely past)

    By now, most of you will have seen 300, so I feel it's appropriate to post my own views on the film later this week. I caught 300 opening weekend locally with some of my CCS student/compadres; though it was a 4:45 matinee, the theater was packed.

    It's been somewhat amusing to see, too, the ripples, including the
  • expected backlash against the film's caricature of history, Persia and its implications given current strained US/Iranian relations (or non-relations) and the Bush-fomented nuclear standoff,

  • and this petition against (chuckle) Warner Bros. prompted by ire against the film and all its stands for in the minds of those infuriated by its existence.

  • In the opening volley of the Iranian outrage directed against 300 visible to us stateside,
  • Siamack Baniameri wrote, "300 depicts King Xerxes as a fat homosexual and Persians as deformed and stupid monsters similar to what the Orcs looked like in The Lord of the Rings. Spartans on the other hand are revealed as rocket scientists trapped in bodies of Greek gods with comic book bravery and constant worry of losing their beloved and hard-earned "freedom and democracy" to the damn Middle Easterners."

    Well, almost.

    Xerxes
    is in fact presented as power-body-sculpted as the Spartans, except he's got all kinds of "shit in this face" (Tarantino Pulp Fiction speak for facial adornment) and moves and speaks with the narcissistic bisexual/homoeroticism Mel Gibson assigned to the gliding devil of his Passion (of the Christ) (which, by the way, was staged with techniques stolen from Mario Bava's '60s horror films). This is especially funny in the context of the Greek/Spartan homosexuality that history proper designates as part and parcel of their culture (and warrior classes); as Bob already pointed out in his comments to this blog, the macho elements of 300 are as homoerotic as anything mainstream American cinema has yielded since -- uh, Alexander, which was just over a year or so ago.

    And the Spartans hardly come across as "rocket scientists", though those bods are clearly Greek classical in their perfect pec-and-ab (CGI-enhanced) refinements: the Spartans, in fact, come across as reckless warriors. In his graphic novel, Frank Miller made a point of adhering to the Spartan mode of warfare he made key to his narrative (the reason for the rejection of the hunchback as fit warrior material); for the film, director Zach Snyder adheres to Frank's stated reason for said hunchback's rejection -- then shows his Spartans time and time again dispensing with any reasonable strategic advantage to indulge more vain-glorious onscreen posing and mayhem, however vulnerable it might leave them. It's stupid, really, resulting at one point in a supposedly tragic death (a decapitation that looks as patently phoney as any seen in the post-CGI revolution; Snyder should have called in Tom Savini or the KNB crew) that is risible, neutering the consequences of any conviction. So, if I may be so un-PC blunt, from fag-boy Xerxes to dumbo Spartans, it's all a CGI cartoon, as so many action films are today.

    Let's face it, we're in a pepla revival -- pepla being the Italian Hercules-inspired wave of muscle-man movies that flooded international movie screens and TV screens in the late '50s and the '60s [PS: see Tim Lucas's comment on this post, below -- and note his correcting my initial post misspelling of pepla, which I indeed, off the top of my head, misspelled pebla first time around; oops!]. And 300, the movie, is a fucking great peplum, and as ridiculous as any of 'em. Instead of Carlo Rambaldi rubber monsters, we get CGI orcs (and yes, they do come across as orcs in the film, and have no corresponding source in Frank Miller's graphic novel); instead of paper mache rocks and fog and Spanish beaches, we get CGI-created fake cliffs and oceans.

    But "history proper" has little, if anything, to do with the kind of full-blown pepla -- a permutation of the fantastique more than historical epics per se -- imagery and kinetics 300 the movie revels in, any more than it informed Ridley Scott's Gladiator (which was and remains a much better film, but more on that later). For that matter, the ignorance most critics betrayed last week about 300's source material says a great deal: compared to director Zach Snyder's slow-mo celebration of machismo, violence and war, Frank Miller's 300 is a model of cunning storytelling economy and restraint -- and by far the more focused, successful creation.

  • Here's the most insightful and pragmatic analysis of the international 300 situation I've read to date,
  • from the online Payvand's Iran News (posted March 9th, "The Persian Empire Strikes Back"), in which Iranian author Darius Kadivar places the pre-release anger in its proper contexts.

    This is essential reading; Kadivar ultimately poses the core questions, "What is more shocking: To be depicted as Villains in a film that is supposed to be anything but a history lesson about an event that took place 25 centuries ago? Or, To be associated to an entity that exists no more that is the Persian Empire itself ever since its removal by a widely popular Islamic Revolution that put an end for ever to what its supporters considered as an evil and corrupt institution?"

    He continues, "What the controversy about this film reveals as in the case of Oliver Stone’s movie Alexander is that the Persian Empire, with or without its King or legitimate heir, still exists in the minds of all Iranians and probably transcends even political convictions. It probably has more to do with our own Ego ( justified or not ) or is it a Freudian sense of self preservation and of our role as a nation in the History of Mankind?"

    More to the point, Kadivar asks, "Do we as viewers have [to] adopt a partisan attitude towards a film we have not even seen?"

    This places the initial controversy, in Islamic terms, within the realm of the overreaction to the pro-Islamic Mohammed: Messenger of God (which, despite it's being pro-Islamic and a film by a devout Islamist, prompted violence in mere anticipation of its premiere), and in Christian terms in the arena of the pre-release outrage fomented by Monty Python's The Life of Brian, Jean-Luc Godard's Mary, and Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ.

    And that, my friends, is meat for another post, later in the week.

    Now, given the fact the film has been widely seen, the outrage has only escalated, as the boxoffice for the film soars. So it goes with such controversies, by and large, though 300 had its own exceptional pre-release buzz (triggered in part by those ravishing trailers, the most effective in recent memory).

    I gotta run --

    Have a great Tuesday!


    Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

    Saturday, March 03, 2007

    Frank's a Class Act, Joe's Pix,
    and Cine-Ketchup


    A public thank you to Frank Miller.

    You know, in my 30+ years in comics, I've had a number of films linked to work I've had a hand in. The obvious ones -- Return of the Swamp Thing, From Hell, Constantine -- came and went without any special treatment or invites extended my way. I finally caught the former on video, rented from a tiny grocery store in South Newfane, VT, and a cold and bitter night of video viewing that was, too; the latter two I saw at the Kipling Cinema in Brattleboro, VT. None featured my name in the credits, so why expect anything at all? At least Constantine graced me and my family with royalties for my share of creating John Constantine in the first place (along with Alan Moore -- who deferred his share to co-creator Rick Veitch -- and John Totleben).

    I've been invited to three premieres linked to my work in comics: the NYC opening of Steven Spielberg's 1941 (back in '79), which Rick Veitch and I attended happily, briefly basking in the release of our graphic novel adaptation of the movie before it all crashed & burned in the backlash against Spielberg's failed comedy; the Northampton, MA premiere at the Academy of Music of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: Secret of the Ooze, which featured a character (Tokka) based in part upon my toy concept sketches for a snapping turtle monster -- the only premiere I was able to bring my daughter Maia and son Dan to, and hence of importance to this ol' pop; and Lance Weiler's cast-and-crew October 2005 closed debut screening of Head Trauma, which Dan and I were invited to (since we'd drawn the faux-Christian Comic, Too Much Grief, that figures prominently in the film) but couldn't attend due to work schedules.

    [BTW, only Lance made sure there was a byline (for Dan and I, in this case) in the film's credits. The other films, in their way, are as much a problem as a point of pride for my now-adult children: when they tell their friends "that was based on my dad's work," the inevitable response is, "Oh, yeah? I don't see his name anywhere." It was a comfort, at least, to see David Lloyd's name on the V for Vendetta credits; all the other Vertigo-based movies feature creator credits that are a slight variation on the bylines the 1940s serials based on DC comics characters sported -- of late, an unexpected consequence of Alan Moore's insistence his name be removed from any films based on his work. C'est la vie.]

    Now, I've nothing whatsoever to do with Frank Miller's work, or the films based upon them.

    But I've just received my second invite to a NYC premiere of a feature film based on Frank's work -- the Thursday, March 8 premiere of 300 at the Lincoln Square IMAX.

    Thank you, Frank!

    Alas, I teach that day -- but it means a lot to receive the invitation at all. Frank had also extended an invite to me and my son to attend the NYC premiere of Sin City; that would have been terrific, but again, work schedules prevented the trip to the Big Apple. But it meant a lot to be invited.

    Frank and I grew up about 20 minutes apart, though we never met until the mid-'80s, when we were both working with DC Comics. When you were a high school kid into drawing comics in the late '60s and early '70s, there were no mechanisms or means to meet, much less know one another even existed (oddly enough, it turned out we both had the same art teacher in high school, too -- Bill Cathey, who went from teaching at Union 32, the school Frank attended in Montpelier, VT, to Harwood Union High School in Duxbury, from which I graduated).

    We've had precious few chances to get together, but there was a period in which we communicated with some frequency (in part over Frank's possible contribution to Taboo; there were two stories he was toying with, "Rats" and a vampire tale, but neither reached fruition). My first wife Marlene and I were once able to help Frank and Lynn out, and we did. I have fond memories, too, of our initial chats at Mid-Ohio Con, where John Totleben and I ran interference for Frank to ensure he could make it out of the building and to his plane, back when The Dark Knight Returns had crowds of fans blocking his escape route. Frank has always made time to talk to me the few times I've asked. It's been a real honor to have my work showcased alongside his original art in the two gallery shows to date dedicated to Vermont cartoonists.

    In short, I love the man, his work, and it means a great deal to know I'm invited to his premieres -- it's a kind, generous and thoughtful gesture never extended on the films that were adapted from my own work, or emerged from my sweat in other capacities (e.g., From Hell and Taboo).

    Thanks, Frank, and bless you.

    Have a great premiere, sorry I won't be there (again), and please, take care of yourself.

    I look forward to seeing 300 like everyone else -- at the local cinema. Good luck in all you do!
    ____________

    First pix from the Wednesday CCS St. Johnsbury trip are
  • here, compliments of Joe Lambert -- enjoy!
  • _____________

    Cine-Ketchup, the Saturday Edition

    * An Unreasonable Man (2006) - This is essential viewing, and about far, far more than Ralph Nader the man. Framed perfectly with the most caustic, scathing post-2000 election slams imaginable against Nader for running -- a caricature that holds remarkable sway throughout the country to this day -- An Unreasonable Man chronicle Nader's activist origins, campaigns, successes, failures and the man's true legacy, via comprehensive interviews, testimonials and a rich variety of archival materials from corporate commercials, propaganda and promo reels (particularly from the car manufacturers) to TV news excerpts, bytes and much more. Inevitably, the cumulative path of Nader's fearless four decades of activism addressing public safety, corporate malfeasance and other social injustices leads to the fateful 2000 election trail and all that followed -- at last presented and analyzed in its proper sociological, political and media context.

    En route, the filmmakers trace a sobering portrait of contemporary America and how we got here, candidly dissected and discussed by Nader, his associates and his detractors (Pat Buchanan's analysis of the post-1980 Republican agenda and successful campaigns to fragment the US is particularly concise and chilling: literally, the neocons divided and conquered). Actions speak louder than words, but this war of words is a genuine springboard for action, and that, after all, is Nader's true legacy. Whatever you think of Nader going in to this film, you will be reassessing presumptions, assumptions, spin, caricatures, chicanary and lies we've all bought into on one level or another throughout our lifetimes, big-time since 2000. An Unreasonable Man will prompt deep thought, discussion and -- best of all -- action.

    [Full disclosure: I voted for Nader in 2000, and I don't regret it -- it's one of two times in my life I've been able to vote my conscience in a Presidential race, instead of for the lesser of many evils.]

    * Bamako (2006) - Abderrahmano Sissanko's Bamako (2006) is an amazing film on many levels: African agitprop (staged with disorienting & deft sleight of hand throughout), pragmatic portrait of a world tribunal in a pauper's kingdom, a meditation on 21st Century colonization, a sheathed castigation of the World Bank, G8, IMF and the malign influence of Western capitalism -- once this cinematic machete bares its blade, it cuts deep. But Sissanko takes his sweet time getting to that unsheathing, and therein lies the tale. Insistently rooted in the banality of Mali's day-to-day village life's rhythms, the film focuses on what is to Western eyes a most unusual and ramshackle 'world court', taking place outdoors in a yard adjoining a family dwelling in which life is lived (and lived out: a young man is apparently dying in a room adjoining the courtyard). This in and of itself evidences the utter disenfranchisement of Mali in the wake of 20 years of World Bank "adjustments" -- Mali can no longer support a single communal space dedicated to a court of law, if ever it could -- though many viewers will undoubtably miss the point if they haven't the eyes to see, the ears to hear -- and that, too, is the point.

    Bereft of even a proper communal court space, the trial proceeds in awkward proximity to daily rituals and work: a wife (who sings at a nearby club each night) calls for her husband to tie the back of her dress each morning before the procedures begin; a toddler wearing squeaky infant shoes idly wanders about and picks up a court document; women dying fabric work endlessly in the neighboring yard; outside on the street, villagers sit beneath old-fashioned loudspeakers, connecting and disconnecting the wires depending on whether or not they care to continue listening to the broadcast trial proceedings; a lanky man wearing sunglasses checks his book and screens the trial witnesses, denying entrance to those not on the list. Before the title appears, we see an elderly man walk to the witness stand to speak, but he is denied -- he has to wait "his turn," which never comes (though he does, finally, bear witness, via a song, in the last act). Furthermore, Sissako's methodology is alien to Western audiences -- Bamako is absolutely linear in its narrative progress, but Sissako disarms with fleeting use of cinematic devices used once, and only once, sans the cohesion repetition brings.

    For instance, he graces one witness's testimony with what could be either flashbacks or glimpses of parallel events (of refugees stranded in the Sahara), but no other. 37 minutes into Bamako, we are suddenly amid what appears to be an African faux-spaghetti western (starring executive producer Danny Glover), A Death in Timbuktu, which staggers into a black-comedic-shootout -- until we see the grinning faces of villagers who seem to be watching this "film," and the subsequent trial witness eloquently castigates the colonization of the African imagination via imported pop culture, providing (at last!) a context for this bizarre parodic western intrusion.

    [An aside: this sequence consciously evokes an almost identical, but much less disorienting, passage in Perry Henzell's 1972 classic The Harder They Come, in which Jamaican audiences respond to a rousing sequence in Sergio Corbucci's 1966 spaghetti western Django. Henzell presents Django as what it was/is: a film viewed in a theater, showing his protagonist and fellow audience members in their seats watching an actual import film seducing Jamaican viewers with its orchestrated violence and parable of revolution against a red-hooded, KKK-like oppressor; Sissako's invented faux-Afri-western functions similarly, but Sissako refutes the linear cinematic devices that "properly" frame the insertion within a more conventional narrative framing device. Thus, the colonization of the African imagination is implicitly rendered with more urgency: are we/they watching this film, or indeed imagining it? Is it imported, or adopted and absorbed, imagery? The differences between how these two films incorporate similar material is striking, calculated and consequential.]

    Similarly, the loose narrative frame most Western filmmakers would make central to such a film -- the mysterious disappearance of a handgun (which we never see), the incompetent 'investigation' (conducted, just barely, by a cross-eyed authority who appears as impoverished as anyone else onscreen), and the inevitable shooting (a murder prompting the funeral concluding the film) -- is relegated to a near afterthought. This fringe 'plot' has barely registered, even once it culminates in a roadside murder, coming as it does in the wake of the final act's concluding arguments from the dissembling lawyer representing the World Bank's interests and the piercing summation and final arguments of the attorneys representing Africa. With death so ever-present, thanks to the bankruptcy and privatization of Africa at the hands of World Bank policies, what does another death matter, really? The villagers, though, feel the loss deeply; the silent footage of a cameraman (earlier refused permission to film the trial) dwells on a lone, ragged man -- is he the murderer? Sissako provides no answers. What does it matter, given the explicit revelations of increased infant mortality, depleted life expectancy (now down to the age of 46 in Africa), gutting of any social or medical support network, lethal resurrection of diseases recently thought eradicated, the terrible toll of AIDS? Death is everywhere, its reign at best tolerated, at worst sanctioned by Western interests who deny their culpability with shameless abandon. In the end, it still means devastation and deprivation for Africa and its people.

    Bamako is a difficult film in many ways, but its beguiling pacing and imagery casts its own spells until the more overt political agenda of the film asserts itself with increasing clarity. The witnesses are, each in their own way, painfully eloquent, none more than the embittered ex-school teacher who introduced himself to the court, only to walk away without saying a word. My only real frustration was typical of many subtitled foreign films: the songs are not translated, and there are indeed two songs that are absolutely key to the film (the song the nightclub singer sings, twice, which frames the film, and the peasant farmer's song, which is at least partially translated when the female black prosecuting attorney references it: "Why can't I reap what I sow? Why can't I eat what I reap?"). This lapse is unfortunate, but as I imply, it's not unique to Bamako -- I've seen a number of subtitled films that simply don't translate song lyrics, however central they seem/are to the content of the film.

    This is the best African film I've seen in years, a brilliant, angry and poetic work.

    * Brick (2006) - I've recently screened this again, though I first saw it (with my son Dan) on the big screen at the Latchis Theater, and posted a review on this blog after that viewing. Anyhoot, upon revisitation -- I still love this film. It's a brilliant high school/teen noir, which is certainly its own genre (e.g., Over the Edge, The River's Edge, Heathers, Kids, Bully, etc.), though Brick goes the rest better via its complete submersion, sans irony, into its universe. One must steep in the film and engage on its own terms, or you'll be lost: the language (which, to oldsters, often sounds as outre as Anthony Burgess's invented nadsat language for A Clockwork Orange), the body language, the situations and mercurial play of confrontation vs. aversion, conflict and avoidance rings true throughout, and the performers never flinch. You will. Note, too, that unlike many of this breed, there's no pop or perverse adulation of youth (usually manifest in these films via overt sexual imagery and nudity): Brick's primary assertion -- the inherently fragile, often terminal nature of contemporary youth culture and subculture -- is its essence. Survival, with dignity, is fraught with peril, and many do not make it. It's a jungle out there, and nowhere is that jungle more lethal than in the realms well beneath the adult radar. For once, the bizarre vacuum of the teen universe is persuasively rendered, with mesmerizing, terrifying immediacy.

    * The Busker (2006) - Writer/director Stephen J. Croke's made-in-Boston drama focuses on a twelve-year-old Irish-American violin prodigy named Seamus (Alex Alexander) and his affectionate (non-sexual) relationship with Ruby (Ayla Rose Barreau), a 13-year-old Black girl, while while the city and family are torn with racial strife. Seamus's father is killed in a racially-motivated shooting, knocking the family on its heels and plopping little Seamus on to the street, busking (busking is street performing for donations via open violin case), which is indeed central to the film; his ability to transcend all this lies with a writer on a book tour who takes the kid under his wing and offers to get him into a music school in London. The film has all the right ingredients, but sadly falls short in the execution; too bad, as its heart is in the right place, and the whole is very well shot.

    Stephen Croke
    's visual and pacing sensibilities are solid, and some of the adult players hold their own; alas, it's stoic li'l Seamus and 13-year-old Ruby who do this in, or, more to the point, Croke's scripting of their roles. The young actors Alex and Ayla have onscreen presence and chemistry, but the dialogue is forever a stretch for them, hence I must hold Croke responsible more than the performers themselves; Alex in particular is to be commended for his onscreen violin playing throughout, Ayla has a grace and presence and her scenes with her father play well, and both young actors are likable and engaging until key dialogue exchanges continually falter and fail. Still, my affection for the characters kept me from resenting the cumulative misfires (I did watch it to its conclusion). I wanted to like this, as I suspect many viewers will, but there's no denying the air going out of the tire, and fast: the first 15 minutes pulled me in, but the inevitable toll of the earnest but flat central performances couldn't be ignored. However polished the production, the shortcomings overwhelm the films' qualities, including support characters grinning on camera at inopportune moments (e.g., the trashing of the pit, the tentative attempt by Seamus's friend to make amends, etc.) and ill-timed montages (to cover performance lapses too apparent to ignore?, one wonders) condensing key dramatic sequences to superficial skating over plot points. By the last act, the script is still working overtime, but the narrative flatlining has rendered one's emotional engagement moot and it feels utterly formulaic. Again, too bad; I look forward to seeing Croke's future efforts, and wish all involved nothing but the best.

    * Mind Games: A Love Story (2006) - Teo Zagar's affectionate documentary clocks in a mere 56 minutes (with a bonus short, Tom French's 1983 amateur film A Mutant Lobster's Tale), but there's no denying the relative rough-and-ready nature of the film itself: this is not a polished doc, by any stretch, but it is deeply affecting. Based on French's own written memoir, Zagar adheres religiously to the chronology of these people's lives, and Tom and Jacquie's story is engaging: best friends in high school, married "too soon," unable to have children (due to fertility issues for Jacquie) and further stressed by Tom's long hours in medical school and subsequently working as a doctor, separated after a decade and soon divorced, reunited three years later when Tom is diagnosed with "The Beast" (his term for A.L.S., Lou Gehrig's Disease), and their eventual remarriage and success at having a child before his death. That birth resulted in Tom's reversal of his prior "Do Not Resuscitate" order, which also lends this import given VT's current 'right to die' debates. The film is sentimental in an unpretentious manner: though the music choices are abrasively maudlin at times, the film itself doesn't reflect the treacly, mock-sentimentality of most TV product or bombastically so (like Disney Studios' America: Heart & Soul), but rather the earnest sentimentality of devotional bonds between partners, and their circle of family and friends living with and responding to that bond. This is balanced by the unflinching decision to present Tom's degenerative condition sans window-dressing (hence, the ever-present sound of Tom's artificial breath via ventilator: take it or leave it, it was a constant in their life). Indeed, a modest effort, but its story is genuine and heartfelt.

    * Vermont's George Aiken: Balancing Freedom & Unity (2005) - Rick Moulton is one of VT's treasures and a mainstay documentarian, producing and directing much of value for VT Public Television and other venues. However, efficiency and 'feel good' pleasantries dominate, which is fine when Rick's subject is the skiing industry, VT historical overviews, etc. Much as I hate to say it -- playing it safe, though, undermines the inherent value of his chosen subject here. Vermont's George Aiken may come across as a comforting eulogy for Aiken, the man and Senator, for those unconcerned with the meat of Aiken's life, times and legacy, but those seeking something of substance cannot help but be disappointed. This is regrettable for a number of reasons: by insistently avoiding contentious issues, the film doesn't honor Aiken's stature or legacy; it consistently softballs a career punctuated by hardball change, upheavals and politics (Aiken's 34 years as a Senator encompassed the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon Presidencies and the entirety of the Vietnam War and the '60s); as the first documentary on Aiken, it squanders an opportunity that may not present itself again, in the near future or ever.

    Thus, the film soft pedals its times, its subject, and by proxy his career and accomplishments, skirting any confrontation with what were most certainly confrontational and controversial times. Sadly, this biography also fails to chart with any acuity or perceptiveness the essential shift in Vermont itself, from being the most die-hard Republican of states in Coolidge's era to its present Blue State status. This transformation was & is as reflective of Aiken as it is of fundamental changes in the two parties, Vermont, and the US as a whole. Missing that, Moulton misses his mark completely. Still, there's worthy archiving of interviews, news and newsreel footage and materials to be enjoyed here. Inoffensive in the extreme, but toothless and ephemeral -- gee, I would have thought that an impossibility for a film about Senator Aiken.

    * Waterbuster (2006) - This documentary worked in spades for me. Vermont (Quechee) based filmmaker and Dartmouth grad J. Carlos Peinado and producing/scripting/editing partner Daphne Ross mount an effective, personalized portrait of Peinado revisiting his Hidatsa/Mandan roots in North Dakota's Upper Missouri River basin, which were literally drowned in the 1950s by the Army Corps of Engineers and the massive Garrison Dam project. Uprooted from their prior self-sufficiency and peaceful relations with the U.S. Gov't, the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation's American Indian community there lost 150,000 acres of fertile land and their geographic link with their ancestors and were thrust into an ongoing battle with Congress, Federal, State and local authorities that has only been aggravated by recent decisions to exploit the lakeside properties for their recreational and real estate values. This has further alienated the tribe and cut them off from the lake and their legacy and claims.

    But Peinado and Ross aren't simply intent on documenting the loss: this is more about cultural identity, a people's spirit and their bond with a river, the land, and their history. Thus, via footage of their own journey juxtaposed with extensive on-camera interviews, archival footage, and testimonials, Peinado and Ross explore their own bonds with all this, mounting a passionate, personal account with lyric clarity and intimacy. The current imminent domain debate raging at every level of gov't lends this an increasing timeliness: we can no longer just chalk this up to more of the same breaking of treaties with tribes -- Waterbuster is a template for corporate policies of the 21st Century and complicity with gov't officials directed at all citizens deemed "in the way" or otherwise inconvenient in property terms. Recommended.

    Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,