Manufacturing Consent (1992)

Director: Mark Achbar                                        Writer: Peter Wintonick
Film Score: Carl Schultz                                    Cinematography: Peter Wintonick
Starring: Noam Chomsky, Bill Moyers, Paul Andrews and Mark Achbar

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media is one of the best documentaries every produced. Directors Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick made a crucial decision to stand out of the way and allow Chomsky, through a multitude of interviews and documentary footage, to speak for himself. The film’s title comes from Chomsky’s book of the same name, first published in 1988, a critical look at the corporate underpinnings of the media in American and the link between the media and politics in controlling U.S. cultural thought through propaganda. The film begins with Chomsky’s background as a professor of linguistics at M.I.T. and his subsequent philosophical writings about the nature of a free society. His view is that the more advanced a society becomes the more they need freedom from political and economic ties of the state and the ability to create on their own without coercion from a dominant governmental force, even if it is a democratic one. His study of human language and cognition has led him to advocate for an anarchic, socialistic society that seeks out authority and challenges the assumptions made by that authority, especially in respect to the subliminal control it exerts over society.

One of the most egregious areas of coercion in Chomsky’s view is private control over resources, but today that could be extended to include health care and insurance as well. Chomsky takes this idea in the direction of the media, where the Constitution defines the need for a free media that can act as a control on government and help voters make informed decisions. But the Constitution was written by men who believed that the masses were not capable of governing themselves and created a representative democracy that would remove them from the actual process of the law, placing the power in the hands of the elite. In order for the elite to control the masses, it then becomes necessary to indoctrinate them with propaganda, hence the need for control over the illusion of a free media. The key to Chomsky’s model of control hinges on the importance that there be a perception of liberal bias in the media. In this way the consumers of the news believe that there is an adversarial relationship between the media and the government and rest easy in the false confidence that their interests are being protected by media watchdogs. But the reality is that all of the major media in this country is owned by, and are subsidiaries of, major corporations that depend on advertising dollars from other major corporations to survive and therefor have no interest in subverting the dominant economic culture in this country by telling citizens the truth.

What the film does well is to present the alternative to Chomsky’s view. In yet another interview with Bill Moyers, he talks to writer Tom Wolfe who condescendingly dismisses Chomsky and academia as the new clergy, who need something to be wrong so that they can be the keepers of knowledge and understanding. The close up on Moyers as he grins almost lecherously at the idea, is chilling. But at the time of the film there were still 23 corporations who owned over fifty percent of news media in the country. Today there are far fewer as a result of consolidation, and a mere six corporations own ninety percent, while Tom Wolfe has become irrelevant in the literary world. From there the film goes back to biography, with Chomsky risking his career to get involved in the movement against the war in Vietnam, and unconsciously updates this message. Today the media’s “liberal bias” can be seen as total absorption with the idea of embarrassing the government, and that shift has had extremely negative consequences because it only seems to apply to Democratic leadership. While the right-wing hammers away at Democratic leaders in Washington, the mainstream media seem powerless to resist and join in by reporting their sensationalist lies as truth. But when anyone criticizes republican leadership, the right-wing reacts violently with spurious accusations of anti-Americanism which, again, the mainstream media seems compelled to report as actual news.

Anti-American accusations are closely linked with anti-war accusations. In the film, the first Iraq war had just concluded, and Chomsky makes mention of Bush Sr.’s illegal activities in the C.I.A. that are fleshed out in the documentary Dark Legacy, which even connects him to the JFK assassination. Clearly Bush Jr.’s illegal war in Iraq, in which he and his administration lied to Congress and lied to the world to achieve, fits right in with the media’s lack of criticism and utter lack of presenting alternative views to war, almost since the beginning of the Republic. The bulk of the middle section of the film is taken over by the example of the genocide in East Timor and the U.S. support of the Indonesian invasion that was completely suppressed in the media compared to the genocide in Cambodia that was reported widely in the U.S. New York Times editor Karl Meyer is interviewed refuting Chomsky’s claims, but it’s clear he doesn’t even realize how he is part of the system. A similar situation happened later with Rwanda. After failed U.S. military intervention in Somalia, the U.S. simply turned its back on Rwanda and the lack of anything like outrage in the U.S. media simply allowed it to continue.

Our civilization has developed within a context of convenient myths, says Chomsky. The most insidious is that of individual material gain. This ultimately selfish outlook on life is, of course, supported and reflected by the government that runs it. In a way it’s endearing that people want to believe that their government is good, a righteous experiment devoted to the welfare of all its citizens. But that’s not what it is. The United States is an oligarchy, with the corporation at the head and in control. And in that sense it’s not much different than the film The Matrix. People are continuously fed lies and myths that support the things they want to believe, continually given diversions like technology and sports, and immersed in a consumer society in which news media is just one part, no different in their minds than the reality TV and Facebook feeds they numb themselves with. “The question is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this, possibly terminal, phase of human existence democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured, they may well be essential to survival.” Manufacturing Consent is a tremendous film that should be viewed and discussed by everyone in this country. It’s that important.

Forgotten Silver (1995)

Directors: Peter Jackson & Costa Botes            Writers: Peter Jackson & Costa Botes
Music Score: Duncan Davidson                         Cinematography: Alun Bollinger
Starring: Thomas Robins, Jeffrey Thomas, Beatrice Ashton and Peter Jackson

One of the most impressive things in the special two-disc edition of the 1933 King Kong is the recreation of the spider pit scene by filmmaker Peter Jackson and his crew. The scene had been edited from the final theatrical print and was lost, but Jackson was able to put together a credible replacement that was almost as fascinating for how it was done as it was for the finished product. In reading about this reconstruction, however, I came across several references to Forgotten Silver, a TV film that Jackson did on a fictitious filmmaker from New Zealand named Colin McKenzie. It was made for a series of one-hour dramas presented on New Zealand television and it’s a wonderfully fun piece of filmmaking by Jackson and Costa Botes, a painstaking mockumentary wherein the two attempted to achieve something like the buzz that Orson Welles created when he performed War of the Worlds on radio in 1938. And this they did. They had a reporter that they knew write a piece for the newspaper as if the documentary were real. Jackson assumed that the hoax would be revealed in the meantime and that everyone would be in on the joke when it aired. But so many people were fooled that angry calls and letters flooded into the network, almost as if by creating this historical genius of their own and then suddenly taking him away was a terrible slap in the face to New Zealand.

The film begins with Peter Jackson being interviewed onscreen, telling how he lived only a few doors down from Beatrice Ashton as McKenzie's widow. It turns out she had a trunk in her garden shed containing films made by her late husband, Thomas Robins as the forgotten Colin McKenzie. The films turn out to be a treasure trove of cinematic firsts. By attaching the camera to a bicycle chain he was able to film the first moving camera shot. He also produced a sound film in the teens, but since all of the actors spoke Chinese it was a commercial failure. He and his brother then went to Tahiti to find a kind of berry that allowed him to film the first ever color sequences. But after a very funny trial for showing public lewdness, he embarked on a major production of the biblical tale of Salome. For this, he constructed a gigantic set in the New Zealand jungle that Jackson and his modern cohorts attempt to excavate. Once there, they discover the thousands of feet of film that the director produced for his film, and the documentary ends with the reconstruction of Salome and a screening that ends in a standing ovation.

What makes the film so tremendous is the attention to detail that Jackson brought to his spider pit sequence from King Kong. Still photographs of Robins as McKenzie and have an aura about them that is incredibly realistic. And even though they had the ability to take as many stills as they wanted, they limited themselves in the same way a historian would, so you see the same shots over and over. Jackson’s knowledge of film history, the way aging films look, the way shots were framed, as well as the specific style of documentary filmmaking at the time, all add up to a supremely satisfying spoof. Another thing that he and Botes did well was to start with small lies before building up to the whoppers. Even so, when one of the earliest of the films shows a Kiwi as the first man to fly an airplane, the zoom in on the newspaper in the back of a man’s pants pocket is just as ridiculous as when they do it on cop shows. The other genius move was to enlist film historian Leonard Maltin as well as actor Sam Neill and producer Harvey Weinstein for interviews that add another layer of verisimilitude. Forgotten Silver is an incredibly entertaining bit of whimsy, especially for film lovers. And the fact that someone like Peter Jackson can spend the money and time to follow his muse for a lark like this, makes me appreciate him all the more.

The Compleat Beatles (1982)

Director: Patrick Montgomery                           Writer: David Silver
Starring: Malcolm McDowell (narrator), George Martin and Gerry Marsden

In the preface to Philip Norman’s biography of the Beatles, Shout! The Beatles in Their Generation, he begins by saying that he would like to acknowledge the assistance of the four members of the band in writing the book . . . but he can’t, because they wouldn’t grant him any interviews. The same could be said of this documentary of the group. Made without any assistance from The Beatles, The Compleat Beatles was, for a dozen years, the only real filmic biography of the group and, while supplanted by The Beatles Anthology which came out in 1995, it can never really be replaced. Though there are no modern interviews with the band, director Patrick Montgomery and his researchers came up with a treasure trove of previously recorded interviews with the group, as well as new interviews with musical peers like Gerry Marsden and Marianne Faithfull, music writers and, most significantly, extended interviews with the Beatles’ producer George Martin. While Martin also figures extensively in the Anthology, his comments here are actually more incisive and specific to the recordings than the Beatles’ own documentary on themselves.

The segment of the film about the early years of the band also have a wealth of interviews by people who don’t appear in the Anthology. Bob Wooler, dj at the Cavern Club, Allan Williams, the Beatles’ first manager, Bill Harry, editor of The Mersy Beat, and Tony Sheridan, who the band backed on their first recording sessions in Germany. Since the Anthology contains no narration and only the observations of the band members and those in the inner circle, this film, in many respects, can be seen as a companion piece. While it’s only two hours long, it does a nice job of summing up the career arc of the band and includes a wealth of archival footage, not only of the band but of the related issues about them. For instance there is the backlash to John Lennon’s comments about the group being more popular than Jesus, or the reaction of the U.S. fans to their first visit. Local interviews with fans, especially in the United States, are prevalent, as are those with musicians like Bruce Johnson of the Beach Boys and Billy Preston who played on the “Get Back” sessions that would become the album Let It Be, and music writers who were around at the time and talk about the impact that the music had back then.

Today almost every bit of footage of the Beatles is available to fans, the concerts, the television appearances, and the interviews. But thirty years ago that was not the case. Montgomery was able to pay for the reproduction rights to all of their studio recordings, but also managed to find early recordings that don’t even appear in the Anthology. The director also had access to the concert footage from Washington D.C. on their first tour, the Shea Stadium concert, and especially the concert in Japan at the Budokan. On the other hand, very little footage from their feature films was available to the production. At the time this film came out the fledgling USA Network was doing a lot of music programming in the evenings, including all of the Beatle’s feature film and the entire cartoon series. But as far as biographical material about the band was concerned, this was it. And even though the bulk of the footage has become rather dated over the last few decades, as a unified whole it is still an extremely impressive documentary. The Compleat Beatles continues to stand on its own as a significant document of one of the most influential groups in pop music history.

West of Memphis (2012)

Director: Amy Berg                                        Writers: Amy Berg & Billy McMillin
Producer: Peter Jackson                               Cinematography: Maryse Alberti
Starring: Pam Hobbs, Damien Wayne Echols, Lorri Davis and John Douglas

This is an incredible documentary in the tradition of The Thin Blue Line. But whereas the former film was a true exposé, West of Memphis is more a summation of the case and a portrait of a criminal justice system still very much in denial. In May of 1993, three eight-year-old boys rode off on their bikes after school and never came back. Parents were horrified and families hit the streets as night fell to see if they could be found. But it wasn’t until the next day that they were discovered. They were found dead in a swampy ditch, stripped naked, tied up, and mutilated with a knife. It was a horrendous tragedy and the people of the community naturally looked to the police to catch the murderers. Because of the mutilations of the boys, one of the detectives who had been involved studying Satanist groups suggested that teenager Damien Wayne Echols, a known Satanist, be picked up. Not only was he arrested, but two of his friends were as well, and one of them, Jessie Misskelley, confessed to everything. The trial was swift and predictable, and the three were convicted and Echols sentenced to death.

What makes this film especially good is the way in which it unfolds, because initially it pulls the reader into the very conclusions that the police, the prosecutors and parents were making at the time. Juxtaposed, then, with the efforts of people to get the three convicted killers released from prison is almost maddening at first because it seems so unjustified. But then the facts begin to come to light. Lorri Davis began a relationship with Echols in prison and eventually married him. She assembled evidence and enlisted other people, famous people, to her cause and what they discovered was shocking. What the forensic pathologists who studied the evidence realized is that it was the turtles living in the water that caused the mutilations, not a knife. There was also a hair found in the ligature that was DNA matched to one of the boys’ stepfathers, someone who had not even been interviewed at the beginning of the case. Finally, it was clear that the police coerced the confession from Misskelley and did the same with other witnesses. In the end, there was absolutely no evidence, concrete or circumstantial, tying any of the three teenagers to the murder.

As stated earlier, this is not an expose as such. The Devil’s Knot as well as two HBO documentaries, Paradise Lost and Paradise Lost 2, had been released earlier. But what makes this one definitive is the participation of Peter Jackson. As supporter of the cause and a producer on the project it makes for a very well done film. It also has the benefit over previous films by including the resolution of the case and the fates of the three convicted men. Amy Berg is a documentary filmmaker from Los Angeles who did a remarkable job telling this story, not only in her use of existing footage associated with the case but the way it is presented to viewers and the quality of the new interviews. It’s not an easy film to watch because of the recalcitrance of the police who, to this day, refuse to admit their wrongdoing, and the judge who backed them up all along the way. Even the resolution is bittersweet in allowing the legal system to be held blameless in the documented and proven wrongful incarceration of the three. West of Memphis is not the kind of story that I naturally gravitate to, as true crime is usually too sensational for me. But this is a very good documentary and comes highly recommended.

Birdsong (2012)

Director: Philip Martin                                    Writers: Sebastian Faulks & Abi Morgan
Film Score: Nicholas Hooper                          Cinematography: Julian Court
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Clémence Poésy, Joseph Mawle and Marie-Josée Croze

One of the common complaints about literature that is made into film, is that the filmmakers change too much, or leave things out, or otherwise tamper with the novel or story. I admit, I used to be one of those who complained. But at some point I realized that films are a completely different art form, and that filmmakers shouldn’t be bound by the constraints of their source material. Often times, when the opportunity arises to film a novel almost completely and emulate everything in the book, it doesn’t really work. Birdsong is an example of this. A best-selling novel by Sebastian Faulks, the BBC series is overlong and as a result, dilutes its drama to the point that nothing in the picture seems dramatic. One of the things film does so well, in the same way as poetry, is compression of the story to give it maximum impact. By attempting to emulate the leisurely pace of fiction, Birdsong is utterly unable to control the narrative in a filmic sense.

Film is an objective medium, which means that the only thing we can know is what the characters tell us, almost exclusively in dialogue. So, long sections of internal dialog where the character tells us what he thinks and feels in the book . . . become long, tedious sections of characters looking at each other and saying nothing. It just doesn’t work. If the screenwriter had made Redmayne keep a diary, or done some kind of minimal voiceover, we might have been able to approximate the novel. But no, it was Faulks himself who co-wrote the screenplay, guaranteeing those long sections of non-verbal staring at each other.

I enjoyed the book, and in many ways it bears a strong relationship to Atonement, based on the novel by Ian McEwan, both of which use World War I for the backdrop of their love stories and a multigenerational approach to the narrative. Unfortunately, even with all of that space in the mini-series, the author decided to ditch the modern section of the novel, much to the detriment of the film. Instead, we have even longer to linger over the two streams of narrative, one from before the war, and one during. Eddie Redmayne is an apprentice to a French manufacturer, learning about modern textile techniques. He falls in love with the man’s wife, Clémence Poésy, while staying in their home, and the two run away together. This is juxtaposed with Redmayne during the war, alternately guarding the tunnel diggers and going over the top into no man’s land.

This is a popular mini-series, no doubt due to the popularity of the novel. But on its own, it lacks the impact of a feature film, the compression that makes the drama so immediate and so powerful. The two leads, Redmayne and Poésy, are very good, as is the supporting cast. But floating as they are, awash in a bloated narrative in which very little seems to happen because of the immensity of the film’s length, it’s ultimately disappointing. For those who have read the novel, it no doubt will be enjoyable, the story familiar, the characters engaging. But for those who haven’t, it will probably come off as over long, which it really is. And that’s too bad, because Birdsong had the potential to be something great, but was simply overdone.

In The Shadow of the Moon (2007)

Director: David Sington                                     Presenter: Ron Howard
Music Score: Philip Sheppard                           Cinematography: Clive North
Starring: Buzz Aldrin, Gene Cernan, Michael Collins and Jim Lovell

In the 1983 feature film Terms of Endearment, Jack Nicholson as astronaut Garrett Breedlove expresses some interesting thoughts about his experience in space. “There's a hundred and six astronauts in the whole world and I’m one of them . . . Do you want to know what bothers me? None of us ever got together in one room, locked all the doors, and compared notes on the experience. I think we had to pretend it wasn’t the fun that it was.” This feature documentary, In the Shadow of the Moon, tries to do exactly that. Unlike most histories of the U.S. space program in the sixties, this film doesn’t approach the subject chronologically by mission. It takes as its premise the experience of the astronauts themselves who actually went to the moon and compares all of the aspects of space flight, from the preparation to the liftoff to the landing and exploration of the moon itself. As such, it’s the closest thing to Nicholson’s locked room that we’re likely to see, especially with the passing of so many astronauts.

Another aspect to this film that fits it into part of a larger movement was the success of Ron Howard’s 1995 film Apollo 13. In the wake of that film came a number of projects by Howard and the film’s star, Tom Hanks. The most impressive is a dramatic reenactment of the entire Apollo program that the two put together for HBO in 1998, the miniseries From the Earth to the Moon. That renewed interest in the space program inspired the single most impressive documentary on the entire program, To The Moon, produced by NOVA in 1999. One other tremendous program that was made that same year by The History Channel and dealt with the Soviet space program is the lamentably out of print Secrets of Soviet Space Disasters. All of these programs feature interviews with surviving members of the space programs and delve into material previously only found in books. The explosion of interviews and information conveyed in a visual medium created a new interest and popularity of the original program that beat the Russians to the Moon.

The surviving astronauts in Shadow are Jim Lovell from Apollo 8, the first men to orbit the moon, and Apollo 13, the successful failure that was almost the greatest space tragedy in U.S. history, Dave Scott from Apollo 9 and 15, Gene Cernan from Apollo 10 and 17, the last flight to the moon, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins from Apollo 11, the flight that first landed on the moon, Alan Bean from the following flight Apollo 12, and the only non-aviator to land on the Moon, scientist Jack Schmitt on Apollo 17. The film emphasizes the experience of space flight, like the interesting fact of the way the rocket gimbals as it’s coming off the launch pad, and the way the packed schedule of the astronauts allows very little time for introspection. Though Ron Howard wasn’t directly involved in the film, he was brought onboard as the presenter to provide name recognition and a link to his popular film about Jim Lovell, whose book ;Lost Moon provided the storyline for Howard’s film. Those expecting a detailed telling of the Apollo program will not find it in In the Shadow of the Moon. For that they should check out the NOVA program. But for those interested in the human experience of traveling to another planet, it’s fascinating.

Vikings (2013-14)

Directors: Ciaran Donnelly & Ken Girotti            Writer/Creator: Michael Hirst
Music Score: Trevor Morris                              Cinematography: Jack Atcheler
Starring: Travis Fimmel, Clive Standen, Katheryn Winnick and Jessalyn Gilsig

The History Channel series Vikings that was so tremendous last year has definitely suffered from the sophomore slump. But perhaps that was inevitable. The production values, the acting, and most especially the storyline were incredibly compelling in their inaugural season. This year they seem to have been far too influenced by the success of Game of Thrones and completely given over to intrigue rather than character development. It’s too bad because, on it’s own last year, it was such a fascinating insight into a culture that has rarely reached the screen with anything like realism. And the potential for that to continue was something I had looked forward to with great anticipation. The first season also benefitted greatly from the short-term contract of the magnificent Gabriel Byrne as Earl Haraldson. His presence drew an audience in that might have been on the fence initially, and by the midpoint in the season they were actually hoping for his departure to make way for the ascension of Travis Fimmel as the famed Ragnar Lothbrok.

The real Lothbrok was a semi-mythological Viking warrior who is reputed to have led the invasions West that began the raids that would last for two hundred and fifty years. He is supposed to have had five sons who are actual historical Vikings. In the first season Fimmel is married to the breathtaking Katheryn Winnick. They are farmers as well as warriors and she supports him, giving him a son, young Irish actor Nathan O’Toole, and a daughter, Ruby O’Leary. But as Fimmel pushes Byrne to head West for new lands, Byrne’s conservatism takes hold and his fear that it will lead Fimmel to command the loyalty of the warriors causes him to deny his wishes. At the same time Fimmel’s brother, Clive Standen, becomes jealous of his brother’s success and causes Standen to betray him in looking for power for himself. The final battle between Fimmel and Byrne is realistic and riveting, and the raid on England is terrific in its surprise for the invaders. One of their captives is George Blagden who plays a monk who winds up converting to the Norse religion. He is actually one of the best parts of the second season. Two of the other standouts are Gustaf Skarsgård, son of the great Stellan Skarsgård, as the boat builder for Fimmel, and Jessalyn Gilsig as Byrne's widow and common law wife of Standen.

As stated above, the second season is primarily a story of shifting loyalties. This, of course, began at the end of season one with Winnick losing her baby and Fimmel being seduced by Alyssa Sutherland. Another interesting aspect of the second season is the leaps ahead in time. Winnick leaves Fimmel and when she returns a few years later their son is now played by the older Alexander Ludwig. Fimmel also has to broker a peace between the king, Donal Logue, and his rival Thorbjørn Harr who has taken on Standen as one of his warriors. But that’s just the beginning. More of the action takes place in England as the Viking royalty ban together to secure more fertile land to live on, and intrigue with the English princes is just as vicious. Ultimately, this isn’t nearly as interesting as the first season that was so focused on the characters. And as more of the action takes place in Britain it would appear that season three of the show will definitely be drifting more toward a Game of Thrones storyline, and that’s disappointing. It was the unique aspect of the show that made it so interesting, and copying something else makes it seem much less so. I just hope Vikings can get back to the character driven stories of the Norse people that were so compelling that first season. But time will tell.

JFK: A Presidency Revealed (2003)

Writer: David C. Taylor                                   Cinematography: Harrison Moore
Film Score: David Cottrell                               Editor: Patrick J. Donnelly

The History Channel has had a dubious reputation for producing documentaries because of their seeming right-wing agenda. They have, however, done some interesting work at times. One of the most impressive was their film on the Soviet space program, History Undercover: Soviet Space Disasters. As far as JFK goes, their program on the assassination was pure government propaganda in perpetuating the lone-gunman theory with Oswald as the killer. In fact, when they used the Zapruder film on that program they completely left out the headshot because it shows him being thrown backward by the gunshot from the grassy knoll. JKF: A Presidency Revealed makes the same assertion and claims again that Oswald was the shooter, even though the FBI tests on him showed no gunshot residue on his face that would have been consistent with firing a rifle. But it’s only a minute of the show. As for the rest of the program, it’s a very good look at the presidency of one of our greatest presidents.

That’s a bold statement, but one that is borne out by the evidence. Had a man been in office who had less fortitude, Nixon for instance, it is almost a certainty that the world would have been plunged into a nuclear war of some magnitude. On at least three occasions John F. Kennedy defied his military advisors and refused to follow the belligerent, right wing, military-industrial complex party line in order to do what was best for the country and the world. But it wasn’t an easy road. Coming into the office he took some brutal hits and initially his inexperience threatened to overwhelm him. Ironically, however, the Bay of Pigs debacle is probably more responsible than anything for his ability to distrust what the military was convinced had to be done and instead do what his moral compass led him to do. At the same time the youth of he and Jackie and their young children was transforming the white house and the country’s image of the presidency.

There are some good interview subjects for the documentary as well. Robert McNamara gives commentary on Kennedy’s foreign policy, but Teddy Kennedy also makes some nice observations on his brother’s presidency. I could have done without Oleg Cassini’s interview about Jackie’s dresses, but I guess that was part of her mystique. There was also a considerable discussion of Kennedy’s physical problems and several mentions of his dalliances with women. The other aspect of his presidency that comes out is his reliance on brother Robert Kennedy and the real teamwork the two engaged in--though not personally. It was rather surprising to learn that RFK was never invited once up to the residence, but perhaps that’s understandable given the amount of time they worked together during the day and spend together with family. As a bonus, two of the A&E Biographies are included, one on President Kennedy and the other on his father Joe. JKF: A Presidency Revealed does not have a conservative bias and finally offers an objective view of a great president, one that in retrospect deserves to be considered among our greatest.

Stauffenberg (2004)

Director: Jo Baier                                          Writer: Jo Baier
Film Score: Trevor Morris                              Cinematography: Jack Atcheler
Starring: Sebastian Koch, Rainer Bock, Enrico Mutti and Nina Kunzendorf

Stauffenberg is a German TV movie that was renamed Operation Valkyrie only after the American film Valkyrie with Tom Cruise was released and to capitalize on the publicity surrounding that film. This is obvious from the fact that the name of the operation is barely mentioned in this film. Of course Claus von Stauffenberg led the most publicized attempt to assassinate Hitler, planting the bomb himself at the Wolf’s Lair, and coming within a hair’s breath of taking over the government and making peace with the Allies. There have been numerous films dealing with the failed assassination tangentially, from The Desert Fox and Night of the Generals, to the TV miniseries Twist of Fate, but this was the first to deal primarily with the architect of the plan and the aftermath for him and his comrades who were assassinated themselves before they could divulge any more of the people involved in the conspiracy.

The film begins with a lengthy montage, starting with Sebastian Koch as the young Stauffenberg, eager to do well in the army and idolizing Hitler. In 1939 in Poland he still exhibits the master race syndrome in his attitude toward the conquered peoples, but by 1942 in Russia, hearing of the atrocities perpetrated by the SS, he begins to question the real purpose behind the war. From there the film jolts along in large chunks, first to Africa where he loses an eye and one of his hands, then to 1943 in the midst of planning the assassination, to 1944 when he leaves for Berlin to carry out the plan. The story to this point is very elliptical, probably relying on the German familiarity with the story, though it does leave quite a bit out. Once Koch has carried out the bombing he makes a narrow escape back to Berlin. Though the operation known as Valkyrie was supposed to have been set in motion, nothing actually happens until he gets back. Rainer Bock, second in command, lacks the spine to order the military occupation of Berlin in time which allows Enrico Mutti, head of the German Guard, to have his orders rescinded. With predictable consequences for the conspirators.

Ultimately the film is not as good as the American version. To be fair, however, they did have slightly different purposes. As the original German title shows, this film was more about the man than the operation. What is difficult to ascertain without further reading is exactly how much leadership Stauffenberg was given. Here it seems as if he is the leader of the conspiracy and running things to his specifications. In the Tom Cruise film from four years later it was clear he was simply running the assassination and that others higher up were in charge of Valkyrie. The production values are good for a television film, especially the scenes in Africa, and many of the building interiors would be the same ones used four years later in the American version. German writer-director Jo Baier has done primarily television films and does a decent job here directing, but his script leaves so much out that not only is the audience left out of the operational planning, but doesn’t really get a sense of the man either. Nevertheless, the film was given a German Television Award. Operation Valkyrie is an interesting take on the subject, but I would definitely recommend the American version over it.

Race for the Double Helix (1987)

Director: Mick Jackson                                 Writer: William Nicholson
Film Score: Peter Howell                              Cinematography: Andrew Dunn
Starring: Jeff Goldblum, Tim Pigott-Smith, Alan Howard and Juliet Stevenson

The phrase “TV Movie” has been a pejorative description ever since those programs first appeared. Low budgets, lesser talent, and weak production values make for films that will never be able to compete, in terms of quality, with feature films produced by a major studio. One of the delights, however, in any generalization is the exception to the rule. Race for the Double Helix, a BBC production from 1987, is a magnificent piece of work that can hold its own with any feature film, and has been one of my favorite films of all time since I first saw it on the A&E Network.

Nominally based on James Watson’s book, Double Helix, (the “Race” was added to the title of the film for American audiences) the film concerns the discovery of the structure of DNA, the genetic material that is responsible for the reproduction of life on earth. Watson had been doing research in molecular biology in Europe and eventually made his way to London, working at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge with Francis Crick. The two of them struck up a friendship based on their interest in “genes,” at the time an imaginary structure that was responsible for replication of biological organisms. By using guile and taking daring guesses, they were able to deduce the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. The two of them, along with Maurice Wilkins, were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962 and would have been joined by Rosalind Franklin had she not died in the interim.

I call the film “Rocky for Geeks.” Not only is it highly inspirational, but the film itself, from its construction, to the script, to the acting, is incredibly intellectual. Director Mick Jackson works primarily in television, but has done some feature films like L.A. Story and The Bodyguard. But it’s William Nicholson’s script that almost leaps off the screen. Of course, he has been responsible for some major blockbusters, Gladiator, Elizabeth and Les Miserables among them. He turned the story into something akin to a musical piece, with separate movements named for phrases in the script that guide our understanding of the story. It really is a beautiful piece of work, with subtle humor and understated drama that is absolutely enthralling.

The big coup at the time was getting Jeff Goldblum to play Watson, thereby enhancing the credentials of the production. But the rest of the British actors are just as good. Tim Pigott-Smith as Crick is a vastly underrated actor who has been fantastic in everything he’s been in. Alan Howard as Wilkins falls into the same category, stunning in The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover but unfortunately limited to television work thereafter. Juliet Stevenson is the real star of the show as Rosalind “Rosie” Franklin. And even though her biographer, Brenda Maddox, took issue with the way that she was portrayed, she is still a captivating character and her unsung role in the discovery is amply demonstrated.

Now the bad news. This is one of those films, especially TV movies, that has yet to make an appearance on DVD, and there’s no telling when or if it will happen at all. With relatively few original VHS copies out on the market, those that are for sale are ridiculously overpriced. My copy was taken off of the television, minus the commercials, on VHS and then subsequently converted to MP4 so that I could watch it on TV from my iPod. The picture lags, but the soundtrack is fine. I can upload it to one of my websites if anyone is interested. Race for the Double Helix is not just great science, but great filmmaking, inspirational and artistic, a brilliant film in almost every respect.

Carmen (2013)

Director: Yves Beaunesne                               Composer: Geroges Bizet
Conductor: Philippe Jordan                              Libretto: Henri Meilhac & Ludovic Halévy
Starring: Anna Caterina Antonacci, Nikolai Schukoff, Genia Kühmeier and Ludovic Tézier

After seeing the advertisements for live operas at the movie theater for years, I finally had my first chance to experience one this afternoon at The Washington Center for the Performing Arts in Olympia. I had originally bought my tickets to the performance of Bizet’s Carmen thinking it would be a local production, but was delighted to find it was a filmed version from Paris two years ago. The last time I had seen Carmen was twenty years ago at the Seattle Opera House. That production was set in Spain during the fifties during Franco’s fascist regime, complete with trench coats, fedoras and the ultimate femme fatale. I remember enjoying it immensely, though apparently there was some pushback by the patrons who felt the story was a little too risqué. But that certainly wasn’t the fault of the setting, it’s in the original and the story was just as controversial in 1875 when in premiered. That fifties version, however, is nothing compared to Yves Beaunesne’s 2012 production, set in the seventies after Franco’s death.

The story of Carmen is something right out of film noir. Soldier Don José has decided to marry his girlfriend Micaëla, but the alluring Carmen seems to have her eye on him. When she is arrested for pulling a knife on one of the women in the factory, José succumbs to her charms and lets her go while he is arrested for dereliction of duty. A month later Carmen is delighted to learn of José’s release, and thus when the bullfighter Escamillo sets his sights on Carmen she spurns him. José at last is reunited with Carmen, but when he wants to return to the barracks she taunts him into abandoning the army altogether and participating in the criminal activities of her friends. Inevitably, Carmen becomes bored with José, but when Micaëla comes to get him he is so blind with jealousy over Escamillo’s declaration of love for Carmen that he doesn’t want to go. When she tells him his mother is dying, however, he reluctantly leaves. Then José shows up at the bullfight to win back his obsession, but Carmen utterly dismisses him and tragedy ensues.

One of the biggest knocks against the production when it premiered two years ago was the costuming. When one thinks of altering the setting of an opera the hope is that it will be with the idea of enhancing the public’s enjoyment of the music, something most of them are already familiar with. The problem with the “disco” version of Carmen staged by Yves Beaunesne is that the updated setting becomes a distraction. And it’s not even the setting, per se. The actual sets look like they could have been anytime from the original eighteen twenties version right on up to the nineteen thirties. Given that, then, the go-go boots and leisure suits are so incongruous that they literally are a distraction. Carmen wears a blonde Marilyn Monroe wig and black sequined dress while José in his army uniform looks normal. Add to that the six foot four transvestite prancing around with exposed plastic breasts and that part of the opera is very disappointing.

The one indisputable high point, however, is the music. Conductor Philippe Jordan and the Orchestra of the National Opera of Paris were both outstanding. The principal leads were less so. Anna Caterina Antonacci as Carmen did a solid job, but little more. The blonde wig only accentuated her age, fifty at the time, and that tended to diminish the up close shots in the film. Her voice was good, but the real star vocally was Genia Kühmeier as Micaëla. She lit up the stage with her singing and received by far the biggest ovation at the close of the performance. Likewise, tenor Nikolai Schukoff was solid as Don José but he paled in comparison to Alexandre Duhame who, in a small role as a corporal in the first act, was missed sorely by his absence the rest of the performance. Baritone Ludovic Tézier as the toreador Escamillo was the other solid performer, though he looked like fat Elvis in his white leisure suit in the second act. In all, filmed opera is a terrific experience. Being able to see Carmen at the Paris Opera “live” without going there was a real treat and I’m looking forward to doing it again.

The World at War (1973-74)

Directors: Hugh Raggett & John Pett              Writers: Neal Ascherson & Peter Blatty
Music Score: Carl Davis                                Cinematography: Peter Lang
Narration: Laurence Olivier                             Editing: Beryl Wilkins & Alan Afriat

One of the most haunting melodies ever written was by composer Carl Davis for the BBC series The World at War. The music was made even more dramatic by the opening montage of black and white images of faces associated with the war that burned and blistered into each other as the flames rose in front of them. Forty years after its first airing it is still the best documentary series on World War II ever produced. Likely it always will be. Even Ken Burns wound up bottoming out when he reached World War II and his series The War wound up being one of his least successful. Whatever technical advances in film and documentary work that have taken place since, most of the people who were in the war are now gone. The thing that makes this such a riveting piece of work is the interviews with people like Abert Speer and Kay Summersby and the immediacy that they bring. In addition a host of other lesser subjects, both military and civilian, take part in bringing the history alive.

Another aspect that is missed so greatly in recent documentaries is the gravity with which the material is presented. To a large degree the credit for that must go to the narrator of the series, Laurence Olivier. He has exactly the right tone, both grave and ironic at times, but always with a sense of the reverence for the material. The writing is also incredibly good because it’s not compelled to fill every empty space. This is a visual medium and most of the time the images speak for themselves. And the directors of the series do a nice job of letting them. The other problem with covering World War II is deciding how much to cover. With two major theaters of war and a half dozen other minor theaters it is vastly complex and takes place over a six-year period--even more when attempting to explain the events leading up to the war. The producers wisely chose a geographical approach.

After an opening episode looking at the beginnings, there are shows that look at each of the major countries as they enter the war. France is first, the victim of Blitzkrieg and suddenly out of the war. Britain is focused on prior to America’s entry and how they were left to fight the Germans alone. There are episodes on Barbarosa, Hitler’s invasion of Russia, the Japanese threat in Asia, U.S. isolationism, and the African campaign. Episodes on Russia, Nazi Germany, Japan, D-Day, The Holocaust, and the Atomic bomb followed the next year. In addition to the episodes that aired in the seventies, several shorter episodes have been put together with existing footage on Hitler’s secretary (a great German film that features her is called Downfall with Bruno Ganz), the soldiers who fought on all sides, two expanded episodes on Nazi Germany as well as two on The Holocaust and the end of the war. The World at War is still the best series ever produced on World War II, and arguably one of the greatest documentaries of all time, regardless of subject.