lew crippen / george kaplan mini-challenge (1 Viewer)

[Lew Crippen]

Ah, you are such a kid, George. Only 12 at the time.


I’m not too sure of how political the film is supposed to be. It is obvious that it is an indictment of the fact that the system pretty much results in incompetents running the CIA (and working in the field—love this line of Matthau’s early on: That’s Follett—he’s an idiot. Probably forgot to put film in the camera). But I would suggest that it does not take on any further significance. I have little to base this on, other than, as many times as we are shown Washington, we only get references to the CIA and FBI. No other agencies or politicians are referenced.

It would have been very easy to include a bumbling, overbearing politician to further gum up the works. That this was not done, indicates that the focus was limited to the fact that the incompetents get the promotions (and all of the implications of this).

 

[george kaplan]

Well if you notice, there's various pictures of Myerson with Nixon (and John Wayne) in his office that Kendig looks at while Myerson keeps him waiting. Also the fact that the real estate agent would only rent to a Republican further shows Myerson's right-wing ties. Kendig's destruction of Myerson's own home may be my favorite part of the movie.

I'll agree that the politics is secondary, but again, it seems to embrace the spirit of the times, such as the SNL Nixon skits of that era.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Well if you notice, there's various pictures of Myerson with Nixon (and John Wayne) in his office that Kendig looks at while Myerson keeps him waiting. Also the fact that the real estate agent would only rent to a Republican further shows Myerson's right-wing ties. Kendig's destruction of Myerson's own home may be my favorite part of the movie.

Good points George. In fact the ‘I’ll only rent to a Republican’ line was one that I considered as my lead quote (just for the humor—I didn’t think it that it was all that significant).

I saw the pictures but didn’t really make the connections—just something else to smile about next time.

 

[george kaplan]

I'm All Right Jack

Well Lew, you're batting 2 for 2 so far.

I went into this with no preconceived notions (as a matter of fact all I could think of was Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove when he says something like this to Gen. Ripper - which of course has nothing to do with this movie )

This is a very funny movie, with a lot of wicked satire of Britain and industry in general. I'm sure a lot of it is over my head, but you don't have to fully appreciate all of the satire to enjoy the film.

I do have a couple of questions though.

I noticed after watching this, while watching the trailer that this is actually a sequel to another film (with many of the same characters, though not Peter Sellers). Have you seen this Lew? And if so, is it any good? Obviously one doesn't have to have seen that film to appreciate this one, though since it focuses on their time together in the army, I get the feeling I might have a slightly different view of some of the characters if I'd seen that film first.

The second question has to do with the underlying politics of this film. Obviously this film is satire, and full of exaggeration. But satirists usually have certain viewpoints that they are trying to bring across. Frankly, there were a few times in the film when I felt uncomfortable with the portrayal of the union. Basically the union is presented as existing almost entirely for the purpose of allowing workers to do as little work as possible. I've never been a member of a union, but given that this is very close to the way that industry portrays unions, when in fact, the point is to make sure that these workers are simply not exploited, I just got uncomfortable with this. No doubt there are corrupt union officials, and lots of workers (union or no, blue collar or white) who try to do as little work as possible, but in this movie essentially every union member was in the union for the purpose of avoiding work.

This didn't keep me from laughing and enjoying the movie, but I do wonder about it. Even more troubling was the implication a couple of times in the film that the other reason for the union to exist was to keep blacks from working at the factory.

Now, again, this is broad exaggerated humor, and no doubt many union members were racist at this time, but I just cringed when this came up.

Again, this isn't keeping me from buying this movie, but I am curious about the nature of the satire, and what if anything was behind these portrayals as it related to 1959 Britain.

Any insights are welcome.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I’ll make a few comments as to the political situation of the day (perhaps Oscar or Andrew or someone will correct my Yankee errors).

The first is that the union movement in the UK was very much stronger than in the U.S., with one political party representing labor much more directly than here. This is in part, a result of the class structure in Britain, especially of that time, where the working class did not have access to the power structure of the country except through politics. Plus, as the film indicates the labor movement had closer ties to socialism and communism than in the U.S.

WWII, with the massive numbers of ordinary Americans who were thrown into the country made the ordinary working man realize that, compared to ordinary American’s they were disadvantaged. Yet another reason for labor unrest, strikes, etc.

So there is some sound basis for the satire. In fact (and I can’t remember if the film explicitly states this or not—so be patient if I am repeating something explained directly in the film) the title is a phrase that, for Brits would indicate the whole tone of the film and work force. I’m all right, Jack, was a phrase much in use that more or less, meant. ‘I’ve got mine’ or ‘I’m doing fine’, with the further subtext that I don’t need to put out any more effort, as I am OK where I am and working harder won’t get me any more.

Local audiences would need no more information than the title to have an idea as to the overall tone of the film.

Private’s Progress is a film set in the latter days of WWII, with Ian Carmichael’s Stanley Windrush as hapless in that film as he is in this one. It is quite funny and well worth a watch—the Boulting Brothers worked with several of the same actors (sort of a stock company) although these are the only two films that uses the same characters (as far as I know). Carmichael later played Lord Peter Wimsey in a series of TV shows based on Dorothy Sayers’ upper-class detective.

 

[Lew Crippen]

A bit more on your questions, George.

You are correct in that many unions of the day were determined to keep out blacks—actually I think that general term in the film for Africans, Jamaicans (and others from the West Indies), Indians and Arabs, was ‘darkies’ and the use was mostly pejorative. This would have been an accurate reflection of attitudes of the day and not unlike many of our ‘guilds’ representing a lot of skilled craftsmen. The system here allowed the masters to pick their apprentices and the guilds overall limited the number of entrants. Which effectively disenfranchised blacks and other minorities. This was one of the issues addressed by the civil rights movement here. And of course this film depicts returning servicemen who are determined to keep what was theirs.

Frankly, there were a few times in the film when I felt uncomfortable with the portrayal of the union. Basically the union is presented as existing almost entirely for the purpose of allowing workers to do as little work as possible. I've never been a member of a union, but given that this is very close to the way that industry portrays unions, when in fact, the point is to make sure that these workers are simply not exploited, I just got uncomfortable with this. No doubt there are corrupt union officials, and lots of workers (union or no, blue collar or white) who try to do as little work as possible, but in this movie essentially every union member was in the union for the purpose of avoiding work.

This is of course the satire and is often how the unions were viewed by the public (especially the middle-class and very different than their real purpose of protecting the worker’s from exploitation). However, don’t forget that the film also savages the owners and managers. Given that the premise is to force a strike at one owner’s factory so that another can gouge his (Arab) customer while both (along with the Arab buyer) spilt the spoils.

I view this film as taking equally savage swipes at all parties. And back to the union side, don’t forget that Sellers’ character is very much the fool, who is not even smart enough to not believe the things he says (like the superior working conditions in Russia—this of course very much a swipe at the then current left-leanings of many unions).

 

[Brook K]

I'm all right Jack
keep your hands off of my stack

New car
caviar
4-star daydream
think I'll buy me a football team

 

[george kaplan]

Lew,

I didn't realize the differences in unions here and there. That certainly would account for some of it.

You are right of course, that the film does take swipes at all sides (except for the middle class). I guess what struck me wasn't Peter Sellers character for example, with his pro-Soviet take. In essence this is just another individual like the two owners. It was the mainstream union workers having the attitude of laziness across the board that stuck out for me. I can see where this film is from the 'middle-class' point of view. I guess it's just hard for me to put myself into a make fun of the rich, and the working poor at the same time viewpoint. Mild political statement: It's kind of like the difficulty I have in understanding the idea of poor Republicans in this country, but they certainly exist

As far as the 'darkies' comments, I understand what you're saying, although I'm still not sure what to make of it. It certainly didn't seem to be part of the satire (ala All in the Family) making fun of racist attitudes, it just seemed to be a throw away. I'm guessing that the authors were probably neither particularly enlightened nor particularly racist, but this was just how things were, sort of simliar to the blackface in a movie like Holiday Inn.

Brook,

I obviously never understood the significance of that line.

Money it's a hit. Don't give me that do goody good bullshit.

 

[Lew Crippen]

The ‘darkies’ comments are indeed a part of the satire (and are meant to reflect real attitudes). This is just a part of the difficulties that we have in understanding humor across the pond.

Don’t forget that All in the Family came from a British sitcom, ’Til Death Us Do Part, which had to be completely toned down for American audiences. It was felt that Alf Garnett (the Archie Bunker of this series) as he was portrayed, had no saving graces and unlike Carroll O’Connor’s Archie Bunker would not be forgiven by American audiences for the utterances he made.

O’Connor’s character had just enough love for Edith and Gloria and enough onscreen charisma that he got a pass. If you ever have a chance to see an episode or two of the original, you will immediately see the difference. You may have to remind yourself that this is supposed to be funny.

Actually IIRC, Alf spent some time comparing playing the Germans in the World Cup to WWII and that was so funny it was hard to get off the floor.

 

[george kaplan]

Well obviously time and location both can lead to diminished understanding of a film (or other art work - Shakespeare anyone?), but fortunately I'm All Right Jack remains very funny even if some of the satire and humor is lost in the translation. Thanks again for the recommendation Lew.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I’m going to flip back to Hopscotch for a moment with one more musical cue—yet again taken from Mozart—this time Don Giovianni. Just as an aria from The Marriage of Figaro is played as Matthau is plotting (or in the act of executing) his next move against the CIA, he often whistles (and one sings the opening line) of Lá Ci Darem La Mano as he is about to talk to Glenda Jackson, or when he is thinking of her.

Now this is on of the most famous duets in all of opera and it concerns the rake Don Giovanni’s seduction of Zerlina, a young bride-to-be, on her wedding day.

It means, loosely (the Don singing)

Let’s walk hand-in-hand,
Then you will say ‘I will’,
See, it’s not too far
Come, my sweet, let’s go

At this point it is Zerlina’s turn to sing that she would like to, but has some doubts (as well she should). It goes back and forth for a while and finally, for the first time they both sing together:

Andiam, andiam mio benne,…

meaning, ‘come with me, come with me, my sweetheart… etc.

So when Matthau is whistling this tune, it is a reference to his seduction of Jackson and her acquiesce in leaving behind an orderly, predictable life to go off with a man who may be exciting, but is also unpredictable, unreliable and certainly uncontrollable.

And I love that only once do you get any lyrics—and then just the very first line and in Italian. The rest is just whistled or hummed by Matthau. A very nice touch to not be told things.

Great pick George.

I’m in non-movie watching mode right now, as our hardwood floors are being sanded and repaired after some water damage, which has put my main TV off limits all week (and this weekend as well). So it has been no movies this week and there will likely be none this weekend—except for the theatre.

 

[george kaplan]

Well I've got another of yours on the way (via Greencine) so hopefully I'll have another film done next week.

 

[george kaplan]

Spirited Away

Let me start by admitting that I have very little exposure to or knowledge of anime. So some of what I say may be offensive to anime fans, some might be incorrect, and some might be both. Feel free to disagree or correct me.

Most of my exposure to anime was on tv as a kid. Mostly Speed Racer, but also Gigantor the Space Age Robot, and Kimba. I’ve recently seen Grave of the Fireflies, and now Spirited Away.

Anime obviously encompasses lots of different kinds of stories aimed at lots of different audiences. I’m not one of those who thinks anime is just for kids. But still, there has to be something that makes anime anime, and it appears to me to be mostly an animation style.

Spirited Away has some absolutely gorgeous, first-rate backgrounds. I can’t say it’s better than anything Disney has done, since Disney has done some amazing backgrounds too, but it certainly rivals the best of Disney.

Unfortunately the character style doesn’t impress me. It’s the same crude drawings I’ve seen elsewhere, with the strange Caucasian looking Japanese humans, and weird Pokemonish non-human character drawings that I just don’t like. And the animation itself is very choppy without the fluid movements you see in the best of western animation.

Now, I don’t pretend to know the historical/social/political genesis of, or reasons for the continuing use of, this style of character animation. I’ll simply say that I don’t like it. That doesn’t necessarily make it bad, it just makes it not my cup of tea.

Of course the storyline is very important in any movie. I didn’t like Grave of the Fireflies, in part because of the animation style, but mostly because it was the kind of drama that I wouldn’t have liked even if it was done very well in live action. Spirited Away was much more enjoyable to me, although I have to admit, not quite so that I have any desire to see it again. It’s been compared to Alice in Wonderland, which I think is overly simplistic, but I certainly see the parallels (in both it's hard to get any rhyme or reason for why the characters do what they do - in SA, there are constantly characters who lash out at her, then turn around and treat her nicely for no discernable reason), and it’s probably pretty telling that Alice In Wonderland is very near the bottom of all Disney animated films for me.

However, I watched this with my son, and he seemed to enjoy it, and so I’ll probably buy the dvd for him.

Perhaps anime is just an acquired taste that I’ll someday enjoy looking at, perhaps I just need to see one with a different story, but to be honest, I think the style is just unlikely to ever appeal to me.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Funny, I was thinking that I should do a mini-challenge with Rob just to make him watch Chariots of Fire again.

That would be cruel, Walter....very cruel!

:wink:

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I have a great amount of exposure to anime, but I don't think I have the same expertise as others do with that same said exposure. However, I'll try and do my best to explain what exactly makes anime anime.

With the exception of a few high-end Disney productions (especially older films such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and Sleeping Beauty), anime is treated as a respectable artform, as opposed to or rather than a means of simply entertaining children. Don't forget that Western animation (U.S.) encompasses things such as the Smurfs (that may be German, but I'm not sure) and things such as Spongebob and the Wuzzles.

And since it is treated as such as a respectable artform, anime has a willingness to use more "mature" conventions than western animation on the average. You're more likely to see things such as bloody violence and nudity in your average anime show. This more or less has to do with differing cultural values in Japan. A certain level of violence and nudity is more acceptable in Japan than in America. Don't mistake this for all-out violence and nudity. I'm merely addressing differences and that Japan's is on the higher scale (2 pints to 1 pint of blood or 1 pint of blood to no blood for anime versus U.S. animation respectively).

I said before, "on the average" you'll find more "mature" conventions. It's hard to see this unless you were to illustrate this in some way. Imagine, if you will, if you were to graph the incidences of violence/nudity. You'll find more such occurences in anime than in U.S. animation. Don't forget, for every Lion King and Watership Down you get, you also get the Snorkles, the Wacky Wall Walkers, and Pound Puppies.

So you say to yourself, "What about Warner Bros. cartoons, specifically Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner?" Again, not only will you find the occurences of violence/nudity more prevalent in anime, you'll also detect a difference in severity. It's true that you'll see the Wile E. Coyote get his head smashed in, but do you see the blood? No, unless I've overlooked it somewhere.

Keep in mind, that's just one thing that seperates anime from Western/U.S. animation. Anime is an artform with more "mature" conventions on the average. You'll find some anime that's just as tame as some American productions.

Another convention that sets anime seperate from Western/U.S. animation are the animation conventions themselves. There are some very distinct differences, but it's very difficult to exactly pick out what those differences are, since I'm very poor at describing such differences.

However, I can point out some of the more obvious ones. Sadly, this has negative connotations relative to non-anime viewers. It is true that there are a lot of those conventions, such as the big, glassy eyes, exaggerated mannerisms, exaggerated proportions, etc. But what's lost on a lot of casual viewers is that much of this animation style was heavily influenced by early U.S. animation. Just look at the way cartoon bunnies were animated, especially old black and white Bugs Bunny cartoons. He had some very exaggerated features and mannerisms.

What's funny is that there's also anime influence on American animation as well. Take a good look at G.I. Joe and The Transformers. They're so heavily anime-influenced that you'd think they were anime themselves, and you could reasonably make an argument as such. Compare those two with things such as Golgo 13, City Hunter, or robot show and you'd be hard-pressed to say there are no similarities.

Another thing that makes anime anime, is something most anime fans will be loathed to admit: it's something different. Most of this difference is based on pretty obvious factors, but some of it does remain a mystery to me.

At this point, george, you're probably asking yourself this question: what the hell did anyting I just previously said applies to Spirited Away?

Well, you've spotted some of the things that makes anime anime. You've seen a difference in animation styles. Keep in mind, however, that that is just one style of anime. More specifically, the way Ghibli studios makes anime. There are other studios/animations schools of thoughts out there.

You've also spotted some of the other conventions of anime, such as the exaggeration of mannerisms (eg. the lashing at one point and being nice at another).

However, I want to address some of a few things in your post.

Perhaps anime is just an acquired taste that I’ll someday enjoy looking at, perhaps I just need to see one with a different story, but to be honest, I think the style is just unlikely to ever appeal to me.

I was instantly hooked on anime, but I can see how it's an acquired taste. Beer was an acquired taste for me, much like bourbon is. At least you're giving it a try, and it's admirable.

I am not the expert on anime on this forum. I'm more of a mid-ranger than anything else. I'll page our resident otaku Rob Lutter, Kong Chang, or that other guy with the funny name ( ), and see if they'll chime in. After all, I'm pretty sure I've made a mistake or two in his post concerning anime and its conventions.

 

[Rob Lutter]

*Steps out of teleporter*
Dome, you rang?

Uh, I don't think I can beat your post Dome, that's one long post! So let me just reinforce some of the stuff you have said...

Anime (pronounced as a shortening of the word "animation") can be everything in Japan. Action, Comedy, Horror, Romance, or even Porn!

Simply... American animation is geared toward an audience predominantly of children, and must present itself as so. Every time that someone has tried to exit this box of safety, they have been met with failure because it has been so engrained into our society.

Japanese animation is for everyone... there are shows for kids, shows for teens, and shows that no one would EVER show to their children .

Unfortunately the character style doesn’t impress me. It’s the same crude drawings I’ve seen elsewhere, with the strange Caucasian looking Japanese humans, and weird Pokemonish non-human character drawings that I just don’t like. And the animation itself is very choppy without the fluid movements you see in the best of western animation.

You know how much one episode of the Simpsons costs to make? Around $1 Million Dollars.

You know how much an entire 26-episode series of an anime show costs to make? Around $1 Million Dollars.

Anime is the art of telling amazing stories on-the-cheap... because it is so cheap to make, a show/movie doesn't have to be a "blockbuster" per se to make back the money invested. (this is something that Disney really needs to learn) It's known that anime has a small audience, so they don't try to be what they aren't. Of course, there are some exceptions (try out Akira... you shall be impressed )

Let me ask you this... how expensive does Spirited Away look? The film cost $16 Million Dollars to make, and to me it is about 100 times more engrossing than anything Disney can churn out for $100,000,000. It's also the highest grossing film of all-time in Japan.

Anime is just the tip of the iceberg on... Otakudom. It's a fun hobby that has led me to many friends I wouldn't have otherwise had. It's an addiction that you don't TRY to get into... it just happens. Try out some of the titles in Tony-B's 'HTF ANIME RECOMMENDATIONS' list that is in my signature for some title recommendations to start your way to the world of Otaku

Admittedly, I haven't bought a live-action DVD in about 4 months :b

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Furthermore, I'll chalk up your perception of the Japanese humans as Caucasian as a lack of experience with anime. Trust me, when you see a intentionally drawn Caucasian/westerner, you can tell.

Yes, according to anime, all white people are 6+ feet tall, have long, Romanesque noses and 3-foot wide shoulders. Howie Long is apparently an average caucasian. And let's not get into how black people are drawn.

Oh, and if the Japanese are so much less uptight about sex and nudity, why don't they allow hardcore porn?

 

[Brook K]

The spirits don't like humans, but Sen/Chihiro earns their respect through her actions. Others portray rough exteriors on first meeting her, but are really nice, caring beings. What's so hard to understand?

 

[george kaplan]

I have to get to work, so I don't have time to respond to all of this right now, but just to clarify a bit about the changing characters:

Lin starts out very irritated with Chihiro, then quickly embraces her. I'm not talking about how at the end, after Sen has done a lot she yells out 'sorry' from the boat, but very quickly when she's apprenticed to her.

I don't really understand Zeniba going from vicious attacker to sweet granny. Sure she was pissed off about her seal being stolen, then later she might be nicer, but to go from homicidal to talking about the power of love seemed too extreme to me.

Similarly the boiler room guy wants nothing to do with her, then suddenly is helping her out.

No-face goes from helpful to a horrible monster to the shy helpful spirit again. Here a 'why' is given, namely that just being in the bathhouse transformed him. But I don't understand the logic of that. It didn't have that affect on any other spirits.

I don't know, for me these were all harsh and unexplained changes of character disposition, but maybe it's just me.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Oh, and if the Japanese are so much less uptight about sex and nudity, why don't they allow hardcore porn?

Oh, they definitely do, although it's more of a censored form, so I can kind of see your point. It's still made though, and usually in the form of live action shows and even, gasp, adult anime (usually known as hentai I think).

Oddly enough, there's a cultural taboo against showing pubic hair (there once was a game show challenge where a girl had to strip down to nothing and try to get into a bath tub without showing her nether regions). I think it was on HBO or something. Please don't ask what the hell I was doing up at that hour.

But I think such taboos have been a relaxed somewhat.