posted by DJDangerRanger at 10:00 PM
0 comments
Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Sunday, March 13, 2016
Where to Invade Next
One thing I've always appreciated about Michael Moore is the calm, sunny disposition with which he carries himself throughout the bulk of his documentaries. While genuine at times, more often than not it's tongue in cheek as he tries to confront some extremely serious issues facing our world. And while he can turn on the righteous anger when necessary, that's certainly not his default setting; he is often unfairly characterized by his detractors on the right as being an irrational fuming windbag.
Those who share a fondness for Moore's gentler side are in luck, as his latest movie, Where to Invade Next, is perhaps the best distillation of that vintage to date - his sarcasm is even present in the title itself. The premise is that Moore travels around to a number of (almost exclusively European) countries to try and study successful public or societal practices they've enacted that he can claim and take back to America.
He taps into an extensive range of topics from school lunches to the death penalty, generally to thought provoking effect. We drool over the four course meals eaten daily at even the most impoverished public schools in France, we grow green with envy as an Italian couple tabulates their seemingly endless amount of paid time off, and we marvel at the privileges granted to even highest level felons in Norwegian prisons, where the recidivism rate is less than a quarter of the US's. (But it would have been nice to see any of the inmates he spoke to acknowledge that they had done something wrong. As presented it's a bit hard to swallow seeing an admitted murderer spending his incarceration joking, playing Xbox, and riding his bike around the park without knowing if he's actually accepted responsibility for his actions. I realize this portion of rehabilitation was likely a prerequisite for earning such perks, but it's not something made mention of on camera).
The most moving scenes involve German students discussing their experiences meeting Holocaust survivors in an effort to come to terms with their nation's dark past, and most heart-breakingly, as we listen to a father describe speaking to his son on the phone moments before he was gunned down by Anders Breivik on Utøya Island in the 2011 Norway attacks. In a moment difficult to fathom for an American such as myself, fed on a steady diet of equating punishment with justice, the father refuses to admit any desire for revenge or retribution towards Breivik.
Perhaps the concept that resonated the most with me though involved the high quality of education in Finland, whose students rank #1 in the world (the U.S. currently sits at 29). One of their primary keys to success, we are told, is the almost complete absence of private schools. As a result, wealthier parents ensure that public schools are as good as possible to the benefit of all, and by attending classes with students from different social castes their children learn a greater sense of empathy. The idea of "shopping" for a school when looking for housing is non-existent there. (And as a secondary result, supplementary conditions like the quality of lunch food, are likely to be higher as well).
This struck a chord with me because I believe my own experiences bear this out to a degree as well.
One thing relatively unique to the Midwest is the smaller role private schools play. The notion that exists on the East Coast or in Orange County that to be successful one needs to pay tuition to attend an exclusive boarding school from birth is either greatly diminished or totally absent in most heartland communities.
In my medium-sized hometown only one sizable private high school even existed and it was primarily religiously focused, and thus the upper-middle class residents have seen fit to make sure all the public schools, where most of their kids will be attending, provide an educational experience well above average by most metrics. And while we probably could have done with a little more diversity among the student population and a few more veggies on our food trays, it's still an example worth noting.
On the flipside, in my current adopted slightly-larger place of residence the central city's public school district is viewed with increasing skepticism by parents who very often move out to the suburbs to raise their families. And yet even this tactic is proving increasingly futile as the state government has chosen over the last several years to cut traditional K-12 funding and funnel more money to support voucher programs - i.e. providing parents with public stipends to send their children to private schools (which even Donald Trump condemned). In turn, districts across the state have had to ask their constituents to vote on levy's increasing their tax dollars simply to maintain an adequate level of service, even in the 'burbs. This coming after generations of successful investment in public education, which have apparently been ignored. As one might imagine, seeing the outcomes in Finland where the complete opposite strategy has been embraced was rather eye-opening.
Moving on, the film touches upon a number of other noteworthy topics too such as the dividends that pay out when including women in both public and private leadership roles in Tunisia and Iceland, the decriminalization of drug usage in Portugal, and the number of American students moving to Slovenia where college tuition is free. (Though I found the assertion by Portugal's Federal Drug Commissioner that Facebook does as much harm to a user's family as a drug addict's habits, to be in poor taste, especially as it was played for laughs). Much of this is done with Moore's trademark sense of humor, as he paints a somewhat exaggerated description of America's lesser versions of these institutions to his aghast interviewees.
The ultimate message, summarized near the end of the film in a montage of Moore's interview subjects, is that many residents in the US, and by effect our elected officials and policies, are too focused on personal self-interests. We think in terms of "I" instead of "we," and are always striving for more simply because that's what we've been conditioned to do, not because we need it. There's a middle ground to be found between rugged self-reliance and outright communism.
And while that is a point I mostly agree with in both the abstract and in many of the specific ways the movie illustrates, there are a number of faults with some of the arguments Moore presents here. These largely stem from his failure to present a broader picture of the cultures and societies he visits, and further, the particulars of how his cherry-picked policies would play out in an America much different from these nations across the pond. Therein lies one flaw with the decidedly upbeat tone he strikes here, because fleshing out the downsides would be a drag.
While I still think most of these proposals are worthy of our study and even implementation, it's irresponsible as a documentarian to not even pay lip-service to these additional considerations. His one-sided presentation smacks of mild hegemony, and opens him up to legitimate criticism which may end up limiting the audience who watches his film and thus eventually hinder his own goals of shoring up support for these ideas.
For instance, Italy is held up as a shining example of workers and CEO's living in harmony, with executives happy to grant their employees ample vacation and maternity leave. Yet not a single mention is made of the fact that Italy's economy nearly collapsed (and brought down the Eurozone with it) a few short years ago, partially due to growing entitlement debt and a lack of fiscal restraint. The nearest Moore comes to an explanation is a throw away line near the end of the segment where he states that Italy has its problems like everywhere else, but he wants to focus on the good ideas to extract from these nations, "the flowers, not the weeds". But what long-term cost does the flower come at?
Similarly, Moore admonishes the US for white-washing our own history, holding Germany up as a beacon of how a nation should confront its past sins, yet ignores the rampant racism and anti-immigrant movements alive in Germany and much of the rest of Europe today. The images and people we see and meet during his travels make the EU look like some latter day paradise. One would think poverty, social unrest, and unemployment almost don't exist.
And one question he never seems to address is that of scale. Iceland is deservingly lauded at length both for their progressive inclusion of women in leadership positions, and for their full-throated prosecution of the bankers who drove their markets into severe recession. Heaven knows we have a thing or two to learn about indicting our hedge-fund managers, but it should also be pointed out that reform is inherently a lot easier in a nation-state whose entire population is just over half that of the county I presently reside in, and a lot more demographically homogeneous to boot. It's harder to be nimble and when steering a ship nearly 1000 times larger.
Finally, this is going to wade into some murky waters as I honestly don't know the true numbers, but a portion of the film also chastises America for spending far too much on our military to the detriment of many of the social services Moore highlights. Once more, while this too is almost certainly a valid critique, I also think there is likely a grain of truth to the charge President Obama has recently leveled at some of our allies that they are "Free Riders" who rely upon the US and its massive arsenal to protect their interests abroad as their military by proxy. This would mean we may in essence be subsidizing that French 4th grader's Camembert and those Italian pensions, as they don't need to spend as much on Defense.
When discussing some of this with my brother after our viewing, he underscored the point that the movie was simply acting as a survey course of best practices that we should look into, so he didn't have as much of a problem with it's inability to discuss any of the drawbacks that come with these schemes. If the movie were focused on a singular topic, he said, it would have a greater obligation to do so. The problem there is that other more focused films of Moore's, such as Sicko which contrasts America's privatized health care industry before Obamacare with public health care systems elsewhere, don't fare much better if scrutinized for even-handedness. This is a complaint that has long plagued his career.
But Where to Invade Next concludes on a note of optimism and hope, reminding us how quickly even seemingly insurmountable obstacles can come tumbling down from the Berlin Wall to apartheid, to gay marriage bans and the Confederate Flag more recently, and thus so will I. While it only brings its message half-way home, it's an enjoyable voyage, and the message is still one well worth receiving.
Those who share a fondness for Moore's gentler side are in luck, as his latest movie, Where to Invade Next, is perhaps the best distillation of that vintage to date - his sarcasm is even present in the title itself. The premise is that Moore travels around to a number of (almost exclusively European) countries to try and study successful public or societal practices they've enacted that he can claim and take back to America.
He taps into an extensive range of topics from school lunches to the death penalty, generally to thought provoking effect. We drool over the four course meals eaten daily at even the most impoverished public schools in France, we grow green with envy as an Italian couple tabulates their seemingly endless amount of paid time off, and we marvel at the privileges granted to even highest level felons in Norwegian prisons, where the recidivism rate is less than a quarter of the US's. (But it would have been nice to see any of the inmates he spoke to acknowledge that they had done something wrong. As presented it's a bit hard to swallow seeing an admitted murderer spending his incarceration joking, playing Xbox, and riding his bike around the park without knowing if he's actually accepted responsibility for his actions. I realize this portion of rehabilitation was likely a prerequisite for earning such perks, but it's not something made mention of on camera).
The most moving scenes involve German students discussing their experiences meeting Holocaust survivors in an effort to come to terms with their nation's dark past, and most heart-breakingly, as we listen to a father describe speaking to his son on the phone moments before he was gunned down by Anders Breivik on Utøya Island in the 2011 Norway attacks. In a moment difficult to fathom for an American such as myself, fed on a steady diet of equating punishment with justice, the father refuses to admit any desire for revenge or retribution towards Breivik.
Perhaps the concept that resonated the most with me though involved the high quality of education in Finland, whose students rank #1 in the world (the U.S. currently sits at 29). One of their primary keys to success, we are told, is the almost complete absence of private schools. As a result, wealthier parents ensure that public schools are as good as possible to the benefit of all, and by attending classes with students from different social castes their children learn a greater sense of empathy. The idea of "shopping" for a school when looking for housing is non-existent there. (And as a secondary result, supplementary conditions like the quality of lunch food, are likely to be higher as well).
This struck a chord with me because I believe my own experiences bear this out to a degree as well.
One thing relatively unique to the Midwest is the smaller role private schools play. The notion that exists on the East Coast or in Orange County that to be successful one needs to pay tuition to attend an exclusive boarding school from birth is either greatly diminished or totally absent in most heartland communities.
In my medium-sized hometown only one sizable private high school even existed and it was primarily religiously focused, and thus the upper-middle class residents have seen fit to make sure all the public schools, where most of their kids will be attending, provide an educational experience well above average by most metrics. And while we probably could have done with a little more diversity among the student population and a few more veggies on our food trays, it's still an example worth noting.
On the flipside, in my current adopted slightly-larger place of residence the central city's public school district is viewed with increasing skepticism by parents who very often move out to the suburbs to raise their families. And yet even this tactic is proving increasingly futile as the state government has chosen over the last several years to cut traditional K-12 funding and funnel more money to support voucher programs - i.e. providing parents with public stipends to send their children to private schools (which even Donald Trump condemned). In turn, districts across the state have had to ask their constituents to vote on levy's increasing their tax dollars simply to maintain an adequate level of service, even in the 'burbs. This coming after generations of successful investment in public education, which have apparently been ignored. As one might imagine, seeing the outcomes in Finland where the complete opposite strategy has been embraced was rather eye-opening.
Moving on, the film touches upon a number of other noteworthy topics too such as the dividends that pay out when including women in both public and private leadership roles in Tunisia and Iceland, the decriminalization of drug usage in Portugal, and the number of American students moving to Slovenia where college tuition is free. (Though I found the assertion by Portugal's Federal Drug Commissioner that Facebook does as much harm to a user's family as a drug addict's habits, to be in poor taste, especially as it was played for laughs). Much of this is done with Moore's trademark sense of humor, as he paints a somewhat exaggerated description of America's lesser versions of these institutions to his aghast interviewees.
The ultimate message, summarized near the end of the film in a montage of Moore's interview subjects, is that many residents in the US, and by effect our elected officials and policies, are too focused on personal self-interests. We think in terms of "I" instead of "we," and are always striving for more simply because that's what we've been conditioned to do, not because we need it. There's a middle ground to be found between rugged self-reliance and outright communism.
And while that is a point I mostly agree with in both the abstract and in many of the specific ways the movie illustrates, there are a number of faults with some of the arguments Moore presents here. These largely stem from his failure to present a broader picture of the cultures and societies he visits, and further, the particulars of how his cherry-picked policies would play out in an America much different from these nations across the pond. Therein lies one flaw with the decidedly upbeat tone he strikes here, because fleshing out the downsides would be a drag.
While I still think most of these proposals are worthy of our study and even implementation, it's irresponsible as a documentarian to not even pay lip-service to these additional considerations. His one-sided presentation smacks of mild hegemony, and opens him up to legitimate criticism which may end up limiting the audience who watches his film and thus eventually hinder his own goals of shoring up support for these ideas.
For instance, Italy is held up as a shining example of workers and CEO's living in harmony, with executives happy to grant their employees ample vacation and maternity leave. Yet not a single mention is made of the fact that Italy's economy nearly collapsed (and brought down the Eurozone with it) a few short years ago, partially due to growing entitlement debt and a lack of fiscal restraint. The nearest Moore comes to an explanation is a throw away line near the end of the segment where he states that Italy has its problems like everywhere else, but he wants to focus on the good ideas to extract from these nations, "the flowers, not the weeds". But what long-term cost does the flower come at?
Similarly, Moore admonishes the US for white-washing our own history, holding Germany up as a beacon of how a nation should confront its past sins, yet ignores the rampant racism and anti-immigrant movements alive in Germany and much of the rest of Europe today. The images and people we see and meet during his travels make the EU look like some latter day paradise. One would think poverty, social unrest, and unemployment almost don't exist.
And one question he never seems to address is that of scale. Iceland is deservingly lauded at length both for their progressive inclusion of women in leadership positions, and for their full-throated prosecution of the bankers who drove their markets into severe recession. Heaven knows we have a thing or two to learn about indicting our hedge-fund managers, but it should also be pointed out that reform is inherently a lot easier in a nation-state whose entire population is just over half that of the county I presently reside in, and a lot more demographically homogeneous to boot. It's harder to be nimble and when steering a ship nearly 1000 times larger.
Finally, this is going to wade into some murky waters as I honestly don't know the true numbers, but a portion of the film also chastises America for spending far too much on our military to the detriment of many of the social services Moore highlights. Once more, while this too is almost certainly a valid critique, I also think there is likely a grain of truth to the charge President Obama has recently leveled at some of our allies that they are "Free Riders" who rely upon the US and its massive arsenal to protect their interests abroad as their military by proxy. This would mean we may in essence be subsidizing that French 4th grader's Camembert and those Italian pensions, as they don't need to spend as much on Defense.
When discussing some of this with my brother after our viewing, he underscored the point that the movie was simply acting as a survey course of best practices that we should look into, so he didn't have as much of a problem with it's inability to discuss any of the drawbacks that come with these schemes. If the movie were focused on a singular topic, he said, it would have a greater obligation to do so. The problem there is that other more focused films of Moore's, such as Sicko which contrasts America's privatized health care industry before Obamacare with public health care systems elsewhere, don't fare much better if scrutinized for even-handedness. This is a complaint that has long plagued his career.
But Where to Invade Next concludes on a note of optimism and hope, reminding us how quickly even seemingly insurmountable obstacles can come tumbling down from the Berlin Wall to apartheid, to gay marriage bans and the Confederate Flag more recently, and thus so will I. While it only brings its message half-way home, it's an enjoyable voyage, and the message is still one well worth receiving.
posted by DJDangerRanger at 1:52 PM
0 comments
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Sleepy Hollow
10/26/2011 - spoilers ahoy
To be fair, I grew up loving The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, especially the impeccable Rabbit Ears version narrated by Glenn Close. Still, while I certainly knew this was going to take liberties with the story, I had no idea just how many, and how drastic they'd be. And please don't tell me I should have expected this because Burton's been doing it for years. I've seen plenty of Burton movies before, not all of them are dark slightly humorous Gothic macabre slashers. For every Sweeney Todd (which obviously is similar to this, but so is it's source material), there's a Big Fish.
I knew the Horseman was actually going to be a killer, that wasn't a surprise. But the first shock came when we go to New York City. Ichabod Crane is a Renaissance inspired constable? Are you kidding me? The guy's supposed to be a timid bean-pole of a traveling school teacher. Whatever, roll with the punches I told myself.
Cut to Sleepy Hollow. Hmm, I notice there isn't any sunlight for the third scene in a row, I have a feeling it's going to be like this for the rest of the movie (suspicion later confirmed). Are we really going to pretend it's always cloudy just to set the mood? I hate it when people use techniques like that; if you can't create an oppressive gloomy atmosphere without washing the color and light out of everything don't bother. For a particular scene? Sure, but I know you can do it without easy tricks like that Burton. And of course in the very last happy 15 second scene in NYC the sun is shining bright; "how symbolic!" I cried with the utmost sarcasm.
Next we were introduced to the Horseman himself via flashback. I'll not beat around the bush, I hated this depiction of the horseman. A superhuman Christopher Walken with the hair of a 17 year old snowboarder and freaking fangs? He looked like a strung out Troll Doll going through withdrawal. I won't deny I chuckled, Walken always amuses me and I figured this would be the only time we saw him since there is no actual ghost. I assumed Burton was just having a little fun with a one-off exaggerated flashback. I was mistaken.
When it turned into murder mystery mode, I did begin to enjoy it again for a time. Once it became clear there were actually supernatural forces at work though, that the killer wasn't one of the townsfolk (not directly anyway), I'd just about had enough. The entire original story is about how people get freaked about by old wives tales when they're combined with spooky atmospheres, even though it's all fake, but now not only is the horseman actually killing people, he's actually a ghost too? As Cris Carter would say, "C'mon man!" None of this is to mention the dreadfully unnecessary and rather hokey special effects. In addition to all of the mind numbingly gratuitous beheadings (and seriously what was the point? We get it, you're not afraid to show some gore. It gets boring after the seventh time) there's also the completely arbitrary scene with a witch wigging out while acting as a medium. Did Sam Raimi stop by the set for a day? Speaking of the witches, whose bright idea was it to make Katrina an amateur sorcerer? So random. And the minister betrays his friend's trust because he sacrifices his beliefs for lust with a witch? Where did you buy your book of clichés Tim?
Oh well, I've certainly seen worse movies, but what a let down. I was very excited to finally see this, an esteemed director adapting one of my favorite childhood stories in a big screen treatment. He turned it from a delightful spooky little yarn about post-colonial America into a ridiculous over the top fantasy film about a serial killer chock full of cheesy effects.
To be fair, I grew up loving The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, especially the impeccable Rabbit Ears version narrated by Glenn Close. Still, while I certainly knew this was going to take liberties with the story, I had no idea just how many, and how drastic they'd be. And please don't tell me I should have expected this because Burton's been doing it for years. I've seen plenty of Burton movies before, not all of them are dark slightly humorous Gothic macabre slashers. For every Sweeney Todd (which obviously is similar to this, but so is it's source material), there's a Big Fish.
I knew the Horseman was actually going to be a killer, that wasn't a surprise. But the first shock came when we go to New York City. Ichabod Crane is a Renaissance inspired constable? Are you kidding me? The guy's supposed to be a timid bean-pole of a traveling school teacher. Whatever, roll with the punches I told myself.
Cut to Sleepy Hollow. Hmm, I notice there isn't any sunlight for the third scene in a row, I have a feeling it's going to be like this for the rest of the movie (suspicion later confirmed). Are we really going to pretend it's always cloudy just to set the mood? I hate it when people use techniques like that; if you can't create an oppressive gloomy atmosphere without washing the color and light out of everything don't bother. For a particular scene? Sure, but I know you can do it without easy tricks like that Burton. And of course in the very last happy 15 second scene in NYC the sun is shining bright; "how symbolic!" I cried with the utmost sarcasm.
Next we were introduced to the Horseman himself via flashback. I'll not beat around the bush, I hated this depiction of the horseman. A superhuman Christopher Walken with the hair of a 17 year old snowboarder and freaking fangs? He looked like a strung out Troll Doll going through withdrawal. I won't deny I chuckled, Walken always amuses me and I figured this would be the only time we saw him since there is no actual ghost. I assumed Burton was just having a little fun with a one-off exaggerated flashback. I was mistaken.
When it turned into murder mystery mode, I did begin to enjoy it again for a time. Once it became clear there were actually supernatural forces at work though, that the killer wasn't one of the townsfolk (not directly anyway), I'd just about had enough. The entire original story is about how people get freaked about by old wives tales when they're combined with spooky atmospheres, even though it's all fake, but now not only is the horseman actually killing people, he's actually a ghost too? As Cris Carter would say, "C'mon man!" None of this is to mention the dreadfully unnecessary and rather hokey special effects. In addition to all of the mind numbingly gratuitous beheadings (and seriously what was the point? We get it, you're not afraid to show some gore. It gets boring after the seventh time) there's also the completely arbitrary scene with a witch wigging out while acting as a medium. Did Sam Raimi stop by the set for a day? Speaking of the witches, whose bright idea was it to make Katrina an amateur sorcerer? So random. And the minister betrays his friend's trust because he sacrifices his beliefs for lust with a witch? Where did you buy your book of clichés Tim?
Oh well, I've certainly seen worse movies, but what a let down. I was very excited to finally see this, an esteemed director adapting one of my favorite childhood stories in a big screen treatment. He turned it from a delightful spooky little yarn about post-colonial America into a ridiculous over the top fantasy film about a serial killer chock full of cheesy effects.
posted by DJDangerRanger at 10:05 PM
0 comments
