Manufacturing the West: Some Interesting Revisionist Westerns

Monument Valley, where many John Ford westerns were filmed

The western was once a popular genre, and reached its apotheosis at a time when the United States could claim to be the most powerful country in the world. For Americans, the western personified what they themselves claimed to be, a country of heroic and rugged individuals who  had successfully conquered the wilderness by using the virtues of European civilisation they believed their ancestors had left long behind. This is supposedly what made the settlers of the frontier so unique.  The importance of the frontier in the American mind is attributable to the work of Frederick Jackson Turner, a nineteenth century historian. Enlightenment thinking was fused with a restless psychological reading of American character that emphasised the  Victorian virtues of hard work, economic prosperity and the rigid outlinings of class and gender.  In the guise of entertainment, Hollywood presented to the  world a genre which purported to celebrate the rise of America  and her economic domination of the world stage, especially in the decades leading up to 1939. 

Historian Frederick Jackson Turner

 By August 1945 however, the war seemed to be a hollow victory, and the prospect of another breaking out a distinct possibility.  American confidence took a turn for the worse, and the western became more of an elegy to past glories, rather than an acclamation of what was current, or possible.

Political correctness assisted in the decline of the western as an instrument of, if not propaganda, then at least a respectable way for Hollywood to make a profit. The sparse scenery of the west was populated only by white males; Indians were the enemy and women kept house whilst they waited for their cowboy husbands to return home from the range. In post-Vietnam America for example, audiences were disturbed by images of heroism that seemed to be no longer heroic. Instead, they seemed bullying, misogynistic and a blatant attack on the rights of other people. 

There is that moment for every viewer in “The Searchers”, when it dawns that what John Wayne wants to do when he finds his lost niece, is not to rescue her from her Indian captives, but instead to kill her as  punishment for betraying her race. Our hearts sink. We become concerned, but finally resigned and then relieved, as  Wayne relents, and decides to spare her. It’s a moment that transmogrifies the entire genre and sends it off into another direction. Manifest destiny is only achieved at the expense of others not defined as ‘us.’ The frontier is no longer boundless when there are others who were there first, and define themselves as part of that land, and how that land belongs to ‘them’ and not to ‘us’. The  notion of purity of race, most prevalent in nineteenth century European thought, begins to smack of repressed Freudian sexuality as  the white man attempts to tame nature by pre-supposing that other races and peoples are too weak to  stand in his way.

The most famous western star of them all, John  Wayne

Ironically, the ethos of the western frontier embraces certain beliefs that  political correctness professes to denounce: a deeply embedded embrace of conformity, alongside the hope that a certain belief system will hopefully make people treat each other with something vaguely labelled as ‘respect’. This is actually a brand of fatalistic populism which shuns difference, and encourages outsiderism toward those not included in a narrow-minded definition of who exactly is meant to be part of the status quo. A deep distrust and intolerance of others who do not appear to share the beliefs of the majority. A so-called tolerance of rogue opinion and unconventional behaviour so long as it is demonised, and labelled as anything from merely anti-social and unhelpful,  to bordering on pathological or psychotic. The purpose is to encourage hostility  towards enlightenment, or deliberate attempts at intellectual life or thought within the confines of an untutored empathy with order. (1)

The “wild” west, as it was known was filled with iconic characters and outlaws who thumbed their noses at authority, like Billy the Kid, Wild Bill Hickock and Buffalo Bill. Alongside this championing of the underdog there is also a parallel sub-text of the urge for revenge,  and the forcible retention of civil order by the acceptance of violence as a mandatory form of justice. How close this may be  to historical reality is open to question, and in the words of director John Ford, “when there’s a choice between reality and legend,  always print the legend”.  Despite its decline in popularity in recent times, the western in popular imagination still retains its power to nostalgically (and mistakenly) bring to mind a time when there was no indecisiveness.  That is, how the period of the rise of the American frontier was a simpler era, when moral imperatives and calls to action were easier to implement than they seem to be in the every-day  present of modern ideas of civilised negotiation and compromise.

Alan Ladd was the idol of kids in the fifties as Shane

Another irony seems to be how the western in its decline as a cultural imperative, actually increased in power when it turned in on itself and questioned the nature and purpose of the American frontier. How in the complex character studies within the work of Sam Peckinpah for instance, the idealism of the west as a unifying idea becomes corrupted by its dependence upon opportunism and an unrelenting oppression, leading to irrational outbreaks of violence. But Peckinpah comes after the four films I would like to discuss, which act unifyingly as a transitional instance of the western beginning to lost confidence in itself as either a narrative of relevance or device of truth-telling.

Gary Cooper man of the west

In Man of the West, Gary Cooper stars as an ex-gun-slinger forced to confront his past.  He is travelling on a train that is robbed. He gets left behind in the wilderness with two other passengers, but is actually in familiar territory, and falls back in with the leader of his former gang, killer Doc Tobin, played by Lee J Cobb. Tobin is a Lear-like patriarch who has seen better days. He attempts to reinstate Cooper back into the gang, but Cooper will not abide by his rules any longer and after five years of living an upright life, secretly despises Tobin, but has to consider the situation of the other two people who have accompanied him.  Cooper’s innate goodness is used to perfection as he is  cast as almost an innocent man who refuses to succumb to the evil of his previous existence. His reticence to commit any kind of violence is contrasted to the cut-throat Tobin and his gang who systematically kill anything and anyone who stand in their way, which they rationalise as purely a matter of survival. In this film, the use of violence as a means of justice in the old west is scrutinised and found wanting. As in High Noon, Cooper is the hero precisely because he hardly appears to be the gun-slinging type. The film appears to be brutal, but it’s not so much what the viewer sees, as to what he is put through by director Anthony Mann. The violence is not shattering but only feels that way because of the tension that the director creates between the characters. Mann seems to be critical of the notion that violence should be seen an acceptable fact of the wild west, especially when it is primarily directed at the weak who are unable to stand up for themselves.

In The Unforgiven Burt Lancaster, Audrey Hepburn and Lillian Gish star as a family living in the west, eking out a living as farmers. Gish, as their mother knows the secret of her daughter’s race, since she adopted her as a baby. When Lancaster leaves the homestead on business, Hepburn comes across an itinerant crazy man on a horse who seems to know who she is and where she came from.  Indian raids are common and the family’s neighbours fear the Indians and show them no mercy.  When it’s revealed that Hepburn is not in fact Gish’s natural-born daughter, the family is reviled by their neighbours and left to defend themselves against a deadly Kiowa raid.  As directed by John Huston, The Unforgiven attempts to make a statement against racial prejudice as it must have been practised by the ‘folks’ of the new frontier. The family’s fellow homesteaders are transformed from loveable yokels into dangerous, hate-spewing racists when Hepburn’s true identity is revealed.  The fact that it’s been kept a secret for so long further exacerbates problems between family members as Hepburn and Lancaster heave a sigh of relief they are no longer related. This is not one of Huston’s better known films,  and apparently it was not one he was at all satisfied with, citing interference from the producers. But like Man of the West it attempts to redress certain issues like rogue justice and racial intolerance that the idealisation of the frontier left open to question.

Burt Lancaster again stars in Vera Cruz, a western directed by Robert Aldrich, which also stars Gary Cooper in another of his reluctant hero roles.  Both ride to Mexico as the Mexicans are attempting to rid themselves of the Habsburg emperor Maximilian, who hires both men to take a cache of gold to the port of Vera Cruz. This is a gun-toting action adventure that could collapse if put under too much scrutiny. However, it is interesting in that it takes on the issue, if obliquely, of European imperialism in the Americas. The American heroes, whilst not exactly idealistic freedom-fighters come to sympathise with the plight of the Mexicans and by the conclusion of the film, are somewhat less myopic about American exceptionalism and the myth of the new frontier.

Whilst The Magnificent Seven may not immediately come to mind when discussing revisionist westerns, I think that it is a good example. It presents itself as a straightforward action adventure, which I guess it is. But in its portrayal of the hopelessness of the Mexican villagers who desperately need the Seven to defend them, director John Sturges is definitely wearing his heart on his sleeve, whatever the colour of his heart may be. The heroism and idealism The Magnificent Seven portrays does not come from some rote recitation of the virtues of the new frontier. Rather it seems very heartfelt, that Americans can come riding to assistance over the border when it is most needed. In that respect whilst not overly critical of anything in particular, the film seems to have an honest regard for its Mexican characters and is not patronising toward them. Whilst the notion of America coming to the rescue seems almost child-like today, this does not detract from the entertainment value of the film, nor its efforts to maybe put to rest the more morally unsettling notions about American imperialism, and settler mentality. The Seven can leave with a clear conscience: their mission is accomplished and their honour is untarnished by anything resembling compromise. Whilst hardly intellectually challenging, the film is an honest and heartfelt testament to the pure idea of the virtues of the American frontier, frozen in time before it turned ugly, and had to be revised in the first place.  

(1) See David Thomson's essay on  cracker barrel philosopher Will Rogers, who helped define what the West meant to Americans in the Great Depression, Biographical Dictionary of Film, London, 2002, p. 751.

The 40th anniversary of the Watergate scandal

<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?deepLinkEmbedCode=JsZzlvNDrJsrBByv0rDWDOdvn039RgKd&width=606&height=341&embedCode=JsZzlvNDrJsrBByv0rDWDOdvn039RgKd&video_pcode=BjMW06iecUOEhEKw8wym0AKLeiI4"></script>

Democrats Beaten Back by the Waves of History: Is Rapprochement with Iran a Possibility?

 Outside the American embassy after a mission to rescue hostages failed

January 20th 2012 marked the 31st anniversary of the release of the American hostages held in Iran. 52 people were held for a total of 444 days in Teheran's American embassy, as the world (ie America and its allies) -- to coin a cliche, -- 'held its breath'. In retrospect, it was a somewhat significant period of time to be 'holding one's breath'.  A botched rescue mission by the name of Operation Eagle Claw, in which eight military personnel and one Iranian were killed, buried the Democrats at the 1980 elections, when the Republicans had a landslide victory, returning them to office after the disgrace of the Watergate years.  Incumbent Ronald Reagan was set up and ready instead to welcome back the hostages when they finally returned. The hostage crisis was a symptom of the severe lack of trust between the growing opposition movement to the Shah in Iran and the western powers, who seemed to believe they had the right of sovereignty in Middle Eastern affairs, but actually showed an appalling ignorance when it came to comprehending the aspirations of its people.

Burning an effigy of Uncle Sam outside U.S. embassy in Tehran

 Despite the fact that it actually happened, revolution in Iran was far from the thoughts of the western powers. United States interference in Iranian affairs had long been resented by the predominantly shi'ite population going back at least to 1953. A a coup backed by the United States and Britain, installed Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran as absolute monarch, in direct contravention to the sovereignty of the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mosaddeqq. The Shah of Iran was a Middle East strongman of my parents' generation. His position had always been  compromised by his blind adherence to the United States who were after all, responsible for his sudden influence in world affairs. He was blatantly anti-democratic and kept an autocrat's eye on what his people thought of him through a repressive domestic spy network known as the SAVAK. With the same sense of unreality that we have become used to recently, the Shah had no idea what his people really thought of him, and when the Iranian revolution happened, it came as a shock not only to the rest of the world, but also to the Shah himself.

 Decades of interference, both overt and covert,  had convinced the west that any kind of uprising to get rid of the Shah did not exist, even within the realms of possibility. Opposition to the Shah's rule within Iran was dismissed by the CIA in a report which stated only months beforehand that Persia 'was not even in a pre-revolutionary situation'. In his New Year's Eve toast in 1978 President Carter issued the immortal words, 'under the Shah's brilliant leadership Iran is an island of stability.'

An American flag set on fire by Iranian protesters

When the hostage situation emerged,  American president Jimmy Carter appeared to not grasp the seriousness of the situation, at least not to the voters at home. The hostages were returned safely, but the damage to the self-esteem of the Democrats has probably not been adequately calculated.  Domestically, the deterioration of the relationship between Iran and the United States became a political issue in the 1980's that both Democrats and Republicans used to enhance their chances of getting elected. Consequently neither party escaped with much in the way of integrity, much less public credibility.

 The Reagan  administration was plagued (at least in its second term),  by the possibility of the public finding out about a number of arms for hostages deals. Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the staff of the National Security Council  gave the go-ahead to take twelve million dollars from arm sales to Iran, and give the money to the contra 'freedom' fighters in Nicaragua. This was pointedly against all protestations from Reagan that he absolutely and categorically refused to negotiate with terrorists and that any arms for hostages deal was out of the question. [1]. An ongoing scandal for the Republicans with a Democrat congress to contend with, the exact role of President Reagan in the scandal was never properly delineated, and will probably never be known.

One of many spontaneous mass demonstrations against the Shah

The Concluding Observations of the Walsh Iran/Contra report state  that the Congress was unwilling to engage with a popular president and his executive in order to find out the truth. In doing so, Congress accepted the concept of a conspiracy by subordinate officers, so they could eliminate the need for the testimony of President Reagan and Vice President Bush. Congress was essentially defrauded, and was erroneously led to believe that the administration was acting within the law.  Despite a fighting, all-American  image the Republicans enjoyed promoting, Reagan's image was tainted both at home and abroad. Arms for hostages deals appeared to initiate more terrorism, and the United States could no longer claim the moral high ground against other nations who refused to make concessions to terrorists and their demands.

With a regime change in 1992, President Bill Clinton appealed to many as a progressive who would perhaps reach out to Iran in a show of  friendship (with of course the necessary conditions.) As with most centre-left parties in western democracies, the Democrats had to worry  about managing to stay in power, once they were elected. They had to tread carefully with the voters in order not to seem indifferent to matters of national security. They had to appear resourceful, and able to take the initiative when it came to protecting the country's interests abroad. Yet the bellicosity of the Republicans did not seem to work for them. They had to forge an image which enhanced their ability at making the peace, at reaching out and achieving some kind of dialogue with nations whose customs and religious beliefs were less comprehensible to them than others, in an area of the world as important economically as it was politically.

Reagan receiving the Tower Commission report c1987

Clinton was at first stolid in his refusal to negotiate with Iran issuing Executive Orders 12957 and 12959, banning all trade between the two countries.It could be questioned whether these orders were meant to stand or were merely symbolic of a president who was inexperienced in foreign affairs.  In the late 1990's an apology for the 1953 CIA coup was placed on the table and it seemed that the Democrats were on cue to resume  necessary diplomatic relations which had been revoked since the hostage crisis. However, an apology from the Iranians for the hostage crisis was not forthcoming in return. The executive orders were not rescinded but communications had at least been restored by a combination of private negotiation and a  desire to officially attempt to ease tensions between the two countries.

With a Democrat President currently in office, the rhetoric of the hawks with their itchy trigger fingers is balanced by a more prudent and rational discourse, as the United States attempts to balance national security pre-occupations with its  international responsibilities and its revisionist stance to right the wrongs of the disreputable regime that came before the current administration.  Neither political party has had much success in breaking through the institutionalised antipathy that America and Iran feel for each other. But that isn't to say that it won't happen, and in the process save the world from a confrontation that may be too dreadful to contemplate.

[1] Bob Woodward, Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1999, Ch. 10, p. 110.

Movie Review -- Lady Caroline Lamb (1972)

 ‘Lady Caroline Lamb’ may not be the greatest movie ever made, but I happen to like it. Very much. It’s about the tempestuous love affair between Lady Caroline Lamb, (the wife of Lord Melbourne), and the poet Lord Byron.  My senior English class was taken to see ‘Lady Caroline Lamb’ at the pictures by an over-zealous teacher, far too many years ago for me to remember.  I don’t recall studying the poetry of Lord Byron at school, so I suspect our teacher was playing hookie with us by proxy. 

Sarah Miles as Lady Caroline Lamb

Going to the pictures was a good way of escaping the schoolroom. In our senior year we were allowed the freedom of going to see a  movie – any movie -- that  had anything remotely to do with what we were studying for exams. I suspect our teacher closed her eyes and used a pin to stab at the local paper’s entertainment page because she wanted a break, but this is only conjecture on my part. Not meaning to sound ungrateful, for I preferred being at the movies to being at school, so I knew she was doing us a favour, whether she thought she was or not.

Based on real-life historical characters, ‘Lady Caroline Lamb’ is set in the early 19^th century, during the Napoleonic wars, and the defeat of French forces by the English at Waterloo. Born to the purple in 1785, Lady Caroline Ponsonby married the Hon. William Lamb, heir to the 1^st Lord Melbourne in 1805. In 1812 she embarked on a foolish, but passionate liaison with George Gordon, Lord Byron. In the film, Byron and Caroline’s first meeting is depicted at a bare-knuckle boxing match. These pugilistic events were frequent in Regency England at the time.

a portrait of  historical Lady Caroline Lamb

Lord Byron, (played by Richard Chamberlain) gambols into the make-shift ring and promptly disposes of his much larger adversary. Lady Caroline  (Sarah Miles) is present. He informs Lady Caroline that he has no money and she invites him to have dinner with her, where he orders a meal of potatoes and vinegar. Hence is the start of their tempestuous relationship, played out against the backdrop of a malicious and disapproving upper-crust society. You’ve never seen a bunch of dislikeable  snobs like these before, this side of ‘Age of Innocence’ (1992). But where would a tempestuous relationship be, without a bunch of frustrated socialites clucking their tongues as they spied on you in the background getting on with it? 


Lamb’s mother ( Margaret Leighton) is against her son marrying Caroline. Caroline was very much at odds with her society in that she shunned, almost violently so, the sexual hypocrisies of her era. Her downfall appears, at least in the film, to be her lack of  ‘discretion’, which let powerful men do what they wished, with the onus being on the woman to keep quiet about what was going on..

Mad, bad, dangerous to know?

  William Lamb (Jon Finch) loves his wife through everything, despite her immodest behaviour and inconstancy. He is eventually appointed as ambassador to Ireland, but is told by King George IV (Ralph Richardson) that he should leave his wife behind if he cannot guarantee that she will ‘behave’ properly.  (According to Wikipedia, this  is not historically accurate.) The film concludes sadly, as a testament to how Byron broke Lady Caroline’s heart, by being ‘mad, bad, and dangerous to know’, much like Caroline herself.

 Firstly, you should watch ‘Lady Caroline Lamb’ in its original wide-screen aspect ratio. It looks pretty ravishing. Photographed by Oswald Morris, the rural  English countryside is truly picturesque. With Art Direction by Carmen Dillon, its interiors are  quite beautiful, and seem truly authentic. If you like lavish costume design, then you may also be in seventh heaven: Sarah Miles looks  lovely as she dresses to seduce Lord Byron.  That is at least, before being deserted by him.  


Historic houses true to the Regency period were used for exterior shots, namely Chatsworth House, home to the (current) Duke and Duchess of Devonshire; Brocket Hall and Wilton House. (They are open to the public at the moment. Just do a Google search.) All three appear to be fully preserved as of 1972 when the film was made and add an atmosphere that is pleasingly authentic as an historic backdrop to the more personal dramas of the protaganists. The musical score by Richard Rodney Bennett is for a full symphony and is by turns melodic with solo viola,  and evocative of the romantic era in classical music, the period of Beethoven, Schubert and other great classical composers.

watch the film for an explanation of this still

 ‘Lady Caroline Lamb’, was written by Robert Bolt, as well as being directed by him. The writer of such epics as Doctor Zhivago, and Lawrence of Arabia, Bolt curbs the historical detail in favour of a closer look at the relationships that Lady Caroline had with her husband, her lover and her society at large.


 Laurence Olivier is in the film briefly, playing the Duke of Wellington, but the most interesting thing he does, is wearing what appears to be a false nose. Whilst  some people do not like Sarah Miles and find her a little mannered in speech, I think she’s perfectly cast in the lead role. She captures Caroline’s delicacy as well as her iron will to live life on her own terms, which, being two extremely contrasting personality traits, must be a difficult thing for even the most accomplished actress to pull off. She gives herself to the part, which has the viewer sympathising with her through every temper tantrum, when they could be laughing  at her. But I think she does  well. 

The Iron Duke & Caroline in intimate conversation

Jon Finch seems to SHOUT OUT some of his lines, when he should be merely speaking them. Maybe it was a case of being misdirected by a first-time director, but he gives a sympathetic rendering of the lovelorn, but faithful William Lamb. Richard Chamberlain shows a different side to himself as the selfish and indifferent Lord Byron, as he trundles around the edges of the English upper class, rootless, but believing in his talent as a poet, and breaking lots of  hearts on his melancholy way to fame and fortune.

As I said at the beginning. ‘Lady Caroline Lamb’ is not without its faults, but I also think it has its share of virtues. If you’re looking for an undemanding but solid, romantic costume drama, based on a little bit of history with some good lead and supporting players (I also forgot to mention that John Mills is also in the cast), as well as excellent production values,  I recommend ‘Lady Caroline Lamb’.

Apocalypse Tomorrow: The end of the World on Film

  The end of the world on film can be a risky business.  What’s the point of making a film about the end of the world when it could actually happen and there’d be no one left to patronise your movie? So what if you’d made a correct prediction; what good would that be? The end of the world is no longer merely the subject of apocalyptic hearsay, it is a serious issue,  especially when separated from the religious realm to which it has been relegated since (at least) the middle ages. The reason for this is that nuclear holocaust is an apocalypse of our own making and perhaps this is what makes it a good subject for drama.


 However audiences do not go to see movies to be confronted by reality, since instead they wish to escape from it. Serious issue movies walk the tightrope between sending out positive messages about humanity and at the same time, providing a certain entertainment value. So my theory is, if you can make a movie about the end of the world that’s entertaining, but you don’t win any awards for it,  then at least you should be remembered for attempting to walk that tightrope.

The movies in this brief list  are not science fiction. You could maybe class ‘The Seventh Sign’ as science fiction. But more of that later.  My worst   sins of omission are  War Game, and  Testament. I have seen both of these,  but so long ago, I can’t remember enough about them to write anything that would be of  interest. ‘Threads’ and ‘Miracle Mile’ I haven’t seen, but look forward to seeing in the future,  so these will also unfortunately be omitted.

As you may have figured out by now,  classifying films into a particular niche or genre is a big deal to me. What is omitted has the opportunity to become just as important as what’s not. So there’s no disaster films.  No Deep Impact,  Mad Max, or the Book of Eli. Or 28 Days Later. One of my glaring omissions is ‘Dr Strangelove’ because it’s a comedy. I don’t like it, to be honest. I think it’s too forced and obvious, as well as a tad on the cheap side. People may laugh, but it doesn’t make them feel particularly comfortable to be doing it.  Neither are there any titles that concern themselves with life AFTER the end of the world, (a concept invented by successful horror writers and the military industrial complex of Hollywood. Re-imagining  life after the holocaust makes some writers rich, but it can also lead to a misunderstanding of the basic concept of apocalypse. It is supposed to mean after all, that there will be NO survivors. But I digress.)

 I am referring to two particular examples of this sub-genre, ‘The Stand’, a television movie, and the Will Smith version of ‘I Am Legend’, and its cop-out ending, the rest  ruined by too many compromises and  its overuse of pointless Computer Generated Imagery. All  these titles are science fiction I know, but they act as a reminder of what the films I actually want to discuss,  deal with. That is, nuclear war in a realistic context, and how these titles engage the audience with important questions such as the existence  of a larger  morality,  the nature of political expediency, the advantages and disadvantages of human progress,  and other less fanciful, more earthbound  topics of interest than your normal borderline horror film with an apocalyptic scenario.

Hollywood does not have an easy time attempting to fictionalise something as disturbing as the prospect of the human race’s permanent annihilation.  In real life, the more strained diplomatic relations become, the easier it is to trot out lists like this, whose titles may have nostalgic value, but offer little  explanation of the new disputes on the world stage that have nothing in common with what’s gone on before. There is consensus for example, that the Cold War is  over; so what have the issues concerning that period in history  to do with us at this moment? There’s  sabre rattling going on right now as I write this,  concerning Iran and Russia, but the sabre rattling has nothing to do with  me  writing this particular post at this particular time. I have no control over world events and I don’t pretend to be a Cassandra, (or should I say snake oil salesman.) So, for the hell of it, (and if we’re all still here by the finish),  these are my favourite films about nuclear apocalypse and the end of civilisation as we know it today, Hollywood-style.  You may also find a  useful critical article here about The Sense of an Ending by Frank Kermode, a book about apocalyptic literature and other issues of interest concerning literary narrative outside my scope as a humble blogger.

On the Beach (1959): The films of Stanley Kramer are being reappraised these days,  mostly in their favour, and I think this is one of his best efforts. Based upon the novel by Nevil Shute, it has Anthony Perkins speaking with an Australian accent, and Ava Gardner wondering why she bothered to go to Melbourne to make a film about the end of the world. The population of the northern hemisphere has been decimated by an unexplained nuclear exchange, and Australia waits for the radiation to be blown in its direction, as it lays in wait as the last bastion of human civilisation. Gregory Peck is solid but unremarkable as an American submarine commander landed in Melbourne, and Fred Astaire is very touching as an Aussie scientist who feels partly responsible for what’s happened. The plot is a little slim, but these people are simply waiting to die, and I for one felt empathy for their situation.


  There are no pyrotechnics,  nor are there any big dramatic scenes of panicking people doing emotionally stressed out things. It seems that people die in their beds, and a hush of deathly quiet comes over a city once it’s been contaminated by radiation. ‘On the Beach’ is less interested in politics and/or history and more concerned with emotional trauma involving what it feels like to know that you are not a survivor at all, but just another victim. This is a downbeat message, but ‘On the Beach’ is admirable in that  it doesn’t pull its punches. It’s as honest as it was possible to be,  about the devastation which a worldwide  nuclear war would unleash, and the cruelty of a distant power elite who are never seen, but are the cause of this human catastrophe.   4 ½ stars

The Day After (1983): This was originally made for television, but ‘The Day After’ has its own stature as fine piece of work and at the time of its broadcast, the highest rated TV movie yet made up to that time. Set in the seemingly bucolic American state of Kansas, its folksy feel is undercut by a feeling of apocalyptic dread when revealed that a vast population has been set up for death by a smattering of nuclear installations that will be struck by  Russian missiles if World War III ever breaks out, which of course it does. There are a number of different storylines and sub-plots. But the story mainly concerns the survival of a farming family, and  an idealistic doctor (Jason Robards) who somehow carries on despite losing his family and home. There are a number of memorable set pieces including the onset of the Russian nuclear attack, taking place on a crowded highway of people in their cars attempting to leave ground zero. Another near the end of the film seems like a homage to the sequence in ‘Gone with the Wind’ that has Scarlett O’Hara tending to literally hundreds of sick and wounded Confederate soldiers. To me, this sequence is a superb visual metaphor for everything the film has been trying to say, the terrible cost of political brinkmanship in a crisis situation, and how a combination of government negligence and stupidity can mean the end of humanity as we know it. 


 The makeup is very good, in that injured people really seem that way and they haven’t been made up – their physical injuries somehow equate with what has happened to them and it’s not meant to be pretty.   ‘The Day After’ issues a disclaimer of sorts  at the end of the film, by warning the viewer that what they’ve just witnessed is nothing compared to the reality of what would happen if there was actually a nuclear attack against the United States. Directed by Nicholas Meyer with an excellent ensemble cast including Steve Gutenberg, Amy Madigan, and local Kansas people who were cast for the sake of the piece’s authenticity.  4 ½ stars

The Seventh Sign (1989): Not a big hit when first released, ‘The Seventh Sign’ was initially  dismissed as a load of religious hokum. This may be so, but its hokum  well produced and acted, with a believable and appealing female protagonist in the person of Demi Moore who gives a performance that would  best be described as heartfelt. She plays wife to a yuppie lawyer in Los Angeles, and a prospective mother who falls pregnant, but is worried about carrying the child to full-term. In walks a Christ-like figure who wants to rent their spare room, played by Jurgen Prochnow. Meanwhile,  husband Michael Biehn is struggling to save a man from execution who murdered his parents, his only defence being that it was a sin before God that they go on living without some kind of divine intervention. A young Jewish biblical scholar is consulted by Demi, in order that she brush  up on some of the pertinent prophecies as set down in the Revelation of St John.  Demi becomes convinced that the end of the world is nigh, and that the guff of souls is empty because God does not wish us carry on any longer. Curiously enough, not being religious myself,  I fell for ‘The Seventh Sign’ hook, line and sinker when I first saw it at the cinema.


 There are a number of compelling and beautifully photographed sequences of nature gone awry in various parts of the world, indicating that all is not well and that God is not  happy with us. These scenes are undercut by the constant flow of television images in the couple’s living room,  of constant war and unrest in a mad slaughterhouse of a world in which time may be running out, and divine intervention could provide relief to all our woes. I found this take on apocalypse within its original context of divine retribution compelling and strangely believable, because I think that director Carl Schultz does such a good job of making it  audience friendly. Personally I wouldn’t label ‘The Seventh Sign’ as either science fiction or religious fiction. It’s more a genre horror film that concerns itself with the end of the world in a refreshing and interesting way that is as thought provoking as it is entertaining.    3 ½ stars

.

The Bedford Incident (1965): Starring (and produced by) Richard Widmark, Sidney Poitier, Martin Balsam and Eric Porter, ‘The Bedford Incident’ makes the prospect of nuclear confrontation seem as suspenseful as it is onerous. Set on an American naval military boat as it patrols Arctic waters on the lookout for Russian submarines, ‘The Bedford Incident’ takes place at the height of Cold War tensions. It   illustrates a possible scenario where we have the case of a commander who is unfit to command, along with a demoralised and weary crew, pushed to their limits and liable to make disastrous mistakes because they are simply…human.  The film is carried along by audience expectations of how long it will take for someone in the crew to crack, or for the commander (Widmark) to stop playing a game of cat and mouse with a Russian sub he will not allow to surface.  A showdown seems inevitable,  with one side or the other pressing the nuclear button, thus starting a nuclear war between Russia and America. 


The macho atmosphere of all the guys together using a lot of technical, naval language running around giving each other orders is a bit of a turn-off, but this is undeniably  exciting and a reasonably thought-provoking film regarding first-strike capability and which side should have the right to claim it as their own.  By the last scene, the audience is mentally drained, and has pause to wonder what difference it makes who strikes first, if the result will eventually lead to annihilation. If I’m not mistaken, the James Harris who directed this is the same James Harris who produced a number of partner Stanley Kubrick’s films. It’s an excellent effort and I think still relevant today, when one considers the broken minds, as well as bodies that have tragically resulted from the extended wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  4 stars.

Failsafe (1964): The brainchild of produce Walter Bernstein, ‘Failsafe’  calls into question the nature of computerised warfare in which the parts have built-in  malfunction, and can inadvertently cause provocation toward the so-called enemy where none was originally intended. There seems to be a lot of trauma in the military, caused by their awareness of their responsibility.  They are protecting us in spite of ourselves, but not doing a very good job of it in the process.  Dan O’Herlihy and Walter Matthau represent opposing sides of the coin as respectively a military dove who believes in nuclear containment, and a civilian hawk who believes in the inevitability of nuclear war and the responsibility of America to rise out of the ashes and build a brave new world after. Washington’s political elite are portrayed as a bunch of careless hedonists who use the prospect of war as fodder for their pointless and trite dinner party conversations, whilst the rest of the population is left helpless in the face of possible destruction by its own side.


 ‘Failsafe’ is for a Hollywood movie, extremely downbeat and austere. I guess for a film about the end of the world, you couldn’t ask for more than that. An ensemble cast put together by director Sidney Lumet are all exemplary (listen to the audio commentary on the DVD for Lumet’s illuminating comments about the cast and other aspects of the making of the film.) This is probably the big daddy of all films concerning the end of the world, and for good reason. O’Herlihy’s dream of being the matador at the beginning of the film becomes a fulfilled prophecy by the end, and ‘Failsafe’ is perhaps the only commercial American film that does justice to its subject matter.  5 stars.

I gotta go to the zoo Mac. There's a tiger having a birthday party.

The China Syndrome (1979): As a suspense thriller about an accident at a nuclear power plant, and how an attempted cover-up is exposed by a television crew working for a local station, I would propose that The China Syndrome is an excellent film about the possibility of the end of the world, and how it would transpire.   Made, and then released at the time of a real accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, the film initially caused a stir at a time when there was a significant anti-nuclear lobby attempting to limit the power and influence of the nuclear industry in the United States.  The  death of anti-nuclear activist Karen Silkwood in mysterious circumstances is reflected in an attempt on the life of one of the characters in this film in a sobering evocation of what can happen to whistle blowers when they dare to tell the truth to power.


 Looking back on ‘The China Syndrome’, to portray the film as merely a thriller would be doing it a disservice.  It is also a serious reflection on the need of a vigilant media in order for a democratic society to operate effectively. Among other things, The China Syndrome exposes the scary lack of public accountability within an industry that exists for profit, without taking into consideration the safety and well-being of its consumers, who are after all, citizens with their rights. Starring Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas, all three who have their big moments, but Lemmon was a revelation to those of us who were only familiar with his comedic roles. Everything about ‘The China Syndrome’ works, and even the idea of the possibility of a ‘china syndrome’ situation happening in future, was enough for many of us to start building bomb shelters. Or at least move to Tasmania. 4 stars.

Growing up in Australia in the Sixties

The announcement of President Barack Obama’s visit to these shores has caused me to indulge in a wave of rosy nostalgia. Mainly concerning such things as  Australia’s relationship with America, and long hot summers spent frolicking aimlessly  on the beach. These two pre-occupations may not  have much in common but they are connected forever in my memory of growing up during the conflagration of the Vietnam war.

 Looking back, it seems a time when Australia was  tied to the coat-tails of America through a combination of realpolitik and what today we may think of as some kind of bizarre racial necessity. But am I falsifying my own memories?    News of what was going on in Vietnam at the height of the conflict, acted as a sober backdrop to my innocent summer holiday breaks whilst growing up and enjoying my  very conventional childhood summer holidays in Sydney.

 

Everyone listened to the radio in those days. I spent a lot of time with  relatives in a southern beachside suburb, every summer holiday for three years running,  where the Vietnam conflict could not have been further away. But the radio was always on, and in between the ad breaks and the Top 40 countdown of hits,  the Vietnam war  was the unofficial narrative of almost every Sydney radio station. In turn, the radio was something like the communal fire of olden times that members of the tribe crowded around, for comfort and a sense of belonging.  I also can remember a few of my favourite songs that were playing on the radio. Among them was ‘In the Year 2525’ by Zager and Evans; ‘Classical Gas’ by Mason Williams; ‘The Real Thing’ by Russell Morris;  ‘Arkansas Grass’ and “A Little Ray of Sunshine’ by Axiom, and the double A sided single of ‘Something’ and ‘Come Together’ by The Beatles which got played to death on all the major AM radio stations. For better or  worse, these songs made me what I am today.  By the end of this post, I will probably reach by circularity, the conclusion that it’s pointless to indulge in nostalgia in the first place, but  since I’ve barely started, this is a pointless observation to make. Then again, I am the master of pointless observation.

Ever since the British decline of influence in Asia, it has been assumed that the relationship between Australia and America has been, well, a good one. There’s no denying it. Americans and Australians  have the same background, the same language, the same political heritage of democracy and so on and so forth. Australian Prime Minister during the Second World War, John Curtin made it clear that, with the Japanese incursions so close to our shores, it was a  necessity to  forge closer ties with the United States. Ever since then, I believe that Australia has unfortunately been backed into a corner of appearing to be   junior partner to a more vocal and  powerful nation.  


 Yet also, if I allow myself, I recall a brief, shining moment when many Australians found it necessary to speak out against what they considered to be an unjust and unnecessary war.  See here.  It was as if we were acknowledging  something wrong with the relationship we had with America. It was somehow…one-sided. Dare I say…perhaps a little dysfunctional? (Not that we knew what that word meant in those days.)  I feel sorry for the young people who will grow up having no recollection  of any  opposition movement to injustice, and I am reluctant to point out the lack of such a thing to the war against terror, but there it is, and I would prefer not to dwell on it. 

Sojourning with my mother into the central business district by bus, we would pass the University of Sydney campus, and usually, during the Vietnam war, there were quite a few students sitting out in the local park either on strike, or protesting against the war. My older brother grew his hair long and was listening to a lot of loud music, a little scared that he may be drafted and picked out of a death lottery, after the Australian (Liberal Party) government opted to send more troops as reinforcement against a possible North Vietnamese victory. With the fateful transformation of Australian society there also came disappointment and disillusion, as the Liberal Party was swept from power in 1972 after 23 years to be replaced by a relatively young and forward looking government that within its first weeks recognised the People’s Republic of China. Symbolic perhaps, but unthinkable just a few years before. Unfortunately the Whitlam Labor  government was felled by many mistakes of its own making, (as well as appointing a man as  Governor General who had his own agenda,) but its achievements remained as an example to younger Australians like myself of the possibility of reform and change, and how it may  not be such a dangerous thing after all.

 At the risk of showing my age and lecturing people younger than myself, I think now, looking back on it, that the late sixties and early seventies was our own Australian spring, or ‘renaissance’, as many of us like to refer to those heady years. Maybe these days, outsiders can consider Australia as less of a partner in America’s wars, and more as an independent nation with its own interests and a desire to be thought of as more than just a junior partner to the world’s major power. 

This day 50 years ago. Mexican stand-off with the Russians. Who blinked first?

On this day in 1961, the Soviets and United States forces endured a stand-off that lasted for at least twelve hours, as a result of the building of the Berlin wall and subsequent restrictions of western diplomats and others  from travelling from one end of the city to the other, according to a blog published in the Washington Post today and available to read here.  I came across this link on Twitter, and read with interest how the newly elected President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was thrown into the deep end of high-stakes European diplomacy with little or no experience, and how ably he acquitted himself, whether it was by good luck or management. Relations between the Soviet Union and the west were practically threadbare, and this picture below  is as good an example as any hyperbole from me as to what the 'relationship', if you could call it that, had been reduced to:

Soviet and western tanks playing a game of cat and mouse along Friedrichstrasse was not a particularly edifying sight, as the rest of the world held its breath in anticipation of which side would give in first to relieve the tension which must have been a pretty unsettling experience for all concerned. I find it difficult to imagine what it must have been like to have lived through this period of history, when nuclear war seemed an ever-present 'given'. That is, that nuclear war was  probably more likely to happen than not, which, when you think about it, is an extremely difficult, not to say, unacceptable state of affairs to have to contemplate.


The blog published in the Washington Post today concerns the de-classification of hundreds of documents concerning this period in European history, when it seemed likely that another world war would break out, given the fractious nature of the cold war, and the bellicosity of Russian premier Nikita Khrushchev, alongside the green and untried John F Kennedy in his first year of office as President of the United States. Reading this blog coincides with a recent purchase I made of a book which I once owned and decided to buy again, called 'A Question of Character: A Life of John F Kennedy, by Thomas C. Reeves. Published in 1992, the book was a bestseller, but it did its best, if not to debunk the Camelot myth completely, then at least to put it into a bit of perspective. I've never had much time for the slavering coffee table book mentality of many books that have been written about the President, and I found Reeves' approach as a respected historian, to be  free of any kind of glossing over of the truth of events, or embellishing behaviour that could not have been acceptable when it occurred, much less acceptable now. Today,  the conduct of politicians is virtually held to ransom by committee, the media and other structural entities which have existed since the Watergate debacle that saw the political system of the United States crash to its lowest point in 1972-74, and that subject is in itself ripe for a separate post, but not right now.

Children play along a section of the wall.

I'm far too young to remember John F Kennedy, and I went on to study history at university having a neutral stance about his legacy out of sheer ignorance, and I admit this. I wrote an essay on the Cuban Missile Crisis and came away with the belief that with a mixture of luck and perceptive decision-making on the part of the Americans, a nuclear war with Cuba and the Soviet Union was probably avoided. I gained a respect for the President from researching this subject, and also came away with a better understanding of why he was so loved and revered as a great leader. When you study history its very easy to do one of two things. Either you can look back and say 'I told you so', or you can conversely, (or should I say contrarily), embellish on something you find embarrassing and try to hide it or twist it around into something that simply is not true. Not having any kind of stake in the Kennedy 'myth' one way or another, I do think that after re-reading Reeves book, there were many areas in Kennedy's personal life in which he behaved irresponsibly and with conduct unbecoming a head of state. That the person concerned indulged in bad behaviour in his personal life does not however, limit his decision-making abilities, or his right of mandate over the people who elected him.


 It's a shame that we don't have  leaders of Kennedy's calibre today, as the world unfortunately, is as unsafe and insecure now, as it was then. We should let our leaders do the leading. We should elect them in good faith and let them do their job. We should not pat nut-jobs on the back for assassinating them, (or even attempting to) but instead elect them out of office if we decide we don't like them anymore or are dissatisfied with their performance. There are many things that change, but also a lot of things that stay the same. Things have in the past been bad. Do we really want to go back to the way they were? Let's hope not.

The On-Going Republican and Democratic Meat Parade

And so it goes on.

Is Thomas Jefferson turning in his grave?

2012 will be upon us sooner or later. Whether you're an American citizen or not, the twelve months of boredom known as the election year will again be lumbered out into the unforgiving gaze of the public arena. Presumably to comfort the locals  in their delusion that they still are living in the greatest democracy the world has ever seen. Or is likely to see.


For outsiders like me, the entire process is of dubious value, save only for the politicians who seem to enjoy  making as much publicity and mileage for themselves out of the event as they possibly can. Recent developments, such as the sudden emergence of the Occupy movement serves to highlight the paucity of policy on both sides of the House, and how bereft America has become when, at a time of economic crisis, the same tired, old wise saws are trotted out as gospel: the country is still a great power; we can fight back our enemies; don't let the terrorists win; -- and so it goes on, ad nauseum.


As the supposed opposition to this kind of nonsense that is apparently trotted out because it's the only way  the Republicans can get re- elected, the Democrats fashion themselves as the spokespeople for the underdogs: the unemployed, working people, African Americans, minorities, trade unions, that is anyone who isn't a millionaire and cannot hope to profit from the brutal austerity measures and giant corporate funding policies of the Republican party. The Democrats remind me of a peashooter thinking he can down the elephant, and upon discovering that he can't, proceeds to join the elephant.


The Democrats are ideologically off-balance. Loathe to be murdered by the Republicans by acknowledging that American society is as riddled with class bias and inequality as any other country in the world, the Hill has the unhappy knack of stabbing its mainstream supporters in the back whenever it suits them, with the threat that if Republicans win back office, things for them will be  far worse than they are now.


We had the unedifying spectacle of that bastion of fearless journalism 'Mother Jones' not only attempting to smear Julian Assange as he was emerging as a hero for his exposure of state secrets through the Wikileaks website. Recently, (and surprisingly ) they were one of the first to put the boot into the Occupy movement in an article which was not only negative but downright hostile, from a magazine that supposedly encourages dissent and is some kind of 21st century version of the counter-culture movement magazines like 'Ramparts' and 'Rolling Stone' which genuinely encouraged free expression and political involvement of groups and individuals in such issues as Vietnam and the Watergate scandal.


To put it bluntly, 'Mother Jones' is no 'Ramparts', and is doing its readers a disservice if it thinks that it is.  Attacking movements and individuals who have a sincere agenda for change, rather than attempting to correct their own ideological pratfalls, will not win 'Mother Jones' a wider readership. If they would only stop hitting their supporters over the head with a lot of meaningless noise about how profoundly wonderful Barack Obama is, and  concentrate on  the issues without giving the opposition all  the free publicity, they would get a fairer hearing from those of us who believe in honest journalism, even if it has to come from the mainstream-liberal-establishment media.  


I guess that after all is said and done, it's going to be the public who loses out. The media of the left as well as the right, only think of the 'public' in the crudest of all possible terms, that is, how much money is to be made out of us, and how stupid they seem to think we are. In that respect, I cannot imagine the 2012 Presidential race as anything more than a protracted and corrupt piece of political theatre, merely designed for the lowest common denominator and utilised for the business of keeping the public in the dark, and severely ill-informed of any concrete or meaningful political agenda.

Some terrible, insufferable, and far-out things I wish I’d never been taught:

Everything always comes out right in the end, according to every annoying American TV show ever made

When Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck get into a fight and shoot each other, they can still carry on as if nothing bad’s happened

Annoying racial stereotypes are meant to be tolerated

When Captain Cook discovered Australia there was nobody else living here

Adults are rational human beings, as opposed to children who don’t have a clue what they’re doing

Politics is a noble profession and politicians answer your letters if you write, and are nice to them

It’s fun to be part of one big. happy family

Gangsters are basically decent people who wouldn’t dream of hurting you

Police are above the law because they’re incapable of doing  anything that could be remotely described as wrong

If you save your money hard enough, there’s no end to what you can do in life

A bank is a safe place to put your money

Nazis are a bunch of gullible buffoons

Never contradict your mother