Menu

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

There are people who will respond to criticism of a movie they like by saying, “Well, it’s just a movie.” Rather than answer the criticism, they indicate their lack of interest in discussing the movie with that dismissive remark. But then there are those who will respond to criticism of a comedy by saying, “Well, it’s just a comedy.” Somehow, this seems to be a more defensible position, for they are saying that serious criticism may be appropriate for serious movies, but a comedy, by its very nature, is not serious, and thus is exempt.

In reality, the only thing that makes a comedy immune from criticism is laughter. When a comedy makes us laugh, no criticism can touch it; when a comedy does not make us laugh, however, it deserves all the criticism we care to bring against it, even though the absence of laughter says it all. And Shakespeare in Love is just such a comedy.

The Academy is hesitant about handing out the award of Best Picture to a comedy, because that would seem to be beneath the dignity of the institution. Shakespeare in Love, however, being about the title character, insulates the Academy from being thought lowbrow, thereby permitting its members to embrace such a comedy. The fact that the movie is not really funny did not bother them. All that mattered was the glow of culture that radiated from the Academy when they voted for this film. In short, a movie about Shakespeare is Oscar bait, and the members bit.

Nietzsche once said that Homer would never have created an Achilles, nor Goethe a Faust, had Homer been an Achilles, or Goethe a Faust. This goes contrary to the way a lot of people think. They like to imagine that an author must be like the characters he creates. Shakespeare in Love plays off this notion, for it would have us believe that Shakespeare’s inspiration for Romeo and Juliet was that of a real life love affair that he had, with all sorts of parallels, balcony scene included, between what happened to him and the play he finally wrote. But to paraphrase Nietzsche, Shakespeare would never have created a Romeo had he been a Romeo.

The movie dares us not to be amused, even if we cannot bring ourselves to laugh. Bits and pieces of Romeo and Juliet, along with some of Shakespeare’s other plays, are strewn throughout the movie in a disorganized way, the idea being that the elements of all these plays just need to be put together in the right way, as we know they eventually will. Every such reference flatters us for catching the allusion, and we can display our sophisticated familiarity with these quotations from plays not yet written by chuckling, whereas if we merely sit there in the movie theater without exhibiting the slightest bit of mirth, others may think us lacking in culture and refinement.

When we watch a Shakespearian comedy being performed today and find ourselves not laughing, we are willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. We allow that it might have been funny when it was first performed four centuries ago. With Shakespeare in Love, we know better.

Speaking about the Speaker

With all the turmoil in the House of Representatives over who will be the next speaker, several journalists and politicians have referred to the Speaker of the House as being third in line for the presidency.  That didn’t sound right to me, because that would mean that Barack Obama is first in line for the presidency, which makes no sense, because he is the president.  After hearing that expression, “third in line for the presidency,” again and again, I finally looked it up and assured myself that I was right, that the speaker is second in line for the presidency.

You might think that would be the end of it, that I would simply accept the fact that I was right and all those journalists and politicians were wrong.  But now I face the question as to how I will characterize the speaker’s position relative to the presidency should I happen to find myself in a conversation on that topic with others.  If I were sufficiently disdainful of the opinion of others, I would say it correctly, that the speaker is second in line.  But I am not, for as much as I hate to admit it, I do want the good opinion of others, and I would hate to have them talk about me after I was gone, saying, “He thinks he is so smart, but he doesn’t even know the speaker is third in line for the presidency.”  On the other hand, if I say it the way everyone else seems to, that the speaker is third in line, I might lose the good opinion of those few who know that is incorrect.  In other words, it is not enough to know the proper way to say something. You then have to decide what to do with the knowledge once you have it.

It should be noticed that this is not a dispute as to the facts, though it might appear that way at first.  The people who say the speaker is third in line are not mistaken as to the order of succession.  They know as I do that should the president die, he would be succeeded by the vice president, and should he be killed or incapacitated, the speaker would become president. This is a difference of opinion as to how to characterize the order of succession, not a difference as to what that order is.

One approach would be for me to announce that the speaker is not third in line, but only second in line, thereby making sure that everyone understands that I know the difference and that I am right.  But then I would be acting like a know-it-all, presuming to instruct others, hardly an endearing trait. Consider the case of Chris Matthews.  At some point along the way, he discovered that the correct way to pronounce Dick Cheney’s last name was \chee-nee\.  Now, I have seen Dick Cheney on television shows for years, and everyone always pronounces it \chay-nee\, and he never corrects them, either on the air or, presumably, before the broadcast.  So, Matthews apparently cares about this more than Cheney does.  But more to the point, Matthews did not have the courage to simply pronounce Cheney’s name the way he believed it should be pronounced, for fear we would all think he was an ignoramus.  Instead, he opted to instruct people on his show as to the proper pronunciation, even going so far as to express exasperation when they had the temerity to continue to pronounce it the way they wanted to.  In the end, Matthews, in his effort to display his superior knowledge on the subject, has only managed to make himself look ridiculous.

In short, instructing others first as a way of preempting criticism is a bad idea. It only makes things worse.  Matthews should have either pronounced it \chee-nee\ without apology, or he should have gone along with the way everyone else pronounces it and been done with it, which would by far have been the better choice.  After all, I’ll bet he pronounces Cicero \si-suh-ro\ and not \ki-kuh-ro\, regardless of how the famous orator actually pronounced his name.

In general, the dilemma is between being an elitist and capitulating to the masses.  There is a time to be pure and say the speaker is second in line for the presidency, and there is a time to capitulate and pronounce Cicero \si-suh-ro\. In the case of coup de grâce, for example, I do not hesitate to pronounce this \koo-duh-grahs\, even though most people pronounce it \koo-duh-grah\, leaving off the “s” sound.  I suppose they are misled in two ways.  First, their mispronunciation rhymes with coup d’état and foie gras.  Second, when they see the French word grâce, it reminds them of the English word “grace.” And they say to themselves, the French usually don’t pronounce the last part of their words, so the “s” sound should be dropped. However, they overlook the fact that in English, we have already dropped the last part of the word, known as the silent “e,” and so no more needs to be omitted in the pronunciation.  In any event, I pronounce the word correctly without hesitation or apology.

With the word “forte,” however, I begin to lose my nerve.  Back when I was in college, some fifty years ago, I learned that the word “forte” had two different pronunciations, depending on the meaning.  When the word means “strong point,” it comes to us from the French language, and thus should be pronounced \fort\; when the word means “loudly,” as a direction in music, it comes to us from the Italian language, and thus should be pronounced \for-day\.  In the last twenty or thirty years, however, I have noticed that most people pronounce the word \for-tay\ when using it to mean “strong point.”  I confess cowardice at this point.  I cannot bring myself to pronounce it that way for that meaning, and I haven’t the courage to pronounce it the way I originally learned to, for fear of sounding dumb. And so, I have dropped the word from my oral vocabulary. And would you believe, I just about cannot use it in my writing either, where you would think it wouldn’t matter, because as I write the word, I cannot help but struggle with the pronunciation in my mind, and I end up using some other expression instead.  In a similar way, I have struggled with “dilettante” and “archipelago,” for the etymology suggests one pronunciation while common parlance suggests another.

Now, there are language nihilists who say, “Languages change all the time, and so it really doesn’t matter.”  Well, the way I see it, speed limits continually change too, but that doesn’t mean we can drive at any speed we like.  At any given moment in time, there is a speed limit beyond which we are not supposed to go.  And so, at any given time, there is a right way and a wrong way to speak.  On the other hand, there is the old debate as to whether you should never go over the speed limit, or whether you should keep up with the prevailing traffic, even if that traffic exceeds what is posted on the sign.  I am a purist who says, “All those other people are going too fast, and they are in the wrong.”  People tell me that I probably cause traffic accidents by refusing to keep up with the prevailing traffic. And maybe they are right. I have heard a lot of tires squealing and metal crunching as I drive along the road, keeping to the speed limit, and I have seen the wrecks piling up in my wake. But that’s just too bad.  What’s right it right.  And so it is with my attitude about language. Still, there are times when I wonder if I should be keeping up with the prevailing ways of speaking, despite the rules.

I was at a country-western night club one night, doing the twostep.  On leaving the dancefloor, my dancing partner asked me, “Is that Jim over there?” to which I replied, “That’s he.”  I was immediately ashamed.  Sure, my answer was grammatically correct, but totally inappropriate. First of all, if I was going to be that formal, I should have said, “That is he.”  The informal contraction just did not go with putting the predicate nominative in the subjective case. More to the point, I should have said, “That’s him.” There is a way to dress and a way to dance in a country-western night club, and there is a way to speak in such a place as well, and formal English ain’t it.

A special case in the question as to whether to remain pure or to capitulate is when your teacher or your boss mispronounces a word.  When I was a junior in high school, my history teacher was talking about the Boston Massacre, which she pronounced \mass-uh-kree\.  I looked over at my friend Charles, and he looked back at me.  Other surreptitious looks were being passed back and forth around the room.  I went home and looked it up in my dictionary. Sure enough, that pronunciation was not even listed as an option.  But now I faced the dilemma: how should I pronounce the word if called upon to talk about the famous massacre in class? Fortunately, I was able to go between the horns of that dilemma by keeping my head down whenever the topic was being discussed.  One girl, however, gave a report on the subject, which she read to us while standing in front of the classroom.  The little ass-kisser pronounced it \mass-uh-kree\, no doubt scoring brownie points with the teacher, but earning the contempt and derision of everyone else in the classroom.

There is also the special, very special case of one’s significant other.  A long time ago, my then girlfriend was telling me about a friend of hers, who had impressed her with her impeccable English.  As an example, she said the woman referred to herself as an alumnus instead of “an alumni,” which some people mistakenly do.  Now, I would have been happy to let that pass, but I could look ahead in anticipation of the how the discussion would develop, and I could see that I needed to make a decision.  If I referred to the woman’s status regarding her having a degree in a different way, my girlfriend might think I was trying to correct her in a sly manner.  So, I decided to get it over with and said, “Actually, she would be an alumna.”  Big mistake.  It was the better part of a week before she would let me kiss her again, during which time I had ample opportunity to reflect upon the fact that that my love life would have been much better had I simply capitulated and referred to the woman as an alumnus the way she did.  It was better than “an alumni,” after all.

I could go on with a multitude of other examples that plague me, but you get the idea. Knowing the proper way to speak is only half of it. Knowing when to stop being pure and just go with the flow can be the more worrisome half of the problem.  Regarding the proper way to characterize the order of succession, however, I have definitely decided to remain pure.  If someone asks me who is third in line for the presidency, I’m going to say Orrin Hatch.

Rise of the Dead (2007)

Though there is no such thing as karma in real life, yet there is plenty of it in the movies. In a typical movie, the good are rewarded and the evil punished, each to the extent that they deserve. In some cases, however, movie karma goes a little overboard, and people are punished way in excess of what little faults they may have, and that is what we have in Rise of the Dead.

When the movie starts, a couple is having dinner, with the husband, Sam Sherman (Patrick Pope), saying grace. He makes a semi-blasphemous remark about how God let their baby die. Uh oh. Sure enough, he must be punished, and the instrument of death is his own wife, Sally (Brooke Delaney). She goes all zombie on him and kills him with a fork. Zombies don’t usually use weapons, however, so this is our first clue that this is not your typical zombie flick.

Actually, just before the baby died, Sam and Sally were having an argument. He criticized her for not changing the diaper on the stinking baby, and she said it was his turn to do his part and change the diaper himself. So, maybe that’s it. Sam is being punished for sexism, imagining that diaper changing is woman’s work.

But there’s more. Sam had left his pistol on the table where the baby could get to it. As a result, while Sam and Sally are arguing, the baby puts the barrel in his mouth and pulls the trigger. And thus we have to wonder if Sam was punished for being negligent in leaving a handgun around where a baby could get to it.

It turns out that the baby was adopted, and the baby’s birth mother, Laura Childs (Erin Wilk), is being besieged by zombies, whom she manages to fight off or, in some cases, kill with the help of her boyfriend Jack (Stephen Seidel) or Sheriff Brown (Peter Blitzer). Her roommate gets killed, probably punishment for making a move on Jack. A sheriff’s deputy is killed as punishment for being a jerk. And so on. When her own mother turns on her and is put in an insane asylum, Laura notices that Sally Sherman, whom she knows to be the adoptive mother of her baby, is also a patient. Laura slips into her room, and Sally tells her that the baby’s ghost is inhabiting people as a way of inflicting punishment on those who wronged him, and Laura is big on his list of those on whom he wants to inflict vengeance.

You’d think Laura would get credit for having the baby and giving it up for adoption instead of aborting it the way her previous boyfriend wanted all along. Well, said previous boyfriend does get punished for that, right after the ghost baby inhabits the body of the woman he was bitch-banging and lets him have some axe in the face. But Laura still did her baby wrong by not keeping him, so he is still after her as his main target.

Somewhere along the way, we find out that a fanatical Christian couple were the baby’s first adoptive parents, and when Child Protective Services took the baby away, this first adoptive mother cursed it. Actually, the movie is thick with Christianity, and we regularly see crucifixes hanging on the walls of the rooms of different characters in the film. And thus it is that while ghost baby is going around wreaking death on those who wronged him, we sort of get the feeling that some of these people are being punished for excess of religion.

Anyway, Laura’s mother escapes from the insane asylum, and, finding Laura at home, tells her that the ghost baby just wants to be with his mother. But then ghost baby inhabits Laura’s mother again, and Laura has to handcuff her to the oven. Then Jack comes over, and he gets possessed by the ghost baby too.

But now Laura knows what ghost baby really wants. She tells him to come to Mommy, lays him on the floor and has sex with him. So, spiritually speaking, she has sex with her own son, through the body of her boyfriend, resulting in impregnation. Talk about returning to the womb. Anyway, it does the job. Ghost baby is satisfied and he waits inside his mother to be reborn. Presumably, she intends to keep the baby this time.

It looks as though everything has ended happily, but I have to wonder what movie karma thinks about incest.

Dirty Harry (1971)

The title character of Dirty Harry, Inspector Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood), is a well-known cliché in the movies: a police detective who chafes under all the rules and regulations that get in the way of his catching criminals. For example, in the movie Dragnet (1954), Officer Frank Smith (Ben Alexander) asks his partner Sergeant Joe Friday (Jack Webb) why the laws always protect the criminals, to which Friday responds, “Because the innocent don’t need them.” This attitude is rather widespread, unfortunately. An innocent man, the thinking goes, would never insist on having an attorney present while being interrogated by the police, would never demand to see a warrant before letting the police into his house, and would never plead the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify at his own trial. Only criminals do that sort of thing.

For people who think that way, Harry Callahan is their kind of cop, because he never lets something as fussy as a bunch of rights get in the way of catching the bad guys. In one scene in the movie, the district attorney tells Harry he violated several of the suspect’s rights, namely the ones embodied in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Harry says, “I’m all broken up about that man’s rights.” The district attorney responds that he should be, because the man will have to be released as a result, none of the evidence collected without a warrant being admissible, because that is the law. Harry says, “Then the law is crazy!” Harry then asks of the deceased victim, “And Ann Mary Deacon, what about her rights?” Thus does Harry give voice to much of the frustration felt by the audience that criminals have rights at the expense of the rights of their innocent victims.

The district attorney in that scene refers to the Miranda ruling, which requires that a suspect be informed of his rights to an attorney and the right to remain silent. Before the Miranda ruling it used to be habeas corpus that conservatives hated. In the movie Scarface (1932), for example, Tony Camonte (Paul Muni) is arrested and then released on what Tony jokingly refers to as a writ of hocus pocus.

The circumstance in which Harry violated all that suspect’s rights involved torture, and this movie brings out all the necessary conditions for torture to be justified in a movie. When depicted in film, torture is usually portrayed as something evil, something done by Nazis, for instance. But Dirty Harry is one of the first movies to present torture as being good. Early in the movie, the “Scorpio Killer” has buried a little girl alive with only enough oxygen to last her a few hours, and then demands ransom for her release. Harry agrees to deliver the money. When he does, the serial killer announces that he intends to let the little girl die. When Harry catches up with him, he tortures the killer until he tells him where the girl has been buried.

Even if we disapprove of torture in real life, we cannot help but approve of Dirty Harry’s actions while watching the movie. And this is for five reasons: (1) We are certain the man is guilty. Dirty Harry knows, as do we, that the man he is torturing is the Scorpio Killer. (2) The punishment fits the crime. The Scorpio Killer is evil, and clearly deserves the pain Harry inflicts on him. (3) There is a time element. In just a few hours, the girl will die, so the information must be extracted from him immediately. (4) The situation is ad hoc. Although early in the movie a doctor jokes about Harry beating a confession out of a suspect, it is our sense that he does not routinely torture criminals. (5) The torture is effective. We find out later that the girl was already dead, but Harry does get the information concerning where she is buried.  More on this topic is covered in my essay “The Evolution of Torture in the Movies.”

A few years before Dirty Harry was produced, another movie employing a similar type of police detective was Madigan (1968). Early in the movie, another detective says of the title character (played by Richard Widmark), “Madigan doesn’t always go by the book, but he’s a good cop,” thereby spelling out the cliché referred to in the opening paragraph, which is inept, dramatically speaking. Fortunately, Dirty Harry does not tell us Harry is that kind of cop. It shows us through his words and actions. That is just one of the reasons why Dirty Harry is a great movie, while Madigan is just second rate.

But it does raise the question, will we ever see a movie about a police detective who never violates a suspect’s rights, who never uses undue force, who never enters a suspect’s house without a warrant, and who believes that it is more important to obey the law than catch the bad guys, and as a result, the criminals often escape justice? In other words, will we ever see a movie in which someone says, “Detective Fussbottom is a bad cop, but at least he always goes by the book”? Probably not, but if we ever do see such a movie, it will have to be a comedy.

Cimarron (1931 and 1960)

In 1930, Edna Ferber wrote Cimarron.  The title comes from the Spanish word “cimarrón,” which has a variety of meanings, but principally that of “wild” and “untamed.”  More specifically, it refers to the parts of Oklahoma that had belonged to the Indians; but upon reflection it was thought better to think of it as being land that had been given to the Indians, owing to the generosity of the white man; and then it was thought better still to rescind that act of generosity and give the land to white people.

And thus it was that in 1889, the Unassigned Lands, consisting of 2,000,000 acres in central Oklahoma, were to be opened up for settlement.  In a rational world, there would have been a lottery, the winners of which would have been given title to the 160 acres that they had won, after which they could then make their way to that plot of land at a leisurely pace, thereby taking possession of it in a civilized manner.  But such thinking on my part betrays a failure to understand the pioneer spirit that made this country great. Instead, there was a free-for-all, every-man-for-himself, pell-mell rush of 50,000 people, in wagons, on horseback, on bicycles, and on foot, unleashed on this territory precisely at noon on April 22.  In the novel, reference is made to men being trampled on by horses or shot by Sooners.  It is with this land run that the 1931 movie based on this novel begins.  If you want to visually represent the idea of Manifest Destiny, you might show covered wagons or railroad trains moving from right to left on the screen, but nothing can compare with such a spectacle as this.

Among this horde is Yancey Cravat (Richard Dix), who embodies the pioneer spirit in a big way.  In fact, some people call him “Cim,” indicating that he personifies this wild and untamed land.  On horseback, he is the first to arrive at the plot of land he had already picked out, but Dixie Lee, who pretends to be a damsel in distress, manages to cheat him out of it.  Thus thwarted, he returns to his wife Sabra (Irene Dunn) in Wichita, Kansas, to take her and their son, whom he officially named “Cim,” to Osage, Oklahoma, where he plans to start up a newspaper.

Throughout this movie, I kept wondering if Yancey was supposed to be an admirable character portrayed by a bad actor, or an irritating character excellently portrayed by a good actor. By the time the movie was over, I had concluded that it was the worst of both worlds. Richard Dix gives a hammy performance of a someone we are supposed to like, but who is in fact an insufferable jerk.  And this notwithstanding the fact that the movie won the Oscar for Best Picture and Dix was nominated for Best Actor.

In other words, this movie would not be so bad if it wanted us to regard Yancey as obnoxious, and Richard Dix merely overacted the part as if he were performing on the stage, where a loud, resonating voice and sweeping gestures are needed for the benefit of those sitting in the back rows. But the movie goes to great lengths to get us to admire Yancey, and the dissonance between what the movie expects of us and what we are actually feeling as we behold this preposterous character is grating.

Irene Dunne, who was nominated for Best Actress, does a decent job of playing Sabra, for whom we have some sympathy, given all she has to put up with, even though the movie really does not want us to like her very much, because it is continually showing her as lacking the virtues that Yancey possesses. In reading the novel, too, it does not take long to get tired of how Yancey is always right, and Sabra is always wrong, which is especially exasperating on those occasions when it is clear that Sabra is right, and Yancey is wrong.  At one point in the movie, when she tries to advise him on some matter regarding the newspaper, he tells her, “Don’t you be worrying your pretty head about that.”

In the novel, Yancey lies to some United States marshals.  They are looking for some men that robbed a bank and killed the cashier.  Yancey knows where they are, but pretends he hasn’t seen them.  After they leave, Sabra says that the person that shields a criminal is just as bad as the criminal himself.  The text continues as follows:

Yancey looked back at her….  His smile was mischievous, sparkling, irresistible.  “Don’t be righteous, Sabra.  It’s middle class—and a terrible trait in a woman.”

Apparently, this novel is in the thrall of some romantic notions about outlaws, and we are supposed to like the way Yancey can move freely among such men.  The novel apologizes for outlaws such as these, saying it’s the government’s fault.  It has taken the free range away from the cowboys and given it to the homesteaders, leaving them no option but a life of crime.  If you’re thinking they could have gotten a homestead themselves, or a job in a store, you just aren’t in the spirit of this novel.

Yancey is a lawyer, but the novel is at pains to make us aware, again and again, that Yancey has all the cultural refinement of a professor of literature, so many are his allusions to mythology and quotations of verse, all of which are unrecognized by Sabra, who is portrayed as an ignoramus.  In other words, Yancey excels in masculine virtues, swaggering around like a pirate or a cavalier, while at the same time showing off his brilliant intellect and sophisticated ways, in contrast to little, narrowminded Sabra who hasn’t a spark to her soul.  Given this depiction of Sabra, it is hard to believe this movie was based on a novel written by a woman.

Sabra is a racist who dislikes the “dirty, filthy Indians,” while Yancey is respectful of Indians and regrets the way they have been treated by white men.  In the novel, she thinks it absurd that Yancey regards them as human beings.  There is the suggestion that Yancey is part Indian himself.  In the movie, her mother believes that he is a half-breed.  Speaking of her mother, Sabra is from the Venable family, first introduced to us in the novel with the adjective “inbred.”

Sabra does not, however, express quite as much animosity toward the black race, because, as she puts it in the novel, “Niggers are different.  They know their place.”  As for the movie, it embraces the stereotypes common to when it was made. Unbeknownst to Yancey or Sabra, Isaiah, a black servant, stows away on one of the covered wagons they use on their trip to Osage.  He is a young boy, part coon and part Tom, who loves watermelon.  Yancey does not express the same sympathy for Negroes that he does for Indians, or talk about how they were mistreated by white people.  Edna Ferber says Isaiah has a simian appearance.

In the movie, when some outlaws begin shooting up the town, Isaiah runs out into the street to get little Cim, who is in danger.  He saves Cim’s life, but ends up getting shot and killed in doing so.  In the novel, however, Isaiah is not vouchsafed a hero’s death. Quite the contrary.  When he is a few years older, Isaiah gets an Osage Indian maiden pregnant.  When she has the baby, it is clearly a “negro child.”  The Osage Indians don’t allow this form of miscegenation, so the girl, her baby, and Isaiah are put to death by slow torture, which lasts several days.  That’s right, the baby is tortured for several days right along with his mother and Isaiah.  It’s easy to see why that never made it into the movie.

To round out the prejudices considered here, we now turn to antisemitism.  Sol Levy is the “town Jew.”  He walks down the street leading a mule that carries the merchandise he is selling.  The town’s riffraff start bothering him, finally shooting near his feet to frighten him.  He falls back against a cross-shaped structure, with his hands extended so that they rest on each of the arms of that cross. He is the stereotypical Jew, one who is a helpless victim, which allows Yancey to play the savior, protecting him from the bad guys.

And this is ironic, since Ferber was a Jew herself.  In describing the incident where the ruffians are shooting at Sol’s feet and other parts of his body, often missing him by only a fraction of an inch, she says:

He had no weapon.  He would not have known how to use it if he had possessed one.  He was not of a race of fighters.

Come again?  Did she never read the Tanakh, more commonly known as the Old Testament, about the massacres of the Amalekites, the Amorites, and the Midianites, culminating in  Joshua’s genocidal slaughter of the Canaanites, followed by years of warfare where the Hebrews vanquished the Philistines, the Moabites, the Aramaeans, the Edomites, and any other tribe that happened to be in their vicinity?

Anyway, Yancey comes to Sol’s rescue:

At that first instant of seeing him as he rushed out of his office, Yancey thought, subconsciously, “He looks like—like—“  But the resemblance eluded him then.  It was only later, after the sickening incident had ended, that he realized of Whom it was that the Jew had reminded him as he stood there, crucified against the scale.

This image of Sol and the cross, establishing a connection between him and Jesus, puzzled me.  Later in the movie, when Yancey is giving an ecumenical sermon inclusive of all varieties of Christianity, Sol asks, with a pitiful look in his eyes, if it is all right for him to be there.  Yancey assures him that it is. Further on in the movie, Yancey defends Dixie Lee at her trial. At the moment where Yancey is quoting Jesus, the camera focuses on Sol.

My guess is that this all this is a way of apologizing for Jews, saying that deep down they are really Christians.  They just don’t realize it yet. So, we should forgive them.  Perhaps this is what Ferber had in mind when she said Sol was not of a race of fighters:  she was not thinking of a Jew like Joshua or David, but rather a Jew like Jesus.

In the 1930s, Richard C. Kahn directed a lot of B Westerns with an all-black cast, but other than that, African Americans were not featured in Westerns as gun-toting cowboys.  Starting in the 1960s, however, perhaps as an effort on the part of Hollywood to make amends, African Americans began showing up in mainstream Westerns as men that were good with a gun.  But have you ever seen a Western in which a Jew strapped on a gun, killed the bad guy, and then got the girl?  There were a lot of Jews in the Old West, many of whom, I have no doubt, were good with a gun and fully capable of defending themselves.  But you would never know it from watching the movies.

There was one movie, The Frisco Kid (1979), a silly comedy, where Gene Wilder plays a dimwitted Polish rabbi in the Old West.  He does manage at one point to shoot and kill a bad guy, after which he does get married.  But he mostly has to be protected by Harrison Ford, the real Western hero, while the movie makes Wilder’s character the butt of its dumb jokes.

Getting back to the movie Cimarron, in 1893 the Cherokee Strip was to be opened up, which would be even bigger than the land run of 1889.  In the novel, Yancey argues that if they participate in the run for the Cherokee Strip, they can get 160 acres and start a ranch.  Sabra points out that if it’s a ranch he wants, he can just buy a plot of land right near Osage.  Leave it to a woman to take all the fun out of something.  But we know what his real problem is:  Yancey is bored with the newspaper he started, and he is bored with Sabra.  Early in the novel, Ferber mentions that there were not only rumors that Yancey had Indian blood in him, but also that he had a squaw and lots of papooses somewhere that he had abandoned.  That being the case, it should come as no surprise that he is willing to abandon Sabra and their two children as well, just so he can have some fun pioneering again.  The movie, however, wants us to think it is Sabra’s fault for not being willing to go with him.

Five years later, he shows back up, wearing a Rough Rider uniform.  In the novel, he is on his way to fight in the Spanish American War; in the movie, he just got back from the fighting.  The reason for the difference is simplification, often necessary when bringing a book to the big screen.  In this way, Yancey abandons Sabra only twice in the movie, whereas he deserted her three times in the novel.  In any event, his interest in getting some land in the Cherokee Strip so he could start a ranch must have quickly lost its appeal, for we never hear another thing about it.  In the novel, Sabra falls into his arms, unable to resist the charms of the man she so dearly loves.  When Yancey has a look as his son, who essentially has feminine features, he is disappointed.  “’Gods!  How the son degenerates from the sire!’’’ Yancey says to him in exasperation, while no doubt pleased at being able to cite that line from The Iliad, once more showing off his impossible erudition.

But he’s not through doing that.  When Sabra recovers from her thrill at seeing Yancey again, she remembers that he had deserted her.  When she expresses her anger at the thought of this, he responds by referring to her as Penelope.

“Who?” she asks.

He then quotes from The Odyssey:

“Strange lady, surely to thee above all womankind the Olympians have given a heart that cannot be softened.  No other woman in the world would harden her heart to stand thus aloof from her husband, who after travail and sore had come to her … to his own country.”

“You and your miserable Milton,” she replies.

You see, once while they were walking down the street, he started reciting the poem “Delilah,” which sounded to her like a bunch of nonsense, and then heard him refer to Milton, it’s author.  So, she figured this must be another quotation from that same guy.

A few pages later, Ferber refers to Yancey as Odysseus.  The comparison is not only absurdly romantic, but completely inappropriate.  Yancy can’t wait to go fight in the Spanish American War, but Odysseus was the world’s first draft dodger.  When Palamedes came to get him to fight in the Trojan War, Odysseus pretended to be crazy, hoping to get out of it.  The ruse didn’t work, but the point is that unlike Yancey, Odysseus did not want to leave his wife and son to go fight in some pointless war.

Shortly after his reunion with Sabra, Yancey finds out that Dixie Lee is about to go on trial for being a public nuisance (i.e., a prostitute).  Sabra, it seems, is a heartless prude, who wants to run her out of town.  Yancey realizes that Dixie Lee is more to be pitied than censured, and successfully defends her in court against the legal action brought against her by Sabra, thereby humiliating his own wife.

The misogyny in this movie is recapitulated in their children. Their daughter Donna is a shrew.  She is fed up with the way everyone else is oil rich, while her family is just getting by on what comes in from the newspaper.  She declares she is going to find a rich man and marry him.  Apparently, she does, since we later see her with a man old enough to be her grandfather. Their son Cim, on the other hand, is such a nice guy that he even intends to marry an Indian. But why stop there? The whole town is like that. With the exception of a few scoundrels, the men are genuine and likable, while the decent women of the community are snobs and prudes.

When Yancey abandons Sabra again, the movie sees no need to belabor this second desertion of her, but merely mentions it in an intertitle. Many years go by, during which time Sabra becomes a United States Representative, her reward, presumably, for finally realizing how enlightened her husband had been all along. At a political banquet in her honor, she gives credit to the contribution women have made in civilizing Oklahoma. Given all the sexism we have seen up to this point, this belated tribute to women sounds like an apologetic afterthought.

Sabra barely manages to fight back the tears as she tries to tell herself that Yancey is still alive somewhere. But then it turns out that some old roughneck working on an oil rig nearby has been severely injured because he used his body to shield the rest of the crew from some exploding nitroglycerin; and Sabra, hearing that the man’s name is Yancey, rushes to him, where he dies in her arms while blathering about what a loving wife and mother she is. Of course, we cannot help but think that even though he was working right there in the local oil fields, he apparently did not want to have anything to do with her, because he never even let her know he was in town.

And then the cover is removed from an obscenely huge statue of Yancey in honor of the pioneers who made Oklahoma what it is. There is another figure, somewhat smaller in stature, standing behind him, but it is not Sabra. It is a generic Indian.

The run for the Unassigned Lands in 1889 is just the sort of spectacle that begged to be filmed in a big way, in Cinemascope and in color, and with more carnage.  But that is about the only justification for the 1960 remake.  Characters in this movie have different relationships with one another, and events that take place are changed around a bit, but none of it seems to matter one way or the other.  Glenn Ford, who plays Yancey in this version, is a better actor, but the character he plays is just as irritating as ever, if not more so.

Some of the misogyny is expunged by simply eliminating Yancey’s bigoted daughter and by eliminating the persecution and trial of Dixie Lee (Anne Baxter) by the women of Osage, although we are still expected to think Sabra (Maria Schell) is to blame whenever Yancey deserts her.  The African American stereotype is avoided by eliminating Isaiah.  However, Sol Levy is still depicted as the helpless victim, placed in a crucified posture.  In that way, Yancey can once again be seen coming to the rescue of this Jesus avatar.

Being There (1979)

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who think the movie Being There is funny and those who do not. They should probably not be friends, and they definitely should not marry each other. The gulf between them is just too immense to be bridged.

It is worse than that. Those of us who do not think this movie is funny can barely stand to watch it. The movie consists of one joke, of which there are countless variations. A man, Chance (Peter Sellers), who is mentally retarded, is mistaken by everyone he meets as being important, wise, clever, funny, romantic, etc., depending on the circumstances. But for those of us who despise this movie, this one joke is not funny, not even in the first instance. In fact, it is irritating.

And it is still worse. Not only are there people out there who think this movie is funny, but many of them also think that it tells us something profound about human nature. But the human nature in this movie has no connection to reality. It is obvious to us from the very beginning that Chance is a simpleton, and that means everyone else in the movie has to be something of a simpleton not to realize it.

And because the movie hits us over the head by having Chance walk on water, I guess we are supposed to discern a spiritual message as well. I hate to think what that message might be.

Vanity Fair: The Book and the Adaptations

Three years ago, I wrote an essay on Vanity Fair and its adaptations.  My main reason for doing so was to address the subject of the murder of Jos Sedley.  Of all the movies or television series based on this novel that I have seen, not a single one ends with Becky’s murder of Jos.  In fact, Jos is always still alive in the end, usually happily married to Becky.

Well, that’s the movies.  But then there are my friends and casual acquaintances.  Most have not read Vanity Fair, and of those that have, when I ask them their opinion about Jos Sedley’s death, they say they don’t remember, having read the novel so many years ago.  But some do remember, and they invariably balk at my suggestion that Jos was poisoned.

This resistance on the part of the readers of that novel, as well as on the part of those that have produced movies based on it, intrigued me to the point that I took the subject up in my original essay.  Then, having said my piece, I figured that would be the end of it.

Shortly thereafter, I read the novel again for a fourth time.  It was then that something I had never paid much attention to before struck me as a clue provided by the author.  It was the chapter in which there is an allusion to Philomela.  Instead of dismissing this as an obscure reference to a woman in Greek mythology, as I had previously, I decided to look into the matter and find out just who she was.  In so doing, I discovered her importance.  I did some quick research on the internet, and while most literary critics agree that Jos was murdered, I could not find a single one that saw any significance in the story of Philomela.

But as important as this discovery was, in my humble opinion, I had already published my essay, and now it was too late.  Off and on since then, I have been tempted to republish the essay again anyway, this time with the material on Philomela added in, and each time I resisted, for I thought it would be unseemly.

But I can hold out no longer.  And so it is that I beg the reader’s sufferance, asking him or her to forgive my own vanity on this matter, presuming to present a revised version of my original essay.    What follows, then, is the original essay, plus added material:

____________________________________________

There have been many movies or television dramas based on the novel Vanity Fair, not all of which are available for viewing today.  Of those I have been able to see, though some are more faithful to the novel than others, none are faithful in the most critical sense.  In fact, even the memories of those who have read the novel often do what the movies do, which is to change the story and the character of Becky Sharp into something different.

At the end of the novel, Jos Sedley is dead, on account of his having been poisoned by Becky for the insurance money. She had gotten him to take out a life insurance policy naming her as one of two beneficiaries, his sister Amelia being the other.  And this was after she had siphoned off all his wealth through phony investments in a tangle of bubble companies, allowing Becky a lavish life style.  Also, her son, whom she never loved and whom she treated badly, has become wealthy; and though he won’t have anything to do with her, yet he nevertheless gives her a liberal allowance.  Furthermore, Becky has managed to find a secure place for herself in society, going to church and participating in all sorts of charitable enterprises.  When her old friend Amelia and her husband, William Dobbin, see Becky in a stall at one of the Fancy Fairs, they recoil in horror.  Becky merely looks down demurely and smiles. William Makepeace Thackeray, the author of the novel, also provided illustrations for it, the last one of which depicts the scene just described.  The caption below the illustration reads, “Virtue Rewarded:  A Booth in Vanity Fair.”

As far as I know, not a single movie or television drama ends the way the novel does.  The oldest movie version that I have seen is Vanity Fair (1932), starring Myrna Loy as Becky.  Being only seventy-eight minutes long, it could not possibly be faithful to the lengthy novel in all its details.  But while we may excuse that as owing to the exigencies of bringing any novel to the screen, it also deviates from the spirit of the book.  Jos Sedley is still alive at the end of the movie.  He becomes fed up with Becky and leaves her.  Now alone, and worried about losing her looks, she is unhappy.  The other movies and television dramas I have seen end differently.  There is Becky Sharp (1935), starring Miriam Hopkins; a television mini-series, Vanity Fair (1998), starring Natasha Little; Vanity Fair (2004), starring Reese Witherspoon; and another television mini-series, Vanity Fair (2018), starring Olivia Cooke.  When I heard about this last adaptation, just after I had published my first version of this essay, I thought, “With all the previous adaptations that have been made, surely this one will show some originality and be faithful to the novel when it comes to the demise of Jos Sedley.”  Nope.  In all of them, Jos is still alive in the end; and in each one save the first, Becky and Jos live happily ever after.

There are other versions of Vanity Fair, too numerous to list them all.  A few of them are apparently available on DVD or video tape, but I cannot bring myself to shell out the money to buy them, and they are not available for rent from Netflix.  If anyone reading this has seen any of these versions and knows the fate of Jos Sedley therein, I would appreciate having that information passed on to me.  Just having Jos be dead at the end would be close enough to the novel for that version to win the award for “Most Faithful Adaptation.”

Some people argue that the murder of Jos Sedley at the end of the novel is out of character with the Becky that we have become used to in the earlier pages.  But that is only because we have made excuses for Becky’s behavior throughout the novel.  I have already mentioned the way she neglected her son when she wasn’t being mean to him.  But right from the beginning, we are given indications of her spiteful nature.  Though Miss Pinkerton may have treated Becky badly at the academy for young ladies, yet her sister, Miss Jemima, was always sweet to her.  And even though Miss Pinkerton refused to bestow upon Becky the traditional parting gift of Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary, Miss Jemima sneaks a copy to Becky just before she gets on the carriage to depart.  And yet, Becky flings the dictionary out the window as the carriage drives off, not only hurting the feelings of the kind Miss Jemima, but undoubtedly getting her in trouble with Miss Pinkerton, who had already told Miss Jemima that Becky was not to get a copy under any circumstances. Not only that, but Becky uses a doll to represent Miss Jemima so as to ridicule and belittle her for the amusement of her father and his friends.  This is mean-spirited to say the least, and yet we tend to forget about the cruel treatment of poor Miss Jemima, and remember instead her sister, Miss Pinkerton, who deserved Becky’s contempt and ridicule.  In other words, right from the beginning, though we are shown Becky’s dark side, yet we seem determined to construct a sympathetic portrait of Becky, which requires us to overlook and forget about anything that contradicts it.

The movies do all the hard work of overlooking and forgetting for us.  Save for the 1932 version of the novel, which was mild in its treatment of Becky in any event, the subsequent versions suppress these dark aspects of Becky’s character altogether, guaranteeing that we will see in her a strong, resourceful, admirable woman who may be a little ruthless at times, but always justifiably so, given what she is up against.

One of the reasons that even people who have read the novel either forget or deny that Becky murdered Jos for the insurance money is that Thackeray does not explicitly say she did, but only hints at it.  First, we are informed that Becky has in her possession a bottle of laudanum, and at one point she thinks about using it to commit suicide.  In this way, Thackeray lets us know that Becky has at her disposal an instrument of death.  Second, Becky has been nursing Jos through a series of “unheard-of illnesses.”  One can almost picture Becky making sure Jos drinks his medicine, which we suspect is laced with increasing amounts of the laudanum.  Third, Jos is afraid of Becky, but even more afraid of trying to leave her, telling Dobbin that she would kill him if she knew he had spoken to anyone about leaving her, saying, “You don’t know what a terrible woman she is.”  Fourth, after Jos has died, the solicitor of the insurance company “swore it was the blackest case that ever had come before him,” and the company refused to make payment on the policy.  Fifth, Becky hires lawyers Burke, Thurtell, & Hayes, who force the insurance company to make payment.  The names of the lawyers allude to actual criminals who were notorious at the time:  the first, a body-snatcher; the second and third, murderers.  Finally, all this is accompanied by an illustration depicting the scene in which Jos pleads with Dobbin to save him from Becky, while she hides behind a curtain, a sinister smile on her face, appearing to hold something in her hand, presumably the bottle of laudanum.  The caption under the illustration reads, “Becky’s Second Appearance in the Character of Clytemnestra.”  However, Thackeray acts as though he is not sure himself exactly what happened.

In fact, at several points in the novel, Thackeray feigns ignorance as to what Becky has done.  For example, when her husband Rawden catches her alone with Lord Steyne and becomes outraged that he may have been cuckolded, Thackeray says:  “What had happened?  Was she guilty or not?  She said not; but who could tell what was truth which came from those lips; or if that corrupt heart was in this case pure?”

The subtitle of this book is A Novel without a Hero.  Heroes and villains are complementary characters:  where you have one, you tend to have the other.  And so, a novel without a hero should also be a novel without a villain.  Had Thackeray made Becky’s guilt explicit, she would have undeniably been a villain, throwing the novel out of balance, owing to its lack of a hero.  By leaving us in doubt as to her sins and crimes, he makes it possible for us to deny her villainy altogether.

It is not uncommon for an author to avoid being the omniscient narrator, as a way of making the story more interesting by leaving some things to the imagination of the reader.  And this is believable, because in telling a story, it is often the case that we do not know everything that happened, but can tell only the parts we are actually sure of.  Before the story proper begins, however, Thackeray refers to the characters in his novel as puppets, and he ends the novel by saying he is going to put his puppets away.  In other words, he is making it explicit that he not only knows what the characters in his novel are doing, but as the puppeteer, he is also the one making them do those things.  What, then, are we to make of his pretense of ignorance regarding Becky’s actions?

Actually, it is not so much a matter of ignorance as it is one of delicacy.  As Thackeray notes toward the end of his novel, it would be inappropriate in Vanity Fair to put words to many things we know exist, to discuss various matters we know are taking place:

…it has been the wish, all through this story, deferentially to submit to the fashion at present prevailing, and only to hint at the existence of wickedness in a light, easy, and agreeable manner, so that nobody’s fine feelings may be offended.  I defy anyone to say that our Becky, who has certainly some vices, has not been presented to the public in a perfectly genteel and inoffensive manner.  In describing this siren, singing and smiling, coaxing and cajoling, the author, with modest pride, asks his readers all round, has he once forgotten the laws of politeness, and showed the monster’s hideous tail above water?  No!  Those who like may peep down under waves that are pretty transparent, and see it writhing and twirling, diabolically hideous and slimy, flapping amongst bones, or curling round corpses; but above the water line, I ask, has not everything been proper, agreeable, and decorous, and has any the most squeamish immoralist in Vanity Fair a right to cry fie?  When, however, the siren disappears and dives below, down among the dead men, the water of course grows turbid over her, and it is labour lost to look into it ever so curiously. They look pretty enough when they sit upon a rock, twanging their harps and combing their hair, and sing, and beckon to you to come and hold the looking-glass; but when they sink into their native element, depend on it those mermaids are about no good, and we had best not examine the fiendish marine cannibals, revelling and feasting on their wretched pickled victims. And so, when Becky is out of the way, be sure that she is not particularly well employed, and that the less that is said about her doings is in fact the better.

The Clytemnestra illustration referred to above deserves further analysis.  Becky’s first appearance as Clytemnestra takes place in Chapter LI, which has the following heading:  “In Which a Charade Is Acted Which May or May Not Puzzle the Reader.”  That title alone should have alerted me that something of significance was being attached to one of the charades being acted out by Becky as entertainment at a party.  The first of the two is the one depicting the woman in Greek mythology that murdered her husband Agamemnon.  That story is well known and readily understood by all.  It is the second charade that Thackeray is suggesting may puzzle the reader.  In this one, Becky plays the part of Philomela (Philomèle in the novel), the woman in Greek mythology who was raped by her sister’s husband, King Tereus.  Afterwards, he threatened Philomela, telling her not to say anything to anyone about what happened.  When Philomela remained defiant, Tereus cut out her tongue to keep her from talking.  So that her sister would eventually find out who raped and mutilated her, she wove a tapestry depicting the rape.  In other words, just as Philomela drew a picture to tell what she could not say, so too did Thackeray draw a picture to tell what he could not write, the picture of Becky in her second appearance as Clytemnestra.

The first time I read Vanity Fair, it was in a book that did not have any illustrations.  I have since found that several other editions have left out Thackeray’s illustrations as well.  Perhaps the publishers thought them unimportant and wished to save the expense of including them.  That may be one more reason why many readers of this novel remain oblivious to Becky’s murder of Jos Sedley.

In addition to those given above, another reason that so many readers of the novel are wont to forget or forgive the murder is that in a novel where so many characters are portrayed in a less than flattering light, Jos is the most unappealing of the lot.  His physical appearance, his manners, and his personality are such that we really don’t care what happens to him.  Of course, since most movies and mini-series have Jos and Becky as a couple at the end, his character is improved right alongside Becky’s.

Throughout this novel, Becky has, like a siren, tricked and seduced many of the people she has encountered.  But her greatest accomplishment is the way she seduces us, the reader of this novel.  We are loath to look below the water line.  We want to sympathize with Becky.  We want to admire her.  In fact, we want to be seduced.  And so, we refuse to see the evil that has been there throughout the novel, up to and including her most wicked deed.

By the time we see a movie or television version of this novel, however, the siren’s tail has been replaced by a nice-looking pair of legs, to spare us the effort of having to excuse or ignore much of Becky’s behavior, as we are wont to do when reading the book.

___________________________________________

Since writing the above review, I have been able to see the 1987 television series. Much to my surprise, the murder of Jos Sedley is actually depicted, and in a manner similar to that in the novel.

Unfortunately, the quality of this television series is only fair.  Still, given that it is the only version I have seen in which Becky slowly poisons Jos to get money from his life insurance policy, so it deserves credit for doing what all the other versions have failed to, either out of the need to comply with the standards of censorship at the time, or owing to a failure of nerve.  Therefore, this 1987 version wins the award for The Most Faithful Adaptation.

Summer of ’42 (1971) and The Way We Were (1973)

The Way We Were begins in 1944. Katie (Barbra Streisand) runs into Hubbell (Robert Redford), a good-looking guy she met in college and whom she had a crush on. But as she is rather homely, her love for him was hopelessly unrequited. She invites him up to her place for a cup of coffee, but he is so drunk that without realizing what he is doing when he comes out of the bathroom, he gets undressed and falls asleep in her bed. She gets naked, slides into bed with him, and encourages him. Without really knowing what he is doing, he has sex with her, and she hopes he knows it is Katie he is making love to. But by the next morning, it is clear that he has no memory of what happened, and he merely thanks her for letting him sleep there.

In evaluating this scene, we must do so from the vantage points of three different periods: the last days of World War II, when the scene took place; the early 1970s, when the movie was made; and the twenty-first century, when we watch this movie today. In other words, each of these three different periods will tend to yield three different moral judgments about that sex scene.

But first, let us reverse the sexes. By today’s standards, if a man were to have sex with a woman while she was too drunk to know what she was doing, that would be rape, for she would be in no condition to consent. However, in accordance with twenty-first century egalitarianism, we would not limit it to just a man doing that to a woman. Rather, we would say that if one person had sex with a second person when that second person was too drunk to know what he or she was doing, then the first person has raped the second person. This allows for the possibility that a woman could rape a man, a man could rape a man, and a woman could rape a woman. In other words, by today’s standards, Katie raped Hubbell.

In 1944, when the scene took place, if it had come to light what Katie had done, no one would have called it rape. Katie’s behavior would have been condemned, but not as an act of rape. Rather, she would have been regarded as a slut, in that she had sex without being married. And in no way would Hubbell have been thought of as victimized.

In 1973, when the movie was released, the people who made this movie probably did not think of it as rape either. And given the fact that it was made after the sexual revolution, what Katie did was not condemned as slutty either. In other words, the audience of the early 1970s did not condemn Katie at all.

In fact, the people who made the movie in 1973 probably had no idea that over forty years later this scene would challenge our willingness to apply a single standard to both men and women when it comes to rape. In other words, if a man who takes advantage of a drunk woman can be charged with rape and sentenced to a year in prison, should the same sentence be given to a woman who does that to a man? In particular, if The Way We Were were set in the twenty-first century, would we say that Katie should have gone to prison for what she did to Hubbell?

Some people might argue that since she and Hubbell later fell in love and got married, that made it all right. But suppose a twenty-first-century Hubbell were to realize what happened when he woke up the next morning. And let us further assume that this twenty-first-century Hubbell was outraged and felt disgusted by what happened. Under those circumstances, should Katie spend a year in prison?

Such a distinction suggests that whether such an act constitutes rape depends not merely on the circumstances leading up to and including the act of sex, but also on what happens after the fact.  To reverse the sexes again, imagine a man has sex with a woman who is drunk.  The next morning, he calls her up, tells her he really enjoyed being with her the night before, asks her out for another date for that weekend, leading eventually to their getting married.  It will never occur to that woman that she had been raped.  But suppose, instead, that he doesn’t call her, and she later hears from her friends that he has been bragging about how he got a piece of old what’s her name, she may feel violated and end up bringing charges against him.

Determining whether Katie raped Hubbell would be further complicated if Katie had been as drunk as he was.  By today’s standards, if Katie were that drunk, it would be said that she was unable to give consent; and by today’s standards, a man’s being drunk is no legal excuse for taking advantage of a woman who is too intoxicated to give her consent.  Therefore, by today’s standards, had Katie and Hubbell been equally drunk, she could claim to have been raped, and Hubbell would be in trouble.

I confess that I have a double standard concerning rape in such a circumstance. First, I would find it hard to believe that even a twenty-first-century Hubbell would be all that put out by what she did. And second, I would not want to see Katie go to prison in any event.

But my views are not important. What is important is that this scene in the movie, imagined to take place today, tests our willingness to apply a single standard to both men and women in such cases. Most people I know, after some hesitation, will admit that they would not want to see Katie do hard time.

In a way, Summer of ’42 is a companion piece with The Way We Were, only instead of challenging our attitude about rape and the double standard when it comes to having sex with someone too drunk to give consent, Summer of ’42 challenges our attitude about rape and the double standard when it comes to having sex with someone too young to give consent.

With both movies, we pretty much have the same three time periods: the 1940s, when the movies were set; the early 1970s, when the movies were made; and today, when we watch them from the perspective of the twenty-first century. In Summer of ’42, a 15-year-old boy named Hermie (Gary Grimes) falls in love with a 22-year-old woman named Dorothy (Jennifer O’Neill). One evening, she gets word that her husband’s plane has been shot down over France, and he is dead. She and Hermie have sex, and the next day she is gone.

I never really cared for this movie, but that is neither here nor there. The sense of it was that Dorothy, in her grief, turns to Hermie for affection, and that what happens is a deeply meaningful and positive experience for him. Now, I don’t know what the laws were in Massachusetts in 1942, but I am pretty sure that in most states, if a 22-year-old man had sex with a 15-year-old girl, he would be guilty of statutory rape; and if found out, he would be sent to prison, especially when the jury was told that he had sex with her on the very night he found out his wife had been killed, for that would make him seem callous. Should we condemn the man but excuse the woman? Did Dorothy deserve to go to prison for rape, just as a man would?

Once again, as with The Way We Were, we have a situation in which there is consent after the fact, in this case, when the boy becomes a man. Does that matter? And if it does, what would our attitude toward Dorothy be if the adult Hermie was psychologically harmed? And once again we have to distinguish between the attitudes existing when the movie was set, when it was made, and the attitudes we have today.

Even today, the double standard lends itself to late-night humor. Typical was when Jay Leno was discussing a story about a female teacher that had sex with one of her male students, leading Leno to ask in exasperation, “Where were these teachers when I was in Junior High?” Humor aside, could Summer of ’42 be made today? More to the point, could such a story be told in a contemporary setting? Probably not. But I wonder if that represents a genuine change in attitude on the part of the general public, or simply a fear that a handful of radicals would stir up trouble, making the film controversial. I, for one, would have a hard time condemning Dorothy, even if the story were set in the present, just as I would have a hard time condemning Katie, even if that story were set in the present.

Unforgiven (1992)

As the movie Unforgiven opens, we see a man digging a hole near a medium-sized tree, while we hear “Claudia’s Song,” a nice piece of sentimental music.  From the written prologue, we gather that the man is William Munny (Clint Eastwood), burying his wife Claudia, who died of smallpox, leaving him to raise two young children.  Munny used to be an outlaw, but Claudia got him to quit drinking and give up his wicked ways. Whenever we hear her eponymous melody, we know that Munny is still under her influence.

The scene shifts to the town of Big Whiskey, Wyoming, and to Greely’s Beer Garden and Billiard Parlor in particular, which is really just a saloon and a whorehouse.  One of the whores named Delilah giggles when she sees the small penis of one of her customers, a man named Mike, and he gets out his knife and starts trying to cut her up.  His friend Davey is in the next room, humping on Strawberry Alice, and the two of them hear Delilah’s screams and come running.  Mike yells at Davey to hold Delilah. It’s a little hard to see what is going on because the room is dark, and so, just from watching the movie, I never thought that Davey did anything.  However, in the “Original Screenplay,” it says that Davey reluctantly holds Delilah while Mike slashes her face.

The present owner of Greely’s, a guy named Skinny, breaks it up by putting a gun to Mike’s head. Someone fetches Little Bill Dagget (Gene Hackman), the sheriff.  He decides that Delilah is essentially the property of Skinny.  As a result, Little Bill merely fines Mike and Davey for cutting Delilah’s face up.  They are told to bring Skinny seven horses in compensation for the damage to his property.

The whore with a heart of gold is a Western cliché, but in this movie, we have six whores with six hearts of gold.  They are outraged by the way Little Bill let Mike and Davey off with just a fine. They put their savings together and put out the word to their customers that they are willing to pay a thousand dollars to anyone that kills the two men that cut up Delilah.

Meanwhile, back in Kansas, we see that Munny is a pig farmer, which makes me think of Shane (1953).  In that movie, Alan Ladd, as the title character, walks into a bar to get some soda pop for Joey (Brandon De Wilde), a young boy, not old enough to enter the bar himself.  Chris Calloway (Ben Johnson) is sitting at a table with some other cowpokes.  When he sees Shane, he says to the bartender, “Will!  Let’s keep the smell of pigs out from where we’re drinking.”  Chris works for Rufus Riker (Emile Meyer), who owns a ranch. We know they are real men because they herd cattle. Homesteaders, on the other hand, may have a single dairy cow, but they typically own pigs.

And so, we see that Munny has sunk pretty low.  To make matters worse, we see him falling down in the mud trying to move the pigs around, mud that is probably mixed with feces.  While this is going on, a young man rides up, calling himself the “Schofield Kid.”  He’s heard about Munny’s reputation for being a killer, and he wants him for a partner to help collect the bounty of a thousand dollars for killing the two men that cut up Delilah.  Except that the story, as he relates it, has grown some.  He says that the two men not only cut up the face of a “lady,” but they also cut her eyes out, cut off her ears, and cut off her teats. This is the first indication we have that the stories about the Old West were exaggerations, which suggests that this is a revisionist Western.

At first, Munny declines the offer to be the Schofield Kid’s partner, saying he’s not like that anymore.  However, he soon decides to go for the bounty.  He is no longer good with a pistol, but he decides he can make do with his shotgun.  And his horse is not used to be ridden on, so he has trouble mounting her.  But he eventually manages to ride over to the farm of his old partner, Ned (Morgan Freeman), and talk him into going along with him.  Ned agrees, grabs his Spencer rifle, and they set out to catch up with the Schofield Kid.

Munny keeps talking about how his wife Claudia got him to quit drinking and killing. Another Western cliché is the gunfighter with a guilty past, and he has the guiltiest past of them all.  He thinks back on some of the men he killed, men that he admits didn’t even deserve it.  Later we find out that he was responsible for setting off some dynamite that killed women and children.  But Munny keeps saying, as a kind of mantra, that Claudia changed him, that he’s not like that anymore.  It’s just that he needs the money for a new start for him and his children.

Meanwhile, another man is on a train heading to Big Whiskey to collect the bounty.  He is English Bob (Richard Harris), accompanied by W.W. Beauchamp, his biographer, who has written about English Bob’s exploits in his book The Duke of Death.  There is a discussion on the train about the recent shooting of President Garfield.  English Bob says that’s why it would be better if America were ruled by a monarch, since people are intimidated by majesty and are less likely to assassinate a king or a queen.  Not only does he have the effrontery to come over here and tell us how to run our country, but he doesn’t seem to realize that being a gunfighter is an American preserve.  We know things are not going to end well for English Bob.

As English Bob and Beauchamp arrive in Big Whiskey in a mud wagon, they pass a sign that says firearms are not allowed in town and must be deposited in the county office. When they get off the mud wagon, a deputy politely informs them that they must surrender their sidearms for the duration of their visit. Although there is a pistol in full view on English Bob’s hip, he denies that he or his companion have any sidearms.

Now, if I rode into town hoping to collect a bounty and was told that guns had to be turned in to the sheriff, I would have turned in my gun.  Then I would have looked around town, talked to the whores, and reflected on this unexpected turn of events. Once I decided what I was going to do, whether to give up on the bounty altogether or try to collect it by other means, I would have told the sheriff I was leaving, received back my gun, and ridden out of town, intent of leaving for good or executing Plan B.

Anyway, after refusing to hand the deputy his pistols, English Bob gets himself a shave. When he comes out of the barbershop, he is surrounded by Little Bill and his deputies. Little Bill takes two guns away from English Bob, and proceeds to knock him down in the street and then repeatedly kick him, to serve as a warning to anyone else who might be thinking about collecting that bounty.  He then throws both English Bob and Beauchamp in jail.

Meanwhile, Munny and Ned finally catch up with the Schofield Kid.  But just before they do, Ned gets curious about Munny’s sex life.  Ned is so needy sexually that he hated the idea of leaving his wife, an Indian named Sally Two Trees, even for just a couple of weeks.  So, he wonders if Munny ever goes to town to have sex with a whore. Munny says Claudia wouldn’t want him doing that.

And then Ned asks him if he masturbates.  That qualifies this movie as a modern Western, suitable for the 1990s.  Of course, if the movie had been made ten years later, Ned and Munny would have pulled a Brokeback Mountain (2005).  And if made ten years after that, around the time that The Shape of Water (2017) was receiving the Academy Award for Best Picture, I suppose Munny would have found a deep, meaningful relationship with one of those pigs he had.  It’s important for a movie to stay up with the times.

Back at the sheriff’s office, Little Bill is reading The Duke of Death, only he insists on calling it “The Duck of Death” instead.  He is especially interested in this one part of the book, telling how English Bob protected a lady by killing seven men with two pistols.  It turns out that Little Bill was there that night, and he proceeds to tell Beauchamp how it really was.  And how it really was turns out to be a sorry mess.

Beauchamp becomes so interested that Little Bill lets him out of his cell so that he can start writing stuff down.  Little Bill revels in his revisionism, and Beauchamp becomes more interested in that than in the romanticized stories he has been writing about English Bob.  The next day, Little Bill runs English Bob out of town, but Beauchamp stays behind.  They end up at Little Bill’s house, which he has been building himself. It’s a running joke among the deputies that Little Bill is no carpenter, one of them saying there is not one straight angle in the whole house.

That night, while Beauchamp is writing down more of Little Bill’s revisionist tales, it starts raining, and the roof starts leaking in several places.  Beauchamp jokes that Little Bill should hang the carpenter, not realizing who the carpenter was.  The joke does not go over well with Little Bill.  The house is symbolic of his revisionism, in that it is as ugly and deformed as the stories he tells.

Back out on the prairie, the Schofield Kid asks Munny if that story is true about how two deputies had rifles pointed at him, and he drew his gun and killed both of them. Munny says he doesn’t “recollect,” either because he really forgot, on account of being drunk at the time, or because he feels guilty about his past and doesn’t want to talk about it.  The Kid then claims he has killed five men, although Ned and Munny don’t believe him, and, as we later learn, it turns out he’s never killed anyone at all. Once again, the movie is saying that stories of the Old West were exaggerations, if not complete fabrications, as when men like English Bob and the Schofield Kid brag about their fictitious exploits.

But later on, Ned says to Munny that the way he remembered it, there were three deputies that had the drop on him, not just two, and Munny killed all three of them. Munny says he’s not like that anymore.  This is the opposite what we have seen up till now.  The true story about Munny killing three deputies changed over the years to just two deputies in order to make the story more believable.  And whereas English Bob and the Schofield Kid made up stories about themselves, Munny refuses to acknowledge the stories about him that really happened.  This is the first instance of anti-revisionism in this movie, a counterpoint that gets stronger as we go along.

Eventually they arrive in the town of Big Whiskey and go into Skinny’s saloon.  Munny has become ill, owing to the cold rain they have been riding in.  While the Kid and Ned go upstairs to discuss the bounty and get a little advance on it by having sex with a couple of whores, Munny remains seated at a table, shivering. Word has gotten out about their arrival, and soon Little Bill and his deputies show up, surrounding Munny, as Little Bill asks him if he or his friends are carrying any guns.  Munny says he is not armed, and his friends don’t have guns either.

Here we go again!  At first, I thought English Bob was just being foolish in denying he had a couple of pistols on him, as another way of saying that British immigrants have no business being in a Western, especially in the role of a gunslinger.  But now we have Munny doing the same thing.  And so, once again, Little Bill finds that Munny does have a pistol, and once again, he starts kicking him just as he did English Bob, after which he throws Munny out into the street.  Strawberry Alice tells the Kid and Ned where they can hide out, somewhere outside of town. They find Munny, now barely on his horse, and they head on out to the place Alice told them about.

This is exactly where they could have ended up without any trouble.  Munny could have admitted that they didn’t see the sign, apologized while handing over his gun, and admitted his friends had guns too.  Then, the next day, they could have told Little Bill they were leaving town, collected their weapons, and ridden out to the house Alice told them about. Instead, Munny has not only been beaten severely, but he no longer has his pistol anymore either.

In expressing my dismay at the way these two men, English Bob and William Munny, refuse to hand over their guns, I am not saying that this movie is being unrealistic in this regard.  It reminds me of those stories we see on the news where some guy is pulled over by the police and asked to show his drivers license, and instead of simply complying with that request, he wants to argue about it.  Some people are like that, stubbornly resistant to authority, even when it is likely to cause them grief.

The fact that some people are like that does not answer the question, why are English Bob and William Munny like that?  That is to say, the mere fact that there are people like that in real life does not, by itself, warrant their being in a movie.  It has to be justified dramatically as well.  The only thing I can figure is that having Little Bill kick Munny all around the barroom floor makes the revenge Munny gets on Little Bill later on all the sweeter.  And then, having English Bob do the same thing previously, only to get kicked around in the street, normalizes their behavior.  If Munny had been the only one to do this, we might have said to ourselves, “Boy, that guy sure is dumb!”  But having had English Bob do it as well is intended to make us believe that gunslingers in the Old West, who went around killing people on a regular basis, would have been strongly averse to handing over their firearms.

After three days, Munny recovers.  He and his two companions find out where Davey is with some other cowboys herding cattle.  Ned shoots at him with his Spencer rifle, hitting his horse instead, which falls on Davey, breaking his leg.  As he tries to crawl away, Ned can’t bring himself to finish him off.  Munny takes the rifle and finally hits Davey in the gut.  He is dying, but slowly and in much pain.

This is not the kind of kill we usually see in a classical Western, where men die immediately, unless their death is delayed for just a moment in order to allow for some final bit of dialogue.  The ugliness of Davey’s death brings us back to the revisionist mode.  After it’s over, Ned says he can’t do it anymore, and he leaves to go back home.

Later, Munny and the Kid find out where Mike, the other man with the reward on his head, is holed up. When Mike comes out of the cabin to use the outhouse, the Kid sneaks up on him, opens the outhouse door, and shoots him right in the middle of his bowel movement.  And this leads to a fundamental principle:  if you want to make a movie that the audience will regard as revisionist, it helps to have an outhouse scene. Outhouses in Westerns were frowned upon while the Production Code was still in force, and a classical Western would have eschewed them in any event.  But once the Production Code was replaced by the ratings system in 1968, outhouses started showing up regularly.  Making sure that bowel movements are given their due lends a Western an aura of authenticity.  At first, we only saw them from the outside, but in 1972, The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid moved us right into the outhouse, where we found Robert Duvall and another man sitting side by side, discussing their next robbery, while they each were taking a dump.  If only that movie had been filmed in Smell-O-Vision. That would have really have been revisionist!

So, if Davey’s death was unromantic on account of being drawn out and miserable, Mike’s death in the outhouse is downright ignominious, and the Kid can take no glory in it.  In short, the deaths of these two men seem to confirm Little Bill’s account of how messy and unpleasant things really were in the Old West.

Unfortunately for Ned, some cowboys from the same ranch where Davey and Mike worked catch up with him as he tries to make it back home.  After working him over, they bring him to Little Bill, who proceeds to interrogate him with a bullwhip, trying to find out who his friends are and where they are hiding out.  But Ned won’t talk, so Bill tortures him even more, so much so that Ned dies.

Unaware of Ned’s death, the Kid sits under a tree, drinking whiskey out of a bottle, while Munny watches Kate, one of the whores, riding up from town in the distance. The Kid admits that Mike was the first man he ever killed, and it is clear that it bothers him. At this point, Munny begins delivering some heavy lines.  “It’s a hell of thing killing a man,” he says.  “You take away all he’s got and all he’s ever going to have.”  The Kid looks for reassurance, saying they had it coming, hoping Munny will agree with him. Munny replies, “We’ve all got it coming, Kid.”  No one in a revisionist Western ever said anything like that.

They find out from Kate that Ned died, and that before he did, he told Little Bill that his partner was William Munny, the man who killed women and children when he dynamited the Rock Island and Pacific in ’69, and who killed a U.S. Marshall in ’73.  After Ned died from the beating, Skinny propped him up in an open coffin outside his saloon, and put a sign on him saying that this is what happens to assassins.  While Kate tells them this, Munny takes the whiskey bottle from the Kid and starts drinking from it.

That night, a storm comes up.  Munny gives the Kid the money to take out his cut and then see to it that the rest is split between his kids and Sally Two Trees, in case he doesn’t make it back.  He takes the Kid’s Schofield pistol, which the Kid says he is never going to use again anyway, and then Munny rides into town. Just before he reaches Greely’s, he throws the empty whiskey bottle on the ground, and we know he is now the killer he used to be.

In the saloon, plans are being made to ride after Munny and the Kid, but then Munny steps in through the door, holding a shotgun, just as we hear a crash of thunder.  It’s real wrath-of-God stuff. We see the look on Beauchamp’s face, as the camera slowly moves in on him, and it is clear that he is spellbound.  All that revisionist stuff is gone from his head, as he realizes he is about to witness something more glorious than anything he ever wrote about.

After finding out that Skinny owns the place, Munny shoots him for decorating his place with Ned’s body. He starts to shoot Little Bill, but the shotgun misfires.  He draws his pistol, and what follows is reminiscent of the story Little Bill made fun of when he was reading from The Duke of Death, only this time it’s real. Munny shoots Little Bill and then one deputy after another.  And except for Little Bill, who is still alive, the death of each of the deputies is quick and clean, not slow, painful, and ugly, like that of Davey and Mike.

In the “Original Script,” Munny says to those still in the room, “Every asshole that doesn’t want to get shot best clear out the back quick.”  But in the movie, he says, “Any man don’t want to get killed better clear on out the back.”  Now, I’m no expert on prosody, but this version strikes me as poetic, as having the kind of meter one might find in a ballad that tells a tale like this.  And it is fitting that such a line be spoken by this man at this moment, as he undoes all the revisionism that has come before.

Little Bill is still alive, and he makes a feeble effort to shoot Munny, but Munny knocks the pistol aside and points Ned’s Spencer rifle, which he retrieved from where it was in the room, at Little Bill’s head.  Little Bill says, “I don’t deserve this.  To die like this.  I was building a house.”

His reference to the house is fitting.  Munny is about to put an end to Little Bill’s life, and that will mean the end of that ugly house he was working on, which is a metaphor for the way Munny is putting an end to the ugly revisionism that Little Bill and his house represent.

Munny delivers another heavy line, saying, “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.”  That sounds good, but I’m not sure what it means.  After all, it would seem that Little Bill does deserve to die for all that he has done. Perhaps this refers back to Munny’s earlier remark.  If “we’ve all got it coming,” then it is not a question of who deserves to be killed, but rather who it is that gets to do the killing.

Before he leaves, Munny threatens the whole town, telling them that they had better not shoot at him as he is leaving, or he’ll not only kill any man that does so, but he’ll kill his wife and burn his house down. Now we know why there has been so much emphasis on the fact that Munny once killed women and children, for the townsfolk know that he means what he says about killing wives.

Munny further threatens them, telling them to bury Ned right and not to bother the whores, or he’ll come back and kill everyone in the town.  Then he rides away, leaving behind the fearful citizens of Big Whiskey and an awestruck W.W. Beauchamp, already envisioning his next book, which will surpass everything he has ever written.

The epilogue tells us that Munny used his share of the bounty to move to San Francisco, where he became a successful dry-goods merchant.  In short, the movie has a happy ending, as every classical Western should.

The Boy with Green Hair (1948)

At the beginning of The Boy with Green Hair, the title character, Peter (Dean Stockwell), is at the police station with a bald head, refusing to give his name or say where he is from, but eventually Dr. Evans (Robert Ryan), presumably a child psychologist, gets him to tell his story in flashback.  It turns out that Peter is a war orphan because his parents died during World War II trying to help war orphans.  He was staying with his Aunt Lilian at the time of their death.  She passed him off to other relatives, who didn’t want him either and passed him off to other relatives still, one after another, until he finally ended up with someone he calls “Gramps” (Pat O’Brien), but who is not really his grandfather.

Just to make sure that we regard Aunt Lilian as being heartless for getting rid of Peter once she finds out that his parents are dead, we are shown the house that she lives in, which is large and sumptuous, implying that she could easily have afforded to take care of Peter.  But that makes us wonder what happened to the house that Peter’s parents lived in, the proceeds from the sale of which should have been inherited by Peter.  Or were Peter and his parents dependent on Aunt Lilian, living with her because they were too poor to afford their own place?  We never find out the answers to these questions because this is a movie about a child and intended for a childlike audience.  As children never concern themselves with questions of finance and inheritance, the intended audience of this movie is not supposed to be concerned about them either.

Anyway, once Peter settles in with Gramps, the school he ends up going to is having a clothing drive to help war orphans, and as part of that drive, pictures of war orphans are attached to the walls.

One day Peter’s hair turns green.  The night before, Gramps told Peter that he liked to keep a green plant around because his wife, a trapeze artist who fell to her death, used to say that green was the color of spring and represented hope and the promise of a new life.  Of course, green plants are one thing and green hair is another, and thus it is that the other children make fun of Peter at school the next day.  One kid, something of an exception from the rest, asks what is wrong with green hair.  Another kid answers, “How would you like to have your sister marry someone with green hair?” the standard retort of the bigot in response to someone who expresses a more tolerant attitude toward those who are different.  So, Peter’s green hair allows the movie to make a point about discrimination against people on the basis of color, which is just a specific form of discrimination generally.  Hostility toward people that are different leads to war, which causes war orphans.

Peter becomes so miserable about the way he is treated that he decides to run away.  He comes to a spot in the woods where the war orphans that we saw in pictures on the wall of the school have come to life.  They tell Peter his green hair is a symbol for faith and hope, that its function is to make him look different so that people will listen to what he has to say.  In speaking to Peter, the war orphans don’t use contractions.  Instead of merely saying things like, “I wouldn’t cry” and “He didn’t know,” they say, “I would not cry” and “He did not know.”  That’s how we know that what they are saying is of sublime significance.

Without contractions, then, the leader of the war orphans tells Peter:  “Everywhere you go, people will say, they will say, ‘There is the boy with the green hair.’ And then people will ask, ‘Why does he have green hair?’  So, you will tell them.  ‘Because, I am a war orphan, and my green hair is to remind you that war is very bad for children.’  You must tell all the people, the Russians, Americans, Chinese, British, French, all the people, all over the world, that there must not ever be another war.”

Funny that he singles out mostly the Allies of World War II for receiving this message.  I would have encouraged Peter to tell that to the Germans, the Italians, and the Japanese.  Anyway, the point is that since Peter has green hair, people will listen to him, and there will never be another war, which means there will be no more war orphans.

Inspired with his mission, Peter runs around telling everyone that war is bad for children.  However, the children at his school gang up on him and try to cut off his hair.  When that fails, the adults finish the job, after which a bald-headed Peter runs away again, which is how he ends up at the police station in another town.  In the end, Peter decides he will let his hair grow out again so that he can continue with his mission.

Children might have enjoyed this movie when it first came out, and adults might have enjoyed it with them vicariously. But its simplistic message, never very credible in the first place, is drained of what little plausibility it might have once had by the fact that the world has not changed: we are still fighting wars, presumably causing children to become war orphans. The idea of a little boy with green hair wandering around telling everybody that we need to stop fighting wars might have been an expression of hope in 1948 when this movie was made, but now it just seems absurd.

The worst feature of this film is that it is premised on something supposedly noble, but which is in fact quite shameful. Even if one of Peter’s parents, say, the father, felt the need to participate in the war effort, we would expect the mother to stay with her son and take care of him.  But they both figure they have more important things to do than raise their own child.  We are supposed to think of those relatives that kept passing him on to other relatives as being cold and selfish, but after all, they did not bargain on having to raise someone else’s child.

It is actually Peter’s parents who are selfish. They are that strange breed of do-gooder who becomes so enamored with the idea of saving the world that he neglects his own family.  For example, in Luke 14:26, Jesus says, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”  There is no indication in the movie that Peter’s parents were inspired by this passage, but they didn’t have to be. A lot of people come by this attitude naturally.  But I’ll say this much for Jesus.  At least he was a bachelor.  If he had gotten married, had a child, and then abandoned his family because he decided he was meant for better things, it would have been harder for apologists to say that Jesus merely spoke by way of hyperbole.

In any event, without pausing to be sure that Peter would be raised to maturity by a loving relative happy to take care of him if they died in the war, his parents just dumped him on his aunt and took off.  There is one moment in the movie when Peter correctly concludes that his parents cared more about other children than they did him, but the movie insists that he is wrong, and at the end Peter is seen as understanding that they really did love him and that what they did was right and good. As insistent as the movie is in this regard, it still leaves us with a feeling of revulsion for parents who would abandon their child so they could devote themselves to some higher purpose.

Early on in the flashback, Peter tells of when he was five years old, in which we only see the hands and arms of adults.  Had we seen the faces of his mother and father, they would have become real for us, and we would have begun to wonder what kind of parents would do what they did to Peter.  But because they are faceless, they remain abstract, making it less likely that we will condemn them.  Furthermore, we do not hear their voices, which means there is no dialogue in which they tell Aunt Lilian about their plans.  In particular, we do not get to see the appalled look on her face when she is told that she is going to have a five-year-old child on her hands as Peter’s parents head out through the door.