Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 23, 2021 8:10:53 GMT -8
A Walk in the WoodsIn this 2015 film, Robert Redford and Nick Nolte team up to play a pair of aging friends who take a crack at walking the 2200 mile long Appalachian Trail. This is based on the non-fiction book by Bill Bryson, although I don’t know how much the story has been embellished for the movie. Given the reviews I’ve read of the book, it seems fortunate that this is apparently not a word-for-word retelling. Forget the libtard book. This is a sort of “On Golden Pond” coming-of-old-age story of both the actors and the characters. The actors are clearly past their sell-by date but age comes to us all (unless you’re hit by a bus in your 20’s). If you like the actors, you’ll most likely like this movie which is a soft-touch movie without too many gimmicks. You’re just following these two old farts around as they try to accomplish something that, for their age, is near impossible. There’s probably too much preamble to the story as we have to suffer though Emma Thompson (playing the wife of Redford) who warns of the foolhardiness of such a trek. She’s annoying and really has no place in the film other than the sentimental tacked-on ending where Bryson (Redford) comes home and appreciates her even more. Okay, that sort of works. But the opening of this movie sucks. It would have been better to get onto the trail much sooner and perhaps show one or two more sub-adventures on that trail. Many reviews complained that this is a superficial movie compared to the “deeper” book. Aside from Bryson’s libtardness, I would suppose this is so. This is a buddy-buddy movie most of all with the Appalachian Trail providing a backdrop. If you like the characters that Nolte and Redford tend to play, you’ll like (probably not love) this film. No, it’s not even remotely believable that the gimpy Nolte could walk a hundred yards on the trail, let alone hundreds of miles. But the movie could certainly whet your appetite for taking on a similar adventure. Apparently for the hardcore enthusiasts, Reese Witherspoon in Wild is a more solid on-the-trail adventure. I might check that out.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on May 23, 2021 10:49:03 GMT -8
I recall seeing this a few years ago and my reaction is much the same as yours. Basically it is a feel good movie with a couple of old guys not quite ready to be called geezers. For a Redford movie there is no message and there are some good lines to add a chuckle here and there. The director somehow managed to get Nolte to turn down his normal peevishness to a tolerable level and act, as close as as possible, to a real person. It is what I refer to as a one time movie. It doesn't have the staying power of a really good story.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 23, 2021 13:15:16 GMT -8
LOL. Never heard it said better.
Oh, god help me. I did check this movie out and it’s a female toxic waste dump. I can’t surpass what this one reviewer wrote:
But in the wonderful world of feminism…again, a reviewer says it best:
I stayed with the movie for 10 minutes, at best. It was clearly junk. Then I went back and read a few of the realistic, non tongue-up-Gloria-Steinam’s-ass reviews. (Should have done so in the first place.)
To be fair, at least, unlike Meryl Streep in Out of Africa, Witherspoon didn’t win an Oscar merely for not having a dick between her legs while doing an apparently good imitation of a Danish accent.
Yes, that’s right. I did just watch Out of Africa. It’s a pretty good movie for about 35 minutes, 40 tops. And then it just runs on too long. And Meryl Streep’s character — heretofore held in check and bolstered by a moving plot — becomes like fingernails on a blackboard.
I get why people like this movie: Strong female character. But that’s no reason to hand out an Oscar, although that’s how they do it these days.
But I still think the “Casablanca” or “Citizen Kane” of overwrought feminist movies whose only quality is what’s between (or not between) the lead actress' legs is one of the most overrated movies ever made: Black Swan. I think I stayed with that for about 15 minutes tops. If having to choose between Black Swan, Wild, or jumping off a bridge, it would be a close call.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on May 23, 2021 14:14:43 GMT -8
I saw the movie in 1985-86, but have not seen it since. As I recall, the things which made the movie interesting were 1) the music 2) the scenery and 3) the bi-plane. If I remember correctly, there was one scene which combined all of these with the bi-plane flying over a vast expanse and the music blasting away in the background. There might have been some interesting light play with either a sunrise or sunset in this scene. I cannot recall much about either the Streep or Redford characters.
At the time, I thought Streep's "Danish" accent was a distraction and detracted from the movie. If the main thing everyone is talking about is how "good" an actor's accent is, then something is missing from the acting.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on May 23, 2021 19:53:22 GMT -8
I saw the movie in 1985-86, but have not seen it since That is about the time I saw it. I have not thought of it again until now, which I suppose shows how memorable it was. Struck me a typical Redford romance with lots of long looks. Kind of like the Way We Were but without Streisand and a corny soundtrack, which I also saw only once on TV. For every movie Redford has made that actually had some substance he made 3 that are fluff. But a guy has to make a living and he's made a pretty good one. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 24, 2021 7:39:57 GMT -8
Pretty much, although the “period-piece” attractions come in the early part of the film. You know, the thrill of being transported to a different time and place with all the grungy and glorious details. Out of Africa is by no means an awful movie. But it does come off the rails at one point and becomes exceedingly tedious.
A lot of other reviewers said the same thing. On the one hand, you can’t blame Streep for recreating what is apparently a very faithful accent. Apparently she listened to some recordings of the real Karen Blixen (no relation to one of Santa’s reindeer). On the other hand, it’s almost like she has a speech impediment and/or is trying to call too much attention to herself. Accents are always a tricky thing in films. In this case, Redford (a supposed Brit) doesn’t even attempt it. And as one reviewer noted, they don’t even try the “But he’s really a Canadian” shtick on him to try to fit him authentically into the British universe.
One reason I went so long before watching Out of Africa is because in the back of my mind I had always mistaken it for the exceedingly overwrought A Sausage to India. I tend to love BBC dramas, Masterpiece Theatre, and British period pieces. But this one gets on my nerves for some reason. And I just vaguely passed over Out of Africa thinking they were of the same species. And they sort of are.
If you liked A Sausage to India, I can’t hold that against anyone because it was a popular and well-regarded film. But in the words of one reviewer: “The plot was obvious, the themes of British Colonial buffoonery and repression were overdone and unrealistic. The performance of Dr Azziz which switched from his hand wringing subservience to proud but embittered nationalist was just totally unrealistic.”
And that probably describes my problem with the film, although it’s been a while. Most of all, I found the Dr. Azziz character to be annoying. I wished the British would have locked him in some prison early in the film and then just got on with some other story. But that’s just me.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 24, 2021 7:56:23 GMT -8
Love that. The thing is, you can’t and won’t read these kinds of apt comments from the “professional” reviewers. Come to think of it, I’m not sure I’ve seen The Way We Were. I don’t think so. And I have no desire to. I have seen a few Streisand flicks such as Funny Girl. I probably saw that when it came out and my vague memory of it is that it was decent enough.
A Streisand flick I’m sure I saw in the theatre at the time was What’s Up Doc. And for a screwball comedy, I thought it worked well. And that’s probably as far as my viewing history goes with Ryan O’Neal. And I don’t think I’ve ever watched that movie again.
I do want to hit one or two more Redford flicks while I’m at it. Maybe The Horse Whisperer. I did watch his Indecent Proposal with Demi Moore a couple years ago. I think I thought it was pretty good for what it was. I don’t think I’ve seen The Great Waldo Pepper. Is that worth a viewing? How about Spy Game?
Other than those, I think I’ve seen all the Redford big ones. But sometimes there are some decent ones that fall between the cracks such as A Walk in the Woods.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on May 24, 2021 10:45:46 GMT -8
Spy Game Spy Game is an interesting movie. Redford is the senior officer and Pitt is the kid he takes on to mentor. Filmed in 2001 it has only a little of CIA new focus on the Mid East and instead most of the focus is on Europe and Asia, specifically N Korea and the PRC. In most ways it is a typical spook movie with a few geewiz gadgets and girls. Redford is about to retire, as much as a spook ever can. And his sidekick Pitt has been taken prisoner in the PRC. The story revolves around a meeting on the 7th floor at Langley, that is where the brass live. Trying to decided what to do about Pitt. Much of the story is flashback as Redford tells the story of their partnership and the breakup. In the process of telling the story he plots to get Pitt released by any means necessary. Much of the movie revolves around this plot by Redford. The brass on the 7th floor are content to write off Pitt and this is what prompts Redford to get him out. He uses agency resources and influence to work up a rescue mission and before the 7th floor finds out what he has done he disappears into retirement. About the only thing that actually resembles CIA are the outside shots of the building. That is where reality stops. I can not speak to what the agency has become today, but in my day CIA would never callously just let an officer or even an ex officer rot without mounting a effort to bring them home. CIA used to pride itself on doing everything to never leave a man behind. After the disaster of the Church Committee hearings and Colby release of some of the Crown Jewels and the further disaster of G H Bush the agency is just not what it used to be. IMHO it is past time to shut it down and rebuild. Our next president would be well advised to close, and shutter CIA, FBI, DIA, and NSA. Time to start over. But I'm just an old spook with no influence. The fall of the USSR and the demise of KGB actually did the Russians a favor. KGB had become the hand up the skirt of the Soviet government and although Putin is exKGB he is a different from the steamers in Moscow Center we used to deal with. It doesn't make him less dangerous but the FSB is a better run organization then KGB was in 1990. I think the best Redford move was Jeremiah Johnson. I watch it every couple of years. The story has staying power and Will Geer as the old mountain man is a hoot, one of his best supporting roles. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 24, 2021 11:32:28 GMT -8
Something in the back of my mind tells me that I’ve seen at least a little of Spy Game. But I doubt I’ve ever watched it all the way through. Fuzzy memories on that one. Same with Jeremiah Johnson. I think I’ve seen parts of it through the years but never likely have sat down and watched the whole thing.
Thanks for the info/opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on May 24, 2021 21:18:20 GMT -8
I can't disagree with any of that. Even worse was the ending which seemed to me to be just thrown together in a rush. Something like finishing a term paper the night before it is due.
I read the book. I can't recall if this was before or after seeing the film, but the book was better than the film. If I remember correctly, in an early scene, Dr. Aziz and the white guy were talking about the color of people. I believe Aziz mentioned how classifying people by their color was not very precise and that white people were not white at all. They were actually "pinko-grey." Being a Dr. I suppose he would know. I had never heard the term before.
Even the book got a little much for me during the final pages. I suspect Forster's homosexuality was coming through just a bit.
I will say that few movies do India the justice it deserves. To my mind, it is the most fascinating place in the world. Truly foreign to the Western mind. It is not the place for faint-hearted Westerners who cannot see life in the (sometimes) very raw.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 25, 2021 8:03:53 GMT -8
On The Criterion Channel, they tend to have a host of Indian movies made by prominent Indian filmmakers. I keep trying to like them but so far no luck. But it does show India as a commonly and perhaps uniquely squalid place.
The India of Rudyard Kipling stirs my imagination. Whether his stories (Kim, for example) reflect the realities, I don’t know. But I think there is no doubt that what you said is true: It’s a place truly foreign to the Western mind.
One thing I find interesting is to imagine what India or Africa would be like today if a white man had never set foot in the place. I’m thinking it’s obvious that these would still be quite backward lands. What would America be without the European influence? It would likely be little different than it was a thousand years ago.
Many (if not all) of the Oscar-winners set in India or Africa attempt to apologize for colonialism. We get the great line from Redford in Out of Africa about the white man just passing through and that the country belonged to the natives. True enough, I suppose. But aren’t most of these countries (particularly Kenya) far better off for the British “passing through”?
Nairobi, Kenya, appears to be a fairly modern city. Would this be so completely on their own? As idiot Westerners continue to apologize for their contributions to civilization, we are (at least socially) regressing. If you can't honor the contributions of Europeans, and instead shit all over them and try to equalize inferior ways and methods, we can’t help but return to a savage state.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on May 25, 2021 9:35:00 GMT -8
imagine what India or Africa would be like today if a white man had never set foot in the place When the British first encountered India back in the 16th century it was not a country with a common language, religion, or ethnic background. There is little to suggest in Indian history that would have changed much. I think much the same is true for Africa except the Brits are not the sole colonizers. Without the Western influence both places would not have changed much. There was almost no change, say from 200 BCE to the 1600 CE and without a catalyst for change little, if anything, could change. In a way the idea of manifest destiny that pushed Americans to settle the American west also pushed much earlier, (1500s) England, France, Belgium, Germany (late as always), Spain and Portugal to colonize the unknown world. We cannot say it was for noble reasons and the people were exploited for profit and often just murdered or enslaved. But, it is not that those things were new and invented by the white man. Asians, Indians, and Africans were very good at doing those long before the first Western foot set down on their soil. And, even with the Western colonies removed they are still doing it. However, Western philosophy of freedom, consensual government, and capitalism has taken hold in the furthest reaches of these continents. In some cases the influence is ephemeral almost non-existent but in others it has a stronghold and is still growing. The Indian freedom movement initiated by Mahatma Gandhi would not have been possible without the English commitment to education and mission schools in the 19th century. As a generalization places colonized by the English fare better as independent nations than those of other European nations. The Congo for example. India achieved a national purpose due to the long English occupation and the influence of English schools. It was not, and I think could not be, perfect as long as Islam was a part of the culture, but the Moslems, out of the usual peevishness, chose to separate in the Pakistan. I t was truly a gift to the Indians, although Nehru did not not recognize it at the time. I've never been to India and at my age not likely to go. I have known a fair number of Indians, mostly academics, who unlike the Chinese do understand the contribution colonization made for their country. They understand that 1.2 billion people have an impact on the rest of the world and thanks to western technology they can feed themselves and grow their standard of living. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 25, 2021 10:23:20 GMT -8
They would do well to teach the above in schools. Call it the “white man’s burden” to offer objective fact, not tribal revisionist daydreams, self-aggrandizing victimhood, or racial hatred in the guise of fairness.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on May 25, 2021 10:43:12 GMT -8
I have had numerous discussions with various Indians on the question of "India." I maintain, only slightly tongue-in-cheek, that like that other large "country" Indonesia, India is an idea, not a nation. Before the Raj, the last time "India" was united and covered anything near the present boundaries was around 300-200 B.C. My Indian friends must, per force of fact, agree with me. Mauryan Empire I still think the best way to view India is as an empire. There are numerous languages, religions and races across a vast subcontinent. These have been in competition with each other over several thousand years. Those who we call Aryans, swept in from the North West over 3,000 years ago and, over the centuries, forced the Dravidians south. The Muslims first came in to northern India around 1200. The Mughals, took over around 1500. Both established famous realms, but neither ever completely controlled the south, as I recall. As regards the question of how colonialism effected India and Africa, I think it is a mistake to try and compare the two. The Subcontinent was home to some very sophisticated thought and technology. There had been cross-fertilization in the Subcontinent from many different peoples, going back to Alexander the Great. Indeed it is generally thought that the timing of England's first forays into the Subcontinent were timed very fortuitously. On a technological basis, they were not far apart. Many believe, I am one of them, that India and modern Britain grew up together. As to the British Empire. It is my contention that the Brits never set out to create an empire. What happened was that with the growing ease of sea travel, some traders went around the world looking for items to trade. The origins went back to the old Silk Road. Sea travel made contacts in Asia easier and more profitable. As time went on, these traders set up enclaves in port towns across Asia. As was to be expected, the locals could see that these traders did pretty well for themselves. This being the case, local potentates would occasionally swoop in and divest the foreign devils from their property and lives. The British, being a hardy people, took a dim view of this. They started bringing in protection and expanding their enclaves. This worked so well that the Brits started to become power players in the places they traded. Seeing their power grow, and the messy state of affairs across the various areas in Asia, they decided that order is better than disorder and peace better than strife. It should be noted that this type of thinking is more common among the traders who lived permanently in Asia than those who just sailed in and left after the ship was full. These types don't mind a bit of disorder. It can be good for profits. Protecting their citizens and trade, the Brits started establishing colonies. These did not start out on a large scale. But as we all heard as children, from little acorns do great oaks grow. I have presented the above arguments to some British friends who come from colonial families. They had never thought of things that way. They tended to agree with me. I have visited India eight times and have read extensively of its history and such. As I say, the place is utterly fascinating to me. I am pretty sure I have said it before, but to repeat: Regardless what one thinks about the British as colonialists, they always established, 1. A good communications system. 2. A good education system. 3. A good legal system. 4. A good economic system. 5. Law and order. 6. Good government. An example of how many of the colonized felt about this is an encounter with an India lawyer that I had in the early 1980s. We were flying to Calcutta and sitting next to each other on the plane. We got to talking and he told me he had been in Singapore to scout out the right lawyers for a legal case his Indian client was bringing against someone in Singapore. I advised him to contact Lee & Lee (my lawyers) who were related to the Prime Minister. The Indian lawyer was very thankful and invited me to his home when were landed in Calcutta. During our discussion, he mentioned something which has stuck with me these 40-odd years. He said, "Kung, it is said that the British took out 35% (I blv) of India's wealth while they ruled the country. Some resent that. But I say, bring them back and pay them 40% to rule India!" This was a pretty amazing thing to hear from an Indian, but this was during the insane socialist rule of the Ghandis and Congress Party. I wonder how he would feel today? |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 25, 2021 11:38:45 GMT -8
I like your six bullet points. And it makes me think that in order to achieve just the network of railroads and telegraphs (which unto themselves are totally transformative for a society) that you would need:
2) A good education system
3) A good legal system
4) A good economic system
5) Law & Order
6) Good government
Savages, anarchy, and endemic tribalism can’t build or sustain a network of railroads. As much as our indoctrinated yutes believe that Islam was some golden age while Christians were in the dark age, I think it’s obvious that Islam was a mere parasite. Yes, if you plunder the wealth of other countries through conquest and enslavement, and depend mostly on educated Jews to do your hard thinking, you can give the appearance of greatness.
Certainly the vast amounts of oil money has allowed for some impressive building projects among the sheiks. But, by and large, the experiment of tribal Islam has been run. It’s a dead-end as far as creating a real civilization goes.
I don’t have any antipathy toward Hindus or Sikhs. But they should, as your friend did, get down on their knees and thank the British for dragging them into the modern age. And I thank them for colonizing America, because god knows we’d be just another South-American dive if the Spanish had controlled the region.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on May 25, 2021 13:20:21 GMT -8
This discussion reminds me of a short essay I wrote several years ago, perhaps 25?
In large we are discussing elements of civilization and how, when two cultures come in contact there is almost always conflict. For this essay I took the modern and pre modern as example.
Fundamentals of Civilization
When we examine human cultures there are several common components or institutions common to all.
1. Language
2. Family
3. Religion
4. Government
5. Transportation
6. Technology
In premodern times these institutions have specific traits as they do in modern times.
Language is the most basic of human institutions. From the primitive grunts and groans to the sophisticated nuances of spoken and written words. Language is the manner we convey simple and complex theories to others. Humans communicate their lives, loves, and philosophy to each other, even when the author is long dead.
In premodern societies language, while it may be complex for that society, is focused on immediate needs of food, clothing and shelter. As the society grows the language conveys increasing meanings and more complex nuances. Premodern society language tends to be slower while modern societies, even speaking essentially the same language, is spoken faster, and with more technical proficiency.
The family is the center of culture. In premodern society it is the most important institution in the culture. Families incline to be large with many children and often form a clan that includes not only immediate family but extends to distant relatives by marriage/bonding. As modernization progresses the importance of family decreases and the individual is more often alone.
In modern culture the importance of family is diminished. Fewer children are born, and the children born are less important to the goals of the larger culture and family. Marriage is less important and both parents may work outside the home occasioning caregivers to raise children, often in group care facilities.
Religion is a tricky issue. It appears that for the premodern culture religion is more important and it is. In premodern culture there is always a pantheon of gods and goddess and their relative powers relate to the functions of nature, fertility of crops and people. As cultures progress, they tend to become more monotheistic. However, in many modern culture’s religion has been replaced with adherence to “science” as the new religion.
In modern society religion and the practice of religious ritual is only a tertiary part of the individual or family life. The religious institution is a social center where people gather for fellowship and meals. The act of observance and worship is carried out as ritual, but not with apparent excitement. For most regular attendance is not a concern or even desirable with the more “liberated” members attending only on special occasions.
Government: In premodern society government is often a village elder or chief who has distinguished himself as a leader. The goals of this government are simple, common defense against enemies, mutual security of the law/ruling form chief or elder. The elder, chief or monarch form of government is the common form until the 18th century with various elements of consensually practiced. As the society grows the need for the chief or elder to delegate authority to trusted assistants increases. Ultimately the size of the settlement requires a professional bureaucratic service.
In modern times consensual government, one in which voters choose a leader, is more common. Elements of business, labor, and political parties have influence on the election of leaders. However, the bureaucratic state is more predominate and the effectiveness of elected leaders to influence policy is lessened and the power of unelected regulators increased. The eventual outcome is one of two possibilities: The bureaucratic/regulation state expands in all encompassing form. The other outcome. In modern society the purpose of government is government. The basic requirements of mutual defense, common goals and general welfare are largely ignored. Both of these outcomes can lead to civil disobedience and potential civil war.
Transportation in the premodern timers is simple using foot traffic, cargo for trade is limited to what a person can carry in a day’s walk. Wagons, carts gradually appear drawn by draft animals thew load that can be carried increases as does the distance and speed of the journey. Roads, at first simple tracks evolve to graded surfaces and the speed and loads increase with more hardy draft animals and better wagons and carts. Trade between distant settlements increase with trade goods aimed a specific market.
In modern society the speed of transportation is constantly increasing, and the amounts carried at high speeds for trade are far beyond those of premodern society. Efficiency of delivery is very high, and the methods of delivery are always mechanical, transfer is by air, ship and road. Many services are carried out in a virtual realm by computer, as is the ordering of goods and services.
Technology is relative to the society. For thousands of years technology consisted of minor improvements on existing items. A better spear included the atlatl, a better cart had improved wheels, a better bow was the longbow, better roads had improved pavement and ultimately a better paved surface.
Modern technology is faster, less expensive. The development of modern technology is faster, less expensive and does more. The single constant of modern technology is that to a premodern it indistinguishable from magic.
|
|
