A film both deceptively simple and complex on CineVerse

Check out another one of our recent CineVerse discussions, this time taking a journey into French cinema. As Erik Martin, our host writes: Céline Sciamma, acclaimed director of Portrait of a Lady on Fire, followed up that critical darling with another standout French work, Petite Maman (2021), which means “little mom.” Starring wonderfully precocious twin sister actresses, the movie has received acclaim for its emotional richness, subtle storytelling, and examination of intricate themes. Sciamma's skilled direction, along with compelling performances and a heartfelt narrative, has earned it kudos as a memorable cinematic text that connects with audiences through its genuine and poignant depiction of relationships. 

Click here listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of this film, conducted last week. 

Among the distinctive, memorable, and surprising facets of Petite Maman is the fact that this could very well be a science fiction film. It’s easy to assume that eight-year-old Nelly is a lonely but intensely creative and imaginative kid who fantasizes these encounters with her mother, who has suddenly appeared as a playmate of the same age. But consider that we see her father interact with and acknowledge young Marion, and he allows Nelly to stay one more day at the house after agreeing to let the girls enjoy a sleepover. Also, recall that young Marion tells Nelly “I’m already thinking about you”; at the film’s conclusion, Nelly and Marion call each other by their real names and there seems to be an innate understanding by the characters, and the audience, that adult Marion has been positively affected by Nelly’s time travel experience. 

The casual but direct way that the filmmakers suddenly introduce the notion of time travel and fantasy, without explaining how or why it’s happening, is remarkable. Without exposition, we and Nelly are unexpectedly thrust into the past, and visual cues—like the grandmother’s wallpaper and bathroom tile—inform us, without fanfare, that a magically impossible journey is occurring. 

Regardless of how fantastically you interpret the story, this is one of the best family films and movies about childhood released in the 21st Century, a work that can appeal to any age but that can prove particularly relevant to adults who need to be reminded of the wonders and mysteries of childhood and what we can learn from our youthful pasts. “(Petite Maman) immerses us into the world of childhood where magic and dreams and the impossible are all still possible, before the world has beaten it out of us. It evokes the ethos of Supertramp’s 1979 “The Logical Song,” which is all about how the world doesn’t just expect, but demands that everything that is wonderful about childhood be left behind in favor of rigor and logic…(it) celebrates that space where everything is still wonderful, a miracle, beautiful, and magical,” said critic James Kendrick.

Discussing one of the great jailbreak films on CineVerse

In the middle of an insanely hectic schedule these days, one that’s had me neglecting these blog updates, one of the truly relaxing activities I take part in are the CineVerse film discussions. So I need to correct the oversight of not updating the links to our discussions. I’m starting with one of our recent episodes, discussing the Word War II prison-break classic, The Great Escape.

 

As Erik Martin writes on the CineVerse site: Released in 1963, The Great Escape abides as a timeless war film directed by John Sturges and produced by United Artists. Centered around a group of Allied prisoners of war during World War II, the film depicts their daring escape plan from a German POW camp, based on the actual mass escape from Stalag Luft III in 1944. Boasting a cast of renowned actors such as Steve McQueen, James Garner, Richard Attenborough, Charles Bronson, and others, the picture is renowned for its iconic scenes, notably Steve McQueen's motorcycle chase, etching itself as one of the most memorable action sequences in cinematic history. The Great Escape also resonates with viewers worldwide thanks to its evergreen themes of resilience, determination, and camaraderie among the prisoners. 

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of this film, conducted last week, click here. 

The Great Escape offers an interesting compare and contrast from other war films, prison movies, and POW dramatizations. Many such works emphasize more explosive action, macho bravado, and impressive set pieces, as evidenced in The Guns of Navarone, Von Ryan’s Express, The Dirty Dozen, and Kelly’s Heroes. The Great Escape is arguably a more entertaining and emotional outing. For proof, consider how the filmmakers use sentiment, suspense, intrigue, tragedy, and light comedy to take our feelings on a roller coaster ride. 

Criterion Collection essayist Sheila O’Malley touched on this approach: “The film is about a serious subject, told without self-seriousness. Because of this, it doesn’t date at all. It’s an ode to ingenuity and cooperation. Sturges was not at all a member of the counterculture, but The Great Escape’s spirit is pure up-yours antiestablishment, making it a forerunner of M*A*S*H, to Kelly’s Heroes, to The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming, to all the deconstructing, demythologizing war films to come.”

Moreover, The Great Escape is, along with several of these comparative films, a fantastic ensemble piece with colorful and arresting characters and action-oriented actors popular in their day among male audiences. Interestingly, although he is top-billed, McQueen is on screen for a relatively small amount of time (mostly in the second half), which signifies that this is more of a group effort by the actors. Still, this is probably the best movie and role of McQueen’s career. 

 

“The Great Escape popularized the prison movie trope of an ensemble defined by emblematic handles. James Garner’s resourceful American who can acquire any number of forbidden goods goes by 'The Scrounger.' Donald Pleasance is 'The Forger,' despite his increasing blindness. Bronson’s claustrophobic digger is called 'Tunnel King'…The list goes on,” wrote Deep Focus Review critic Brian Eggert. 

This is less a picture about “the madness of war,” like Bridge on the River Kwai, than an inspirational somewhat true account of collective sacrifice. Kwai is also more of a battle of wills tale pitting one commanding officer—Alec Guinness—against his enemy counterpart. Additionally, in this story, the POWs are all honorable, trustworthy men; in Stalag 17, a major subplot is the presence of a mole/secret agent among the prisoners. 

Some, like DVD Savant Glenn Erickson, posit that this is more of a caper/heist movie than a war film or prison escape picture. “The schemes, dodges, and con games used by the prisoners to carry out a huge tunneling operation are a caper far more elaborate than a bank job. They're also entertaining, funny, and credible,” Erickson wrote.

Although this is set during World War II and the Nazis are the easy-to-root-against antagonists, this is a war film that doesn’t give equal voice to their characters, nor does it mention or hint at the Holocaust. Yet we are reminded of their capacity for despicable acts, especially the cold-blooded massacring of the rounded-up prisoners on the hillside. 

The value of teamwork, orchestrated collaboration, and group planning is a prime payoff message imbued herein. The Great Escape shows that solidarity among a group of individuals who accept pre-defined roles and responsibilities can create more successful and efficient outcomes. By assigning jobs to people based on skill and experience, following a chain of command, and maintaining discipline and self-control, even the most insurmountable of obstacles can be cleared. 

This is also a movie that preaches the perks of turning lemons into lemonade. The resourcefulness and creativity of these men help them conquer one challenge after another, which proves that out-of-the-box thinking, improvisational skills, and on-the-spot ingenuity can make a huge difference in desperate situations. 

The Great Escape certainly serves as a powerful grace under pressure narrative. Time and again, these prisoners of war must pivot, recalibrate, or start anew in their shared task of escaping and be willing to quickly adapt to changing conditions without panicking or quitting. 

Arguably, the most important moral to the story is shared sacrifice. While Bartlett aims to get as many prisoners out of the camp as possible, his minimum objective is to complicate matters for the Third Reich by forcing Germany to devote men and resources to guard these highly elusive prisoners and capture any escapees. The men know that, even if they successfully escape the camp they may not be coming back alive, and many altruistically agree to help without any guarantee of escaping at all. The fact that they made a film about an incredibly impressive mass escape by 76 prisoners, but only three of them evaded capture or death, tells us that this is a narrative more about sacrifice and selflessness than man’s inherent need for freedom. Case in point: Recall the dialogue exchange at the conclusion. Hendley: “Do you think it was worth the price?” Ramsey: “Depends on your point of view, Hendley.” 

 

“The Great Escape cleverly turns a defeat into a tale of victory,” Erickson continued. “No matter how it's made to look, the bottom line of the mass escape is (that)…a lot of rebellious defiance mostly gets a lot of good men killed…we celebrate the protagonists as they dare to defy their German captors…We aren't bothered by the fact that their efforts had little effect on the war proper. But the trial-by-escape with its risk and sacrifice was a personal challenge for men otherwise unable to fight: civilized defiance.”

Even parasites have the right to free speech

So, recently a couple of friends and some students had asked me about whether or not I was upset—one actually asked if I was “outraged”—about Alex Jones being allowed back in X. I am certainly not outraged, I told them, and not even upset. I had written about this a while back when Jones had first started getting deplatformed from social media. Actually, I am kind of hurt that they didn’t read my old posts about Jones. But in all seriousness, I told them that as someone who tries to be as much of an absolutist about free speech as possible—calling for specific violence, genocide, and murder must be a line any decent person should draw, however—I will defend Jones’ reinstatement on X as strongly as possible. However, I will also use my own freedom of speech to keep pointing out what a morally bankrupt dirtbag he is.

 

As I had also written numerous times before, as I did in one of my recent posts below, Alex Jones is a parasite. He’s a bloodsucker feeding off the grief of others. He has been once since the 1990s when he took advantage of terrorist attacks like the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the Oklahoma City bombing to spin his yarns about the New World Order perpetrating fake terrorist attacks, or “false flag” operations. Of course, the day that must have been the highlight of Alex Jones’ life was September 11, 2001. The murders of 2977 people gave Jones the opportunity to build his conspiracy empire into a multimillion dollar cash cow.

 

Luckily, after he pushed past the bounds of decency one too many times with his lies about the Sandy Hook shooting being a hoax and the families of the slain children being crisis actors, Jones was found liable for defamation and now owes $1.5 billion to these families. Justice was done!

 

But is this any indication that Jones had been changed by the Sandy Hook incident at all? Of course not. He has been spreading his same noxious conspiratorial garbage on his Infowars webpage since then.

 

With that being said, however, I need to hold my nose in disgust and approve of him not being cancelled on social media, but only out of principle. This way more of the world can see the utterly unconscionable garbage he likes spewing and more people will continue speaking out against him. Alex Jones is a cockroach that needs the light shined on him rather than be made a martyr through cancellation. He’s not a truth-teller, not a “dangerous” man who threatens the system, not a maverick and not a rebel. He’s just a cheap hustler.

A modern crime classic on CineVerse

I’ve been behind on Cineverse updates—and I have several other things so say about other stuff, too, in updates coming soon—but check out our recent discussion of The Untouchables right here. Helmed by Brian De Palma, with a screenplay by David Mamet, The Untouchables quickly became a hit after its theatrical debut in the summer of 1987, drawing inspiration from the real-life endeavors of Elliot Ness and other law enforcement agents who banded together to take down infamous gangster Al Capone during the violent Prohibition era in Chicago. The film, produced by Art Linson, boasts a star-studded cast featuring Kevin Costner in the role of Ness, Robert De Niro as the notorious Capone, and Sean Connery (who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor), Andy Garcia, and Charles Martin Smith.

This picture skillfully blends historical events (it’s more of a “based on” than an accurate retelling) with compelling storytelling, delivering an engaging narrative that vividly captures the essence of the bootleg era and the battle against organized crime.

Holy God! Alex Jones might be right about something…!!

 …And the conspiracy culture is still as horrible as ever. So check out this Newsweek article from a couple of weeks ago. One of my students brought this to my attention, asking me what I thought about it; whether or not Jones had a valid point. I had missed the story when it originally came out, so when I read it I agreed that Jones indeed had a good a point. The article was also a textbook case of shoddy, biased news reporting that should be used as a teaching tool in any journalism class.  And I shocked myself and felt kind of unpleasant having to admit these things. But, as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. 

 

The article, as you’ll see, is about Jones’ appearance on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast where Jones said that he feared a terrorist attack on the U.S. in light of the Israel-Hamas war and the growing tensions in the Middle East. And Jones is absolutely right! Living in New Jersey, working just across the river from Manhattan and remembering 9/11, I know that I am living next to the number-one bull’s eye for every terrorist organization in the world. Hamas and every other terrorist proxy of Iran must dream at night or being able to orchestrate another mass-casualty event that will outdo 2001. Or if they wouldn’t try and attack New York, I’m sure they would just as gladly settle for Washington DC, or Los Angeles, or Miami, or any of our other major metropolitan centers. But it’s not just Jones saying this. FBI director Christopher Wray said the same things to Congress in October, warning that the Hamas massacre of October 7 created a terrorist threat to the U.S. “the likes of which we haven’t seen” since the rise of ISIS. None of this should be controversial.

 

Newsweek, unfortunately, thinks that it is, writing that Jones said this “without offering evidence.” Then the article goes on to quote what sounds like a stale Department of Homeland Security boilerplate press release stating they’re working “tirelessly” to make sure this doesn’t happen and that “encounters of known or suspected terrorists attempting to cross the Southern Border, or encounters of those associated with such individuals, are uncommon.” 

 

Uncommon? There were only 19 terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks! What number are we talking about with “uncommon?” With America’s sieve-like Southern Border, there were 2.5 million illegal crossings of the U.S.-Mexico border in 2023!! Not fearing a terrorist attack on American soil today is willful blindness and naivete on an epic scale.

 

Jones, of course, said he “feared” that a terrorist threat was imminent, just like any sensible person should. So, it was too bad that he couldn’t offer the kind of precise, actionable intelligence Newsweek seems to want when it dismisses his statement. 

 

Now the way Jones’ argument, or anything he says, is now being framed in this kind of a rhetoric by the mainstream press is his own fault. They rightly hate him and he earned the media’s hatred. Jones earned the hatred of anyone with a shred of empathy and decency. He had been a bottom feeder and paranoia monger, stoking the hatreds and fears of the unstable and alienated prone to believing in the most extreme conspiracy theories. His theories about the Sandy Hook massacre of 2012 were used by psychotics to terrorize the families of the victims. He was sued for libel by those families and ordered to pay them $1.1 billion. He got exactly what he deserves. 

 

The point here is that indiscriminately spouting the most outrageous, the most illogical conspiracy theories serves only to taint your credibility forever. It’s a case of the conspiracy theorist who cried wolf. If you claim that evil cabals are plotting against the world every day and point your fingers at the Illuminati, the Freemasons, Satanists, the Deep State, globalist insiders and shadow governments every single day without any proof of their existence, you won’t be taken seriously even when you identify real sources of evil like Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and Islamist terrorists.

A new round of repulsive, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories

As any sensible person who has any kind of a passing interest in conspiracy theories could have predicted, the war in Israel spawned an enormous rancid pool of creative fantasies about what is “really going on.” These fantasies raised their ugly heads literally on October 8, in the wake of Hamas’ barbaric attack on Israel, murdering some 1400 hundred people—including small children and toddlers, some of whom they beheaded or burned alive—and taking over 200 people hostage. Before the smoke from the gunfire and explosions had even cleared, the internet was being flooded by the reprehensible sludge of conspiracy theories about how Hamas was not really behind the attacks. The crux of these conspiracies is the “false flag” conspiracy theory, or the “crisis actor” conspiracy theory. It says that Israel was actually behind the attacks, killing its own people, or that no one was killed and the grieving Israelis we see on TV are actually pretending to have lost loved ones. These are more reprehensible examples of how conspiracy theorizing is still the tool of political opportunists and those so devoid of any human decency as to get some pleasure out of inflaming hatred, violence, and divisions among people.

 

One just needs to place the word “conspiracy” after “Israel and Hamas” in Google and the sites propagating them will pop up. All the usual suspects like State of the Nation, Before It’s News, and scores of others had started spinning out these yarns immediately after the October 7 attacks. Afterward, naturally, the pro-Hamas extremists protesting Israel’s retaliation against the attacks are espousing the same conspiracy theories, as are the worthless scum tearing down posters with the pictures of the hostages still held by Hamas.

 

The ongoing frustration for any clear and rational-thinking individual is that so many people can’t see how absurd it is to put your faith in sources of information that claim EVERY single world event is a conspiracy theory. Maybe if there was a site out there that claimed the only major conspiracy was the JFK assassination and not blame every other headline on hidden cabals, one might think seriously about whether or not they might have a point. Or the only conspiracy is the one that involves UFOs. Or maybe the one about the suppressed technology that could make the water-powered, non-polluting car a reality. But every major event is a conspiracy? Sure, only a fool would take professional conspiracy mongers like that seriously.

 

Unfortunately, too many people like that exist. These are the unfortunate souls completely alienated from consensus reality, perhaps those who feel so powerless and without a voice that they find these convoluted tales about hidden forces of evil running the world plausible and the cause of all their misery.

 

Then there are the ones in America’s so-called “elite” universities who’ve now fallen into this same trap of irrational and ugly conspiracism as well. These are the people who should know better, the ones who are supposed to be molded into the future intellectual leaders of society. Unfortunately, at any number of pro-Palestinian rallies at these universities, one can find the just as many people who believe in the crisis actor conspiracy theories or claims that the all the video footage of the October 7 attacks were created by Artificial Intelligence programs. Hearing the marginalized, those who are down on their luck or lacking any prospects in life espousing conspiracy theories is one thing. It’s a terrible situation, of course, but it’s somewhat understandable. But seeing a student from George Washington University telling reporters that she felt it very likely that the Hamas attack videos were created by AI makes me fear the future. The world is suddenly looking more and more like 1930s Germany and now even those who are supposed to be our best and brightest are protesting and shouting anti-Semitic slogans. It’s a modern tragedy.

 

The death of physical media might take cancel culture to a whole new level!

Are there favorite movies you just love to watch over and over again? A TV show that’s kind of like comfort food you can always go back to and binge watch? Fans of “Friends” and “The Golden Girls” always talk about how they can always unwind from life’s stresses by going back and watching a good marathon session of back-to-back episodes. For me they’re Sylvester Stallone and Clint Eastwood movies. I think I could put on a one man show theatrical production of every “Rocky” and “Rambo” movie where I would play every role and recite all the dialogue perfectly. From television it has the be “Columbo,” the greatest mystery series ever, in my opinion. But if you rely on streaming services to watch your old favorites rather than purchasing them on physical media like DVDs, Blu Rays, or 4K discs, you better think again about whether or not those films and TV shows will always be available at the push of a button.

 

Now sure, you say, you are familiar with how streaming services rotate shows and movies in and out. But that’s not a problem for you because you purchased digital downloads of your favorite entertainment. You own them. They’re in your account in Netflix or Hulu or Paramount+ or whatever streaming service you’re using. 

 

Well, no so fast! One day you might want to re-watch and old favorite, only to find that it’s gone forever.

 

I was recently interviewed for this Fox Business News story about the rapid movement to replace physical media with streaming and some of the legal details of streaming that many people might not be aware of. These legal details could seriously limit access to media content in the future. 

 

As the article details, retailers have started moving away from selling physical media. Sometime early next year Best Buy will no longer be selling discs. Other retailers might follow suit. So, if the only place you can access films and TV shows—or music for that matter—is a streaming service, you will be left at the whims of when those streamers decide to make the content available. And, more importantly, the article explains, “buying” those movies, TV shows, and music might not offer you unlimited access to your content either. Because when you pay for that content, you are actually paying for a license to play that content on your own devices. Those movies don’t belong to you the same way that your DVD or Blu Ray does. The copyright holder of that content has the right to withdraw that content any time they like. You could one day log into your Netflix or Amazon Prime account, looking to watch one of the favorites you purchased, and find it gone from your digital collection. It is perfectly legal.

 

Or if that favorite old film does not completely disappear, it could suddenly alter. It could become much more politically correct! Remember the recent controversies over the publishers censoring Roald Dahl’s books and several of Ian Fleming’s original James Bond novels? Imagine that happening to old movies and TV shows because they don’t have enough minority characters in them, or because white actors are playing characters of color. Imagine dialogue suddenly changing. Or, given the fast-advancing state of artificial intelligence technology, you might see all of this old content altering into whatever fits current attitudes and fashions. It’s America’s version of China’s cultural revolution under Mao looming over us, where our entire cultural history stands to be wiped away to please the unsilent politically correct fringes who seem to be offended for a living and can’t make it through a day without throwing tantrums about being oppressed by TV shows, commercials, books, or Internet memes.

 

But read the article…and fear for the future.

 

And buy your favorite movies, TV shows, music—and books, for that matter—in physical media if you can.