Tag Archives: film

You Haven’t Heard of My Strange Love?

A group that gets together weekly for an hour on zoom technology later gets together elsewhere for, well, a lot more than an hour. The ensuing marathon of sharing, listening, meeting gazes, talking, plus some emoting, yields a happy, enduring bond. We will stick together hereafter, we say, springboarding towards deeper explorations, understandings of one another. And yet, amid ruminations of loss, danger, and agency—three pillars of sobering growth—the group contemplates play, which entails mischief, creativity, and semi-drunken performance. A man says to me, tell us about the time you did that bit about the guy with a cigar and an I-phone, which was a play on that old film, and you had to improvise because the tech was glitchy. “What film?” asked a newcomer. “Dr. Strangelove”, said the man reporting the folklore. “Dr Strangelove? Who’s that”, replied the first man.

Uh-oh, intoned the group, knowing what was afoot. An education was called for, so l launched into my act, first orienting the newcomer to the casting idiosyncrasy, that of Peter Sellers playing four roles, including the eponymous Strangelove character. However, I first intro’d Mandrake, the everyman Englishman who is a bit like myself, a workman-like captain, deputy to nutjob #1, general Jack D. Ripper, commander of Burpelson air force base in the fictional yet not world of cold war paranoia, circa 1962. See, Ripper begins the story by telling Mandrake that “we’re in a shooting war”—an allusion to a presumably imminent nuclear strike by the Soviets. Ripper says order a wing (like 35 B-52 bombers) to launch an attack, shut down the base, and confiscate all radios that could be used by saboteurs to counter orders. The dutiful Mandrake complies, but when wandering through an emptied office, he discovers a small radio that plays a jazz tune, which signifies something not right, so he hurries to Ripper’s office to say, in effect, wtf.

By the way, my newcomer listener is thus far polite in his listening but not yet rapt as I have not yet hit my performative stride. The accent comes next. Bursting into Ripper’s office, Mandrake exclaims, “Excuse me sir, but if an attack were in progress we would not be hearing civilian broadcasts”. At this point, Ripper rises from his desk and sneakily locks his door, entrapping Mandrake, who is an unforeseen glitch in his plan. He then informs his subordinate and, in effect, the film’s audience, of the major plot point: nutjob general has taken matters into his own hands and ordered an unauthorized attack upon America’s enemies because—okay, get this—because he can no longer abide communist infiltration, communist subversion, indoctrination, or the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

This bit yields the first earned laugh of my past and present presentation, largely because of its enduring relevance: what’s amusing about conspiracy theorists, etc. Anyway, I continue, as in reveal with loose attention to the story’s chronicling of events and the 3 major settings of Dr Strangelove (subtitle: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb): the air force base and specifically the office wherein Ripper has ordered the strike, and within which Mandrake must endure a diatribe about Ripper’s reasons for this act, which include fears about fluoridation of water, and more deeply—cue Freud—the triggering event for this psychotic break, which featured an instance of Ripper’s impotence while having sex. He had to blame someone, of course, and guess what—turns out he has a few weapons at this disposal. Next scene is the infamous “war room” at the pentagon, peopled by at least one other nutjob general who is sympathetic to the unauthorized attack launched by Ripper. This is Buck Turgidson, a guy who will have specialized in giving nuggies to nerds in grade school, played by an ebullient and oversexed George C. Scott. The other major character in this scene, at least at first, is President Muffley, a stiff, liberal Adlai Stevenson type, also played by Sellers, who must determine what to do about Ripper. Well, first he orders troops to storm the air force base to arrest Ripper and compel a recall of the planes ordered to attack Russia. Then he thinks to call the Russian premiere to warn of the imminent strike.

Problem, says Turgidson. The attacking planes are fitted with specialized radios that will only receive “recall” orders if those orders are preceded by a special code—a code that will only be known by the renegade Ripper. This bit cues laughter because it reminds everyone of needing a password in order to…you know… do anything. Well, this is a glitch in the system, moans Muffley, just as the radio discovery was a glitch in Ripper’s plan leading to Mandrake’s inconvenient queries. And as I inventory the theme of glitches, of displacements that steer attention from bigger problems and oversights—problems such as nuclear war, or oversights that lead to nutjobs attaining high office in military and government (ahem, cue winking/nodding as audience resonates with contemporary insinuation)—I remind my newcomer listener that the point of this entire anecdote was to illustrate my playfulness, my adaptation to adversity, not to mention my poise in the face of an uncannily parallel glitch in my presentation.

The wifi wasn’t working, which is a statement that would have meant nothing in 1962. Actually, the aftermath secret is that I didn’t set the wi-fi prior to my beginning the presentation, which meant that something I’d intended—the playing of you-tube clips from the film—would not load and therefore play for my two-hundred deep audience. I can still recall the moment of frozen disbelief that was not yet panic that led to my nonplussed glance towards tech support by the side of the stage. I looked towards the young man sat before a laptop like a stuttering actor calling for his next line. The crowd started to glance around, tracking me, muttering their emergent knowledge that something was wrong. Back to the gathering: my newcomer listener was now gripped by drama and not comedy. And yet, there was a surprise coming, one that would inspire and also fit with the theme of glitches, of technology breakdown, or a system’s collapse. It’s all humankind’s fault anyway, I’d soon be declaring.

While a stoic techie worked vainly to fix my problem, I stepped towards the base of the stage and performed an impromptu skit based upon an imagined dialogue between Ripper and Mandrake. It was an outtake, as in a bit that I cut from the script of my talk, now re-instated because I now had ten minutes or so to fill. It was a reboot of sorts, replacing the film’s notion of bomber radios and recall codes with an idea about Ripper looking to use an I-phone app to track the flight of his precious bomber wing as they pursue their mission, plus weather events that might thwart them. Drama hits the skit because the app won’t accept Ripper’s password, and he and Mandrake argue over use of a phone as military hardware. Anyway, this piece of improv amused the crowd and latterly my newcomer, and more or less filled time before the techie guy shrugged and exited the stage, saying he could do nothing to help me.

Oh well, back to the film and its theme of unhealthy reliance upon technology, whether humans are responsible for it or not. At this point in the retelling, I say “you might also be wondering how this Strangelove thing comes in?”

“Yes!” said my listener, wholly prompted. So, next I describe Sellers’ third character, crazy ex-Nazi named Dr Strangelove who is a Bond-like villain, sort of a cross between Dr No and Ernst Blofeld, complete with a wheelchair and no hands, though his disability is mental, not really physical, I emphasize. He is summoned forward to validate a claim by a visiting Russian ambassador, who supplies the film’s dramatic twist—namely, that a successful attack, as in the exploding of a single bomb on Russian soil, will activate a doomsday device that according to Strangelove will render the Earth uninhabitable for over ninety years. Incidentally, this Strangelove character also has a malfunctioning chair and set of limbs, which affords Sellers the chance to make absurd gestures that betray the characters’ lingering Nazi sympathy. Also, I note for my listener that Strangelove is clearly the inspiration for the Dr Evil character from Austin Powers.

By this time, my performance is less about the traversing of glitches and resilience than it is my enduring love of storytelling. Having given my friend most of the film’s plot, I proceed until its bitter end. Thirdly, I describe the cockpit of the one bomber that viewers will follow throughout the film, that of major King Kong, not played by Sellers but rather rodeo cowboy Sim Pickens. The others of the men’s group love my portrayal of this guy because here is where the film indulges phallic humor. Because it is crucial from both sides of the cold war divide that the attack not happen, a coordinated USA/Soviet attack is leveled at all the bombers to prevent any one of them getting through to their targets. This missile attack is unnecessary for many of the planes because Mandrake has figured out the recall code shortly after Ripper has committed suicide rather than be taken prisoner by soldiers ordered to arrest him by Muffley. However, the concurrent missile attack on the planes, which destroys maybe 3 bombers, only damages Kong’s plane, which is able to maintain its course to its target. What’s damaged is the radio that might have accepted the recall code.

What’s also damaged are the doors that are meant to open such that the bombs could be dropped, which leads an exasperated but heroic Kong (nutjob #4) to venture to the bomb bay to fix the problem. Sitting atop one of the nuclear weapons, which is shaped like a rocket, he finds the short circuit, makes a repair, and then watches as the bomb doors open spontaneously below him. Next, the bomb drops with Kong sat upon it, and as the camera fixes upon him, he is seen waving his cowboy hat, exulting “Yeehaa” and riding what must be the greatest erection of all time between his legs.

Yeah.

The last piece for my newcomer listener, who by this point had resolved to watch this classic film despite my spoilers, was a review of Strangelove’s denouement speech: lecturing to a gathering of generals and a morose president, who are now all awaiting doomsday, Strangelove suggests that mine-shaft space within the Americas could be converted as lifehouses for a selection of survivors such that the species would in turn survive holocaust. He further stimulates the male-dominated gathering by adding that the ratio of men to women in this plan would need to be 1 to 10 in order to maximize procreation. Horror/excitement is on hold while Turgidson objects, claiming a war task still exists concerning a mine-shaft gap between the USA and the Soviets. His would-be rebuttal is then interrupted as Strangelove, rising miraculously from his chair, exclaims, “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!”

The comedy ends there, followed by a montage of Mushroom cloud explosions: footage of nuclear tests of the 40s and 50s, with the tune “We’ll Meet Again” being sung over the soundtrack.

I’d affected Strangelove’s last line at the top of my voice, bringing my act to a close. There you have it: ruminations of loss, danger, agency. And play.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Kes

Turning from the shadowy fantasy of an exclusive and moneyed boarding school, Ken Loach’s Kes, released a year after Lindsay Anderson’s If, presents a next level of grim to late 60’s social commentary. Here, the focus again is on British education, though not so much upon its sadistic homoerotic quirks or militaristic anachronisms, but rather its more basic, woeful inadequacies. The setting is a northern rural village, or possibly the edge of a sooty industrial town—Britain’s Pennsylvania-like heartland—tethered to waning occupations like mining or textile operations. As the film begins, a camera hovers intrusively over a dawn image of two boys asleep in a bed together, but this is no post-coital morning after.

The older of the two springs to his feet, is ready to leave for work within minutes. He is an older brother, an early twenty-something, perhaps, who may be the main income-earner in the family, which includes his bed-mate, the younger Billy, and their mother, a much-aggravated woman who presumably sleeps in a bed of her own. The boys’ father, barely referenced in this tale, is an absented figure. Billy, who looks about twelve, is slower to rise, apparently dreading the day ahead at school. He has good reason, for hardly a moment will pass when he isn’t subject to either peers’ bullying, ridicule from adults, or standard classroom procedure that is mis-attuned to his needs and deadening to his mind. For one thing, teachers and administrators only thinly speak the dialectic tongue that spins amongst the locals. If this film did achieve a distribution within the United States, it would have needed subtitles as much as any other foreign film of 1969. The thick accents and idioms pervade the dialogue, challenging literal comprehension, yet this is only a short-lived distraction because the drama, more a coming-of-destiny as coming-of-age, is so evident, and the feelings conveyed are unmistakable.

I must admit to a tinge of nostalgia watching some scenes, especially those which take place upon a muddy, uneven field whereupon pupils play a game of football (soccer), supervised by a phys ed teacher whose ugliness borders on the sociopathic. I was born in England, living there until the age of ten, so I recall grey rainy days and eagerly running around to keep warm and avoid being shouted at. At turns impassive yet impish, Billy finds a way in such moments to amuse himself, find private solace in a reverie before a teacher’s rebuke, or a taller boy’s brutality cuts him down again. Sadly inarticulate, Billy is hapless when asked to speak his mind. Like most of the children or even the adults in this milieu, he has little more than a shrug and a blank stare to offer when invited to explain himself, or to declare an aspiration. Teachers scoff with disgust, or express broad incredulity at the miserably apathetic state of modern youth. Unlike the aloof, complacent adults who inhabit the world of If, the adults of Kes are beleaguered, desperate people, misapprehending their universe as much as the kids they’re supposedly teaching.

As for life after school, for Billy’s brother, or his mother: it’s even worse. The brother heads off each morning to the local mine and likely centerpiece of regional economy. He’s destined for union disputes, limited opportunity, or the cruelties of black lung disease. Meanwhile, odd scenes depict life after hours, in unglamorous pubs and dance halls, or the squat quarters of enclosed living spaces. Snatches of chatter capture life’s morbid concerns: someone is drunk, embarrassing themselves in public; someone is the subject of gossip because they’re pregnant and out of wedlock, or unemployed and without prospects. The brother is ever spoiling for a fight, if not with Billy, then otherwise with his mother’s boyfriend who props up the bar but is not appreciably more present than the boys’ father. Implicitly, the British educational system, or the class system as a whole, is much at fault for this state of affairs. Visiting career counselors have little more to offer than brochures about the local factories and mills. One even chastises our hero, Billy, for appearing more than unprepared for this preordained future. Indeed, Billy just seems…elsewhere.

Billy is our hero, not because he has rebellion in mind (like Mick Travis in If), or a future plan—a dream—that will rescue from this existence. Instead, he has escapist fantasy which, paradoxically, represents his realistic coping. Plus, the escape he chooses is the endearing adoption of a wayward Kestrel (hence Kes the title, plus allusion to freedom via flight) he’s discovered at a nearby derelict castle. Away from school, or his argumentative family, Billy retreats to an open field to nurse the injured bird, coax it back into flight, soon to let it depart and soar away. Why? Because unlike our protagonist, such a hopeful future is possible for the bird. Unhappily, this doesn’t come to pass because the brother, truly a frustrated figure with an Oedipal jealousy problem, kills the bird in a fit of displaced rage. Broken-hearted, Billy buries the corpse in the field wherein he’d been training it to fly, and upon that sad finale, the film rather abruptly ends. Ken Loach, the film’s director and noted socialist, has said that he has little faith in social change as initiated by the privileged because only those who are disadvantaged are truly motivated for change. For this reason, a kinder, gentler ending to works of revolutionary art are not possible. They are less about fantasy, sentiment—the wish for something better—than simply what is.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Run in the corridor

“When do we live, that’s what I wanna know”. A rather pretentious line, I’ve thought, delivered by protagonist Mick Travis in Lindsay Anderson’s surrealist film, If, from 1968. A bell rings out, signaling a call to assembly. Mick and his mates must stand to attention, looking glum yet dreamy as they ponder escapes from an oppressive boarding school that offers religious fervor, military training, instruction in increasingly irrelevant Latin, plus—more secretively, homoerotic sadism, all wrapped in Bach chorals and platitudes about England’s present and past greatness. Clearly, Anderson, the director, had gone to schools like this unnamed fixture ensconced somewhere within a bucolic Gloucestershire countryside. Many of the boys he depicts, ranging in age from about ten to eighteen, all cut from upper class cloth, will proceed to universities like Oxford and Cambridge, and will ultimately land in the gentries of medicine, the law, or politics. Otherwise, they will be groomed for the military, destined to be officers ordering lesser privileged or innately ill-equipped men to suffer. That’s why I thought Mick a lucky and therefore self-pitying boy: he’ll be alright one way or another, I figured.

The school is a training ground for either side of an equation. It will separate the perpetrators and the victims, with the latter faction earmarked for a passive existence, such as the lives we once associated with accountants, insurance agents, or the back corridors of civil service. They will be studious but not ambitious, because public school will have (literally) beaten it out of them. One imagines a character like Jute, a roughly ten-year old newcomer to the school who looks nonplussed throughout the story, living a depressive, deadened life hereafter unless he is rescued from this hell and guided elsewhere. In the opening scenes, the viewer is introduced to him as though he will be the protagonist: the obvious underdog who will at some point rise up and discover himself. However, the film more or less abandons him midway, casting him as a minor figure in the revolutionary scene that will climax the action. A touch of reality, perhaps, for only Mick Travis, played by the already mischievous and sinister Malcolm McDowell in his introductory role, has the charisma and strength to lead an uprising. And this rebellion shouldn’t be so difficult in one sense, as the adults in charge are a curiously diffident group comprised of stuffy preachers, idiosyncratic professors with perverse leanings, plus a complacent headmaster who seems to think he has his finger on the pulse of youth, but instead seems hopelessly deluded and lost in his own dream of glorious England.

McDowell’s Mick is the figure that will burst the bubble of this hoary establishment, though he won’t be alone in his fight. His tight and loyal posse features a small cross-section of 1968’s idea of the disenfranchised: a fellow individualist/intellectual who shies away from militarism, a closet homosexual plus his beauteous underclassman and lover; on the periphery are the likeable runt, Jute, and then finally, and anomalously, a surly if lovely girl who will shoot the obtuse headmaster in the forehead in the last scene, thus representing militant feminism. What this drama lacks are the kind of figures we might expect to feature in a film about revolution: a rugged, working-class hero. Or if it were being made today: a person of color character, representing what would be better represented in general today. But this film is not futuristic, so even though it plays with reality as much as it does, injecting events that may be happening or not due to the boys’ fantasies, the inclusion of characters from the other side of tracks or overseas would have stretched historical credibility. That said, surrealist elements invoke foreignness: in his private study, Mick admiringly pins images of guerrilla warriors, or a then-fashionable poster of Che Guevara, to a wall, and repeatedly listens to a recording entitled “Missa Luba”, which features sacred chanting of an African tribe. However, as viewers, we are mostly exposed to conflicts between the relatively privileged, featuring their strange hierarchies: so-called whips, for example, who are peers to the fellow students to whom they exact punishments and cruelties, yet when they’re in class or in the pews of the school cathedral together, their after-hours authority dissolves into invisibility.

Then there are rules and norms that make little sense to conventional observation. An officious upperclassman yells, “run in the corridor”, to stir a manic response amongst his younger charges, who then run amok within the hallways, beating or scratching at one another, discharging an ever-rumbling angst. Run, not walk? Meanwhile, the youngest, or newest pupils on the totem pole are dubbed “scum”, suggesting the boys grant status, ala Lord of the Flies. “You’re a scum, aren’t you?” says an irritable whip. “I don’t know”, Jute replies. He doesn’t know who he is, what he is, and he is as yet unoffended, for as a Lacanian might observe, language here is a trauma that a child must assimilate as it invades us. Soon, as adults appear from behind closed doors, ready to sermonize and deliver pedantic edicts, the boys still themselves, become frozen in mind and body. “Stop talking!” the whips continually berate, to consolidate order, for they are not just ill-tempered scolds working for the man, they are the de facto governors in this realm. Stop thinking, we might infer is the meta message here. Just keep running, moving from one action to another without reflection, without consideration of either history or a future. Is it any wonder that one character, a stoical, decent, outlier-like teacher played by the eccentric Graham Crowden, pauses to critique the impact this dire education is having upon youth? “If you insist on staring at me like a row of Christmas puddings”, he moans at them, half-sympathetically, for he knows that the crusty institution that employs him is killing souls.

It’s well over fifty years since If first came out and became a cult hit from then onwards. The romanticized rebellion, replete will darling acts and phrases, blended with xylophonic musical pastiches, seduced my late adolescent mind and stirred a dream of roaming insurrection once. But it is a dream that embarrasses as much if not more than it does inspire. The problems of privileged youth in leafy rural England of yesteryear yield as much envy as they do sympathy, so the end result is something of a neutralized halting—a sense that as a viewer you are taking a pleasant hallucinogenic drug, not prepping for a cause. If you are middle or upper class and herald from a westernized society wherein food is plentiful, infrastructures are sound, atrocities are something heard about but not directly witnessed or felt personally, its message is for a siloed constituency recalling a cultural artifact–something of a wet dream. Still, the film is far from a shallow entertainment. Among its indelibly-expressed lessons is the idea that authoritarianism is not simply an external force to be defeated. It’s an internalized phenomenon that manifests in peer systems, and lives on intergenerationally. That’s the horror of these boys’ prison—there despite the wealth that affords it and the lack of apparent existential threat. If reflects one version of youth rebellion, one that is solipsistic, grounded in material comfort even as it battles false austerity, and reeks of the primitive. Above all, it depicts a world in which choice is limited but still so much vaster that what might have been put on celluloid.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized