The New Breed Of Sci-Fi Adventure-“Star Wars: The Force Awakens” (2015)-A Film Review

The New Breed Of Sci-Fi Adventure-“Star Wars: The Force Awakens” (2015)-A Film Review    

DVD Review

By Laura Perkins

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (VII), starring Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, 2015

         

Science Fiction movies sure aren’t what they used to be. Although I was, am not a great fan of the genre and have taken this assignment to review one of the seemingly never-ending Star Wars sagas (number 7 if you can believe it) that ripple through the cinematic universe every few years to give flagging studio tickets sales a boost as our boss Greg Green said when he assigned this beast to “broaden my horizons” I sat through my fair share of them growing up. Growing up just outside of Albany, New York my older brother would in the interest making his “baby-sitting” of me woes lighter take us in his car to the Majestic Theater in downtown Albany on Saturday afternoon’s to the matinees.

Of course since the average film was much shorter then usually around an hour and one half there would be a double-feature, sometimes a horror movie and a sci fi or sometimes two sci fi’s for the afternoon. What has struck me as amazing according to my recollections (and some “cheap sheet” research via invaluable for movie summaries if not for everything Wikipedia) after viewing this chapter of Star Wars was how differently these films have tracked society in their respective times.  Then, the late 1950s maybe early 1960s these sci fi films had “aliens” (not earthly aliens seeking shelter from earth’s storms in places like America to work and raise families without fear of death and disaster from the forces controlling their home societies) who were inevitably scary and ready to wreak havoc on an unsuspecting earth. Were in those deep freeze Cold War days foreboding when we were not quite sure we would make it from one day to the next if the “big one,” the nuclear bombs we rightly feared would blow us away. And the storylines and bad guy monsters and weird forces from outer space left no room for compromise-it was earthly civilization, us, such as it was or them.

Naturally the earthly civilization won out over the mutants and creeps who tried to do us in (read in newspeak the Soviets). Naturally as well in those days the leaders, usually one leader, who figured out how to tame the alien menace was an All-American, uh, guy who as Si Lannon loves to say went mano a mano with these unearthly forces. Saved civilization and grabbed the good-looking young woman in the fall-out (some things haven’t changed witness the younger versions of Hans Solo and Princess now General Leia and their courting ritual in the first three Star War sagas from about a million years ago it seems). Alternatively beat down the mad scientist who created some kid scary stuff, usually grossly radioactive and had to take the fall.      

That was then though. Maybe it is the intervening years where the Soviet menace has turned to dust and those “alien” enemies, the “them” have gone from outer space to around the corner and the world having explored the skies and found nothing unfriendly or otherwise (the cynic would say thus far) that has changed things. Add in a little what I would call sarcastically “universal multi-culturalism” and you have a very different mix. Now those scary monsters who populate the Star Wars alternative planets are just regular guys and gals who hang around bars mixing in with humans and whatnot.

Gruesome monsters that still scare me who I wouldn’t want to run into in daylight much less a dark alley at night but who we can’t offend because they might be allies, and besides “body-shaming” is socially taboo these days. More hopefully real live earthling minorities as in this film actually do good in the struggle against what is now not just earthly evil but universal. But perhaps the biggest difference, surprise is that those delicate passive young women of the 1950s have been transformed into righteous warriors in their own right kicking ass and taking numbers just like the good guys of yore. Here the warrior Rey played by Daisy Ridley showing her metal to good effect and throwing down bad guys left and right.  

All of those changes are basically pluses but that does not stop the story line from being the same old same old-here the latest incarnation of the bad guys, the First Order, looking for universal dominance against the gnat-like Resistance (a very appropriate term these days in America). Here the line-up is a young woman, a young black man, a gung-ho pilot, Hans Solo, General Leia against that mass of incompetent soldiers in that silly white armor aided by massive firepower which would make the Pentagon generals green with envy, led by General Huk, directed by ugly Supreme leader Snoke with the ringer being an imitation Darth Vader dressed in Johnny Cash black Kylo.

The ringer part-this Kylo aka Ben is none other than the progeny of Hans and Leia when they were doing their own version of mano a mano. Get this though Kylo aka Ben is so enamored of the dark side that he kills his Oedipal father Hans. Nothing but mourning all around. Except the Resistance is able to crush the First Order (for now) and that young woman, that Rey, gets to Luke Skywalker which is what this whole trip was all about. Stay tuned for the next one (2017 already filmed and shown) and the next one for 2019 just in time once again to boost flagging studio ticket sales. Nothing here made me want to grab onto the genre for dear life.               

A Tale Of Two…Sisters- Down And Dirty Among The Mayfair Swells-Katharine Hepburn And Cary Grant’s “Holiday” (1938)-A Film Review

A Tale Of Two…Sisters- Down And Dirty Among The Mayfair Swells-Katharine Hepburn And Cary Grant’s “Holiday” (1938)-A Film Review

DVD Review

     

By Leslie Dumont

Holiday, starring Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, directed by George Cukor so you know it will be some kind of romantic comedy, 1938

Sam Lowell, the former Senior Film Editor in this space under the old regime where the situation had evolved that every writer had some kind of title now discarded, told me to start this little film review, Holiday, with an idea attributed to F. Scott Fitzgerald who did know a thing or two about the species that the rich, no, the very rich, the don’t ask the price rich, are different from you and me. I was not familiar with that particular quote but after viewing this film there is a certain truth to that old saw. So thanks Sam for giving me a lead-in since this is really my first review of old time black and white movies of which I was never really a big fan. Never like it when college guys with no money would ask me if I wanted to see some feature in the latest campus film festival retrospective although I went if I liked the guy. Moreover I was, and the jury is still out for me on this earlier effort, not a big fan of Katharine Hepburn in her later 1960s and 1970s films. I was however quite enamored of Cary Grant in his later pictures although that may have taken a little beating in this film where he is not quite so dashingand decisive.

Sam, who was crazy for, was spoon-fed on these 1930s screwball romantic comedies, also told me to mention at least in passing that those were the golden days of the genre with the likes of the director here George Cukor, Preston Sturgis and Howard Hawks blazing the trail.  That while this film was in the genre it was not the best by either main star. But onward to the “why” of the difference between the very rich, those who owned “museum” mansions on exclusive streets in New York City then, or now. Seems poor little rich girl, silver spoon fed and bred, Julia, was on the prowl for a husband while she was slumming on the post-1932 Olympic ski slopes of Lake Placid in upstate New York. Bingo she finds up and coming up by the bootstraps Johnny, Johnny Case, played by Cary (who looks good in any kind of tie by the way if you wind up seeing this film you will get the reference)  and after a short whirlwind romance on the slopes they get engaged.

Of course whirlwind or not, among the upper set, maybe lower down the class ladder too, in those days at least a proper young man and woman would seek the blessing of the family. That is where the action starts for real when our boy Johnny shows up at that swanky museum mansion to face the inspection of Julia’s rich as Midas banker father. That is where things begin to unravel as well. The old man is dubious about young man Johnny’s wherewithal, clearly not sure of the boy’s bloodlines and so there is a round and round between father and daughter until she gets her way. As usual.       

Enter older sister Linda, played by Ms. Hepburn, who is something like the antithesis of Julia but who can see from minute one that Johnny is the real thing. Real whether he will fit the expectations of Julia and the old man or not. That is a dicey thing and Johnny’s determination/hesitancies somewhat out of character for dashing Cary is what makes me feel a little less kindly toward Cary’s abilities after viewing this one. So the whole circus of a family and Johnny go round and round until the decisive New Year’s Eve night when proud Papa gets to announce the engagement publicly to New York society, to the swells at a big bash at his house. That is kind of the tipping point for Johnny, for Linda who is madly in love with her free spirit side Johnny, and even Julia who begins to have doubts about whether her Johnny can toe the mark, can fit in high society. The answer, after going the extra mile to bring Julia to his side, no on the latter question. And Linda is there to help Johnny put up the Julia rejection pieces. Maybe Linda is just a little too dizzy, too ephemeral and other-worldly but she is ready to break out of the high society rat race which is a good sign. Not a great film but one which I could see myself cheering for Linda and Johnny if I had been in a 1938 movie seat.             

The Blues Aint Nothing But Lucille On Your Mind- With B.B. King’s Lucille In Mind

The Blues Aint Nothing But Lucille On Your Mind- With B.B. King’s 

Lucille In Mind

  

 By Bradley Fox, Jr.  

Here is the drill. I started out life listening to singer like Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby (and his brother Bob), Miss Patti Page, Miss Rosemary Clooney, Miss Peggy Lee, the Andrew, McGuire, Dooley sisters, and all the big swing bands from the 1940s like Harry James, Tommy Dorsey (and his brother Jimmy) as background music on the family radio in the 1950s which my mother had always during the day to get her workaday daytime household world and on Saturday night when my father joined in. Joined in so they could listen to Bill Marlowe on local radio station WJDA and his Memory Lane show from seven to eleven where they could listen to the music that got them (and their generation) through the “from hunger” times of the 1930s Great Depression and then when they slogged through (either in some watery European theater or Pacific one take your pick) or anxiously waited at home for the other shoe to drop during World War II. I am not saying that they should not have had their memory music after all of that but frankly that stuff then (and now although less) made me grind my teeth. But I was a captive audience then and so to this day I can sing off Rum and Coca Cola and Don’t Sit Under The Apple Tree from memory. But that was not my music, okay. 

Then of course since we are speaking about the 1950s came the great musical break-out, the age of classic rock and roll which I “dug” seriously dug to the point of dreaming my own jailbreak dreams about rock futures (and girls) but that Elvis-etched time too was just a bit soon for me to be able unlike my older brother, Prescott, to call that the music that I came of age to. Although the echoes of that time still run through my mind and I can quote chapter and verse One Night With You, Sweet Little Sixteen, Let’s Have A Party, Be-Bop-a-Lula, Bo Diddley, Peggy Sue and a whole bunch more.   

The music that I can really call my own is the stuff from the folk minute of the 1960s which dovetailed with my coming of chronological, political and social age (that last in the sense of recognizing, if not always acting on, the fact that there were others, kindred, out there beside myself filled with angst, alienation and good will to seek solidarity with). You know the mountain tunes of the first generation of the Carter Family, Buell Kazell, Jimmy Rodgers, the old country Child ballads (Northwest Europe old country), the blue grass music , and the protest songs by the likes of Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Tom Paxton, Dave Von Ronk and Phil Ochs. The latter songs being what drove a lot of my interest once I connected their work with the Harvard Square coffeehouse scene (and the adjacent hanging out at the Hayes-Bickford Cafeteria which I have written plenty about elsewhere on poverty nights, meaning many nights).

A lot of the drive toward folk music was to get out from under the anti-rock and rock musical counter-revolution that I kept hearing on my transistor radio during that early 1960s period with pretty boy singers and vapid young female-driven female singer stuff. Also to seek out roots music that I kept hearing in the coffeehouses and on the radio once I found a station (accidently) which featured such music and got intrigued by the sounds. Part of that search, a big search over the long haul, was to get deeply immersed in the blues, mainly at first country blues and later the city, you know Chicago, blues. Those country guys though intrigued me once they were “discovered” down south in little towns plying away in the fields or some such work and were brought up to Newport to enflame a new generation of aficionados. The likes of Son House, Skip James, Bukka White and of course Mississippi John Hurt. But those guys basically stayed in the South and it took a younger generation like Howlin’ Wolf, Muddy Waters, and the guy whose photograph graces this sketch, B.B. King, to move north, to follow the northern star to the big industrial cities (with a stop at Memphis going up river) to put some electric juice in those old guitars and chase my blues away just by playing like they had made their own pacts with the devil. Praise be.               

The Lady In The Bell Jar-The “One Life: Sylvia Plath” At The National Portrait Gallery

The Lady In The Bell Jar-The “One Life: Sylvia Plath” At The National Portrait Gallery

By Frank Jackman

I have known the name Sylvia Plath for a long time, maybe since the time of her suicide when I was still in high school and my senior year English who was a great influence on all her charges especially about literature was pretty broken up about that tragic event. While I may have known about Sylvia Plath and her well-known (and still well-known) book The Bell Jar and of her poetry in those days what she had to say, what poetry she wrote did not “speak” to me.

How could such a sensitive soul (but also much else as the exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery points out including a sense of humor, a wry sense) speak to a hard-bitten corner boy whose literary heroes if he had any centered on guys like Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald.  Tough guys writing for a tough hard-shell world. Even later, college later, when I had a girlfriend who was crazy for whatever Ms. Plath wrote (she did her senior thesis on Ms. Plath if I recall) and who endlessly coaxed me to at least read The Bell Jar I bucked her. (Needless to say that relationship did not last too long). It was not until later, not until after a whole bunch of Army experiences during the Vietnam War kind of broke a lot of my youthful prejudices did I finally read her work. That is when I got why that Plath-crazed young women was so insistent that I take the plunge. And it is not too late for you as well.   

    

When The Blues Was Dues- The Guitar Of Elmore James-About Who Put And When The Rock In Rock And Roll

When The Blues Was Dues- The Guitar Of Elmore James-About Who Put And When The Rock In Rock And Roll

I will get to a CD review of Elmore James’ work in a second. Now I want to tell, no retell, the tale that had me and a few of my corner boys who hung out in front of, or in if we had dough for food or more likely the jukebox, Jimmy Jack’s Diner in Carver where I came of age in the early 1960s going for a while. On one lonesome Friday night, lonesome meaning, no dough, no wheels, no girls, or any combination of the three, with time of our hands Billy Bradley, Jack Dawson and I went round and round about what song by what artist each of us thought was the decisive song that launched rock and roll. Yeah, I know, I know now, that the world then, like now, was going to hell in a hand-basket, what with the Russkies breathing hard on us in the deep freeze Cold War red scare night, with crazy wars going on for no apparent reason, and the struggle for black civil rights down in the police state South (that “police state" picked up later after I got wise to what was happening there) but what were three corner boys to do to while away the time.  

Here is the break-down though. We knew, knew without anybody telling us that while Elvis gave rock and roll a big lift in his time before he went on to silly movies that debased his talent he was not the “max daddy,” not the guy who rolled the dice. For one thing and this was Billy’s position he only covered Big Joe Turner’s classic R&B classic Shake, Rattle, and Roll and when we heard Joe’s finger-snapping version we flipped out. So Billy had his choice made, no question. Jack had heard on some late Sunday night radio station out in Chicago on his transistor radio a thing called Be-Bop Benny’s Blues Hour where he first heard this guy wailing on the piano a be-bop tune. It turned out to be Ike Turner (without Tina then) blasting Rocket 88. So Jack had his position firm, and a good choice. Me, well I caught this obscure folk music station (obscure then not a few years later though) which played not just folk but what would be later called “roots music.” And the blues is nothing but roots music in America. One night I heard Elmore James slide guitar his way through Look On Yonder Wall. That is the song I defended that night. Did any of us change each other’s mind that night. Be serious. I later, several years later, saw the wisdom of Jack’s choice and switched but old Elmore still was a close second. Enough said.       

CD REVIEW

The History of Elmore James: The Sky Is Crying, Elmore James, Rhino Records, 1993

When one thinks of the classic blues tune “Dust My Broom” one tends to think of the legendary Robert Johnson who along with his “Sweet Home, Chicago” created two of the signature blues songs of the pre-World War II period. However, my first hearing of “Dust My Broom” was on a hot LP vinyl record (the old days, right?) version covered and made his own by the artist under review, Elmore James. I have heard many cover versions since then, including from the likes of George Thoroughgood and Chris Smither, and they all reflect on the influence of Elmore’s amazing slide guitar virtuosity to provide the "heat" necessary to do the song justice. Moreover, this is only the tip of the iceberg as such blues masters and aficionados as B.B. King and The Rolling Stones have covered other parts of James’ catalog.

Perhaps because Elmore died relativity young at a time when blues were just being revived in the early 1960’s as part of the general trend toward “discovering” roots music by the likes of this reviewer he has been a less well-known member of the blues pantheon. However, for those who know the value of a good slide guitar to add sexiness and sauciness to a blues number James’ is a hero. Hell, Thoroughgood built a whole career out of Elmore covers (and also, to be sure, of the late legendary Bo Didderly). I never get tired of hearing these great songs. Moreover, it did not hurt to have the famous Broom-dusters backing him up throughout the years. As one would expect of material done in the pre-digital age the sound quality is very dependent on the quality of the studio. But that, to my mind just makes it more authentic.

Well, what did you NEED to listen to here? Obviously,” Dust My Broom". On this CD though you MUST listen to Elmore on "Standing At The Crossroads". Wow, it jumps right out at you. "Look On Yonder Wall" (a song that I used to believe was a key to early rock 'n' rock before I gravitated to Ike Turner's "Rocket 88" as my candidate for that role), "It Hurts Me Too" and the classic "The Sky is Crying" round out the minimum program here. Listen on.

Lyrics To "Dust My Broom"

I'm gonna get up in the mornin',

I believe I'll dust my broom (2x)

Girlfriend, the black man you been lovin',

girlfriend, can get my room

I'm gon' write a letter,

Telephone every town I know (2x)

If I can't find her in West Helena,

She must be in East Monroe, I know

I don't want no woman,

Wants every downtown man she meet (2x)

She's a no good doney,

They shouldn't 'low her on the street

I believe, I believe I'll go back home (2x)

You can mistreat me here, babe,

But you can't when I go home

And I'm gettin' up in the morning,

I believe I'll dust my broom (2x)

Girlfriend, the black man that you been lovin',

Girlfriend, can get my room

I'm gon' call up Chiney,

She is my good girl over there (2x)

If I can't find her on Philippine's Island,

She must be in Ethiopia somewhere

Robert Johnson

When The Capitalist World Was On The Rise-The 16th and 17th Dutch And Flemish Paintings at the Museum Of Fine Arts In Boston –Art And The Revolution

When The Capitalist World Was On The Rise-The 16^th and 17^th Dutch And Flemish Paintings at the Museum Of Fine Arts In Boston –Art And The Revolution   

By William Bradley

I have not been a writer on this site for very long having just been hired by site manager Greg Green to give a younger view to the blog (and a few linked on-line publications) so I do not know unlike older writer Frank Jackman whether it is normal to response to something written by one of the other writers in this space as he did to me in recent exchange about art and the progress of early capitalism.  (I do know we are under mandate not to write about the previous site manager as I found out the hard way when I was blue-penciled for a reference to him for supporting articles about art.)

After having been given an assignment to view the Vermeer and friends exhibit down at the National Gallery in Washington since I was in that town on another matter I was looking at the archives here to find out if anybody had written about the high tide of Dutch and Flemish Art (you know the time of Rembrandt, Hals, Reubens, Van Dyck and their respective schools, workshops and progeny) and out popped an article by Frank Jackman then the senior political commentator under the old regime. Truly knowing nothing about the subject of Dutch and Flemish art other than liking some of it and being bored by the endless paintings of fruit and such perfectly detailed, I figured that I would ask Frank about his take. As it turned out I didn’t know much either about his so-called Marxist perspective combining art and the productive system in a way that seemed odd to me.

I wrote an article about the Vermeer crowd basically on the like/don’t like aspects mentioned a minute ago since it had escaped me about putting the fight by capitalism against feudalism and art together except the Dutch and Flemish painters unlike the Italians weren’t hung up on Christian piety themes and Old Testament sagas. Frank responded that I had a lot to learn about milieu and its effect on artists which he explained in another way when I mentioned in that first article that I liked abstract expressionism and he mentioned back that you could not understand that milieu without knowing about the effect of the 20^th century wars and alienation produced by late capitalism which he called imperialism on the artists.

Greg Green recently asked me since I was going to be in Boston for the holidays to visit my sister to go check out the latest Dutch and Flemish exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts which some collectors had promised to the Museum and which they were going to display. Lance Lawrence when he heard about the assignment dubbed me “Leonard De Bois” whom I did not know by name but who is a big wheel in the Dutch and Flemish academic art field. My only comment was that it seemed in my experience that these museums seem to run into common exhibitionism. Washington and now Boston (and New York I think) are on a Dutch-Flemish jag. Last year half the world seemed to be featuring various stages of Matisse’s career. Japanese art seems to be the new up and coming thing. In any case now that I am an “expert” I can rehash my stuff about Vermeer and his crowd with the stuff in Boston. An honored academic tradition:            

“Frank did a whole series of articles under the title When The Capitalist World Was Young to be found in the archives making the connection between the artistic sensibilities of the rising bourgeoisie and their clamoring for paintings which showed that they were on the rise, that they were the new sheriffs in town and could afford like the nobles and high clergy in the ancient regime to show their new-found prosperity by paying for portraits, collective and singular, and displays of their domestic prosperity. Of course Frank, an old radical from the 1960s … was coming at his view from something that he called a Marxist prospective. A prospective which not knowing much about it except it had a lot to do with the demise of the old Soviet Union now Putin’s Russia and why it had failed I asked him about since I was clueless about how that artwork had anything to do with politics. What he told me, and I don’t want to get into a big discussion about it is that Marxism, Marx saw capitalism as a progressive force against the feudal society and that would get reflected in lots of things like art and social arrangements.      

“Under that set of ideas Frank was able to give a positive spin on a lot of the art from the 16^th and 17^th century, especially Dutch and Flemish art in the days when those grouping were leading the capitalist charge via their position in the shipping, transport and the emerging banking world. In one part of that above mentioned series Frank highlighted the connection between art and economics by referring to a famous painting in the National Gallery down in Washington, D.C. where some very self-satisfied burghers and civil officials were feasting and showing off their new found emergence as trend-setters. I took his point once I saw the painting he was referring to and noted that these guys and it was all guys except the hard-pressed wait staff really were self-satisfied even though I am still not sure that you can draw that close a connection between art and economics.    

“That discussion with Frank was in the back of my mind when I was assigned by Greg Green, since I was down in Washington for another reason, to check out the Vermeer and friend retrospective at the National Gallery (that Frank referred painting of the burghers was nowhere in sight and I wound up viewing it on-line while we were discussing it). I took a different view of what I saw there since I am not very political and certainly would not draw the same line as Frank did. What struck me, and I am willing to bet many others who viewed the exhibit as well, was the extreme attention to detail in almost all the paintings observed. The sense that the artists had to whether it was portraiture, domestic scenes, or landscape, including those famous frozen lakes and canal winter activity scenes, show in extreme detail and shadowing exactly what they were observing. I admit I am more interested in let’s say abstract expressionism that this kind of  imagery but my hat is off to those who were able to do such detailed and exact work. Whether or not they were rising with the high tide of capitalist expansion.”      

  

Frank left me with a few political ideas to think about which I can apply as well to the Boston clot. He told me to look at that self-satisfied burgher business, look at the pot-bellies of the men and the rounded face of the young women which indicated how well-fed they were, look at the very neat way they arranged their domestic lives. Most importantly look at those unadorned halls and churches which a very far away from the medieval overkill of the huge centuries to build cathedrals that kept everybody tied down to looking inward. Like he said these guys were the “elect,” knew they were the elect and they could push forward come hell or high water.  

From The Guys And Gals Who Know The Face Of War-The Smedleys-Veterans For Peace

From The Guys And Gals Who Know The Face Of War-The Smedleys-Veterans For Peace    

When The Capitalist World Was On The Rise-The Dutch And Flemish Paintings at the National Gallery-A Reply

When The Capitalist World Was On The Rise-The Dutch And Flemish Paintings at the National Gallery-A Reply

By Frank Jackman

Normally I don’t have occasion to response to something written by one of the other writers in this space but young William Bradley has set the pace by referring to your humble servant in his piece about his take on Vermeer and his cohort who after Rembrandt, Hals, Reubens, and Van Dyck lit up the firmament and kept the torch burning for the rest of that impressive Dutch and Flemish-driven century when they were kings of the hill. That Bradley reference to me came after he had seen Vermeer and crew in a big retrospective down at the National Gallery in Washington which since he was down there for another reason site manager Greg Green had assigned him. Somehow young Bradley had been thoughtful enough about his assignment to check the archives here to see if anybody had written anything about this period of Dutch-Flemish ascendancy in European art (and really the last time that this section of Europe made a big splash on the art world for reasons that I could speculate on but which don’t really concern us here so I will push on).    

What William found in the archives was a short piece I did several years ago after I had been down at the National Gallery myself and was smitten by a huge mural-like painting at the 4^th Street entrance detailing in exhaustive fashion a banquet that a small cohort of self-satisfied Dutch burghers were attending and that sight sparked an idea that had been in my head for a while about the days when now wore out capitalism, worn out to do anybody but lift a few people up, was a progressive force in the world. That sense (along with that self-satisfied well-fed feeling that the world was their oyster) is what put pen to paper. Not so much for the art aspect, the painting was done by a lesser light and would if were judging on a scale was only so-so in the heady atmosphere of 17^th century Dutch painting, but for the way art intersects with economic forces. That (and I don’t know what else Bradley might have seen in the archives that would have helped him) was when he came to me to ask a few questions since his take as anybody could see from his short screed dealt with the art for art’s sake aspect of what he had seen at the Vermeer exhibit.

I had originally written that little nugget rank for the on-line edition of Progressive Nation when I was the senior political commentator here under the old regime, a time before Bradley came on boards so the art part was not fundamental to my idea.  I agree with him though that I liked to write about the proud beginnings when the rising bourgeoisie was going mano a mano (my words from the piece he saw in the archives and used in his article) against the old stagnant feudal society that depended on the static-and hard core universal church Catholic religion which promised the good life not now but in the great by and by. These guys were not worried about paying some middleman indulgence trafficker to insure their road to salvation. They were getting theirs in this world and if God approved so much the better if not well too bad.   

I did a whole series of articles under the title When The Capitalist World Was Young to be found in the archives making the connection between the artistic sensibilities of the rising bourgeoisie and their clamoring for paintings which showed that they were on the rise, that they were the new sheriffs in town and could afford like the nobles and high clergy in the ancient regime to show their new-found prosperity by paying for portraits, collective and singular, and displays of their domestic prosperity. Of course my perspective as an old radical from the 1960s was coming from something like a Marxist prospective. I had to laugh, laugh a bitter laugh that through no fault of his own Bradley was clueless about such a prospective. About not knowing much about Marxism except it had a lot to do with the demise of the old Soviet Union now Putin’s Russia so he was clueless about how that artwork had anything to do with politics. What I told him, and I don’t want to get into a big discussion about it is that Marxism, Marx saw capitalism as a progressive force against the feudal society and that would get reflected in lots of things like art and social arrangements.      

Under that set of ideas I was able to give a positive spin on a lot of the art from the 16^th and 17^th century, especially Dutch and Flemish art in the days when those grouping were leading the capitalist charge via their position in the shipping, transport and the emerging banking world. Funny young Bradley took my point once he saw the painting I was referring to and noted that these guys and it was all guys except the hard-pressed wait staff even though he was still not sure that you can draw that close a connection between art and economics.  We have a lot of make-up work to do for the lack of serious leftist perspectives the past couple of generations. 

I left William with a few political ideas to think about. Also told him to look at that self-satisfied burgher business, look at the pot-bellies of the men and the rounded face of the young women which indicated how well-fed they were, look at the very neat way they arranged their domestic lives. Most importantly look at those unadorned halls and churches which a very far away from the medieval overkill of the huge centuries to build cathedrals that kept everybody tied down to looking inward. Like I said these guys were the “elect,” knew they were the elect and they could push forward come hell or high water.  

When The Capitalist World Was On The Rise-Vermeer and Friends at the National Gallery-2017

When The Capitalist World Was On The Rise-Vermeer and Friends at the National Gallery-2017   

By William Bradley

Frank Jackman, a fellow writer in this space and I believe in the on-line edition of Progressive Nation when he was the senior political commentator here under the old regime, a time before I came on board, according to the archives loved to talk about the days when capitalist was a progressive force in the world.* He liked to write about the proud beginnings when the rising bourgeoisie was going mano a mano (his words from a piece I saw in the archives) against the old stagnant feudal society that depended on the static-and hard core universal church Catholic religion which promised the good life not now but in the great by and by.

Frank did a whole series of articles under the title When The Capitalist World Was Young to be found in the archives making the connection between the artistic sensibilities of the rising bourgeoisie and their clamoring for paintings which showed that they were on the rise, that they were the new sheriffs in town and could afford like the nobles and high clergy in the ancient regime to show their new-found prosperity by paying for portraits, collective and singular, and displays of their domestic prosperity. Of course Frank, an old radical from the 1960s a period that he and the older writers here have spent an incredible amount of time writing about some of it interesting and informative and others written seemingly since they had nothing else to write about and figured a nostalgia trip, trips would get them space in a blog dedicated to bygone history and culture, was coming at his view from something that he called a Marxist prospective. A prospective which not knowing much about it except it had a lot to do with the demise of the old Soviet Union now Putin’s Russia and why it had failed I asked him about since I was clueless about how that artwork had anything to do with politics. What he told me, and I don’t want to get into a big discussion about it is that Marxism, Marx saw capitalism as a progressive force against the feudal society and that would get reflected in lots of things like art and social arrangements.      

Under that set of ideas Frank was able to give a positive spin on a lot of the art from the 16^th and 17^th century, especially Dutch and Flemish art in the days when those grouping were leading the capitalist charge via their position in the shipping, transport and the emerging banking world. In one part of that above mentioned series Frank highlighted the connection between art and economics by referring to a famous painting in the National Gallery down in Washington, D.C. where some very self-satisfied burghers and civil officials were feasting and showing off their new found emergence at trend-setters. I took his point once I saw the painting he was referring to and noted that these guys and it was all guys except the hard-pressed wait staff even though I am still not sure that you can draw that close a connection between art and economics.    

That discussion with Frank was in the back of my mind when I was assigned by Greg Green, since I was down in Washington for another reason, to check out the Vermeer and friend retrospective at the National Gallery (that Frank referred painting of the burghers was nowhere in sight and I wound up viewing it on-line while we were discussing it). I took a different view of what I saw there since I am not very political and certainly would not draw the same line as Frank did. What struck me, and I am willing to bet many others who viewed the exhibit as well, was the extreme attention to detail in almost all the paintings observed. The sense that the artists had to whether it was portraiture, domestic scenes, or landscape, including those famous frozen lakes and canal winter activity scenes, show in extreme detail and shadowing exactly what they were observing. I admit I am more interested in let’s say abstract expressionism that this kind of  imagery but my hat is off to those who were able to do such detailed and exact work. Whether or not they were rising with the high tide of capitalist expansion.      

*[I am not sure I am supposed to address this issue but I will write my comment and let the editors blue-pencil the thing if it is beyond the pale but under the old regime Frank was given the official title of Senior Political Commentator after the old site manager brought in a few others to assist in that work who were dubbed Associates. Under the new more democratic regime everybody is just identified by their names as was the case when this publication was hard copy and in its early on-line days.]           

On The 100th Anniversary Of The World War I Armistice-Gal Gadot’s “Wonder Woman” (2017)- A Film Review

On The 100^th Anniversary Of The World War I Armistice-Gal Gadot’s “Wonder Woman” (2017)- A Film Review

DVD Review

By Laura Perkins

[If the name Laura Perkins seems familiar to the readers of this space that is right since she has been the subject of several pieces by Sam Lowell, her long-time companion, who before his retirement was the Senior Film Critic when the blog gave its personnel job title under the previous regime. Sam has always called Laura his muse and now the tables are turned as Laura has decided with this first review to take a stab at writing pieces on her own. She has told me that she did not feel any particular encouragement from the previous management to act as anything but Sam’s muse in this space but the combination of the issue of war and a potentially feminist icon motivated her when I asked her to take on the assignment. Greg Green]

Wonder Woman, starring Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, from the DC comic characters stable, 2017 

An essentially blanket condemnation of humankind’s follies, its folly that war can resolve human disputes, is a tough dollar to break through as the film under review, Wonder Woman, has made amply clear. Apparently Ken Burns when talking about his ten part, eighteen hour overview of the Vietnam War which was a central defining point of Sam and my youth and thereafter when we tried to keep the lamplight burning on the issues of war and peace is not alone in his view that “war is in our DNA.” When the whole thing gets boiled down, both by the dialogue and the action in the film, that is what stands out to these eyes about the film-makers motivations. Of course since we are also dealing with a female character, Wonder Woman aka Diana Prince, played by Gal Gadot, even if a comic super-hero there are feminist issues raised as well. I want to address them but I have noticed that the folly of war has gotten lost, as it has lately in at least American society in the almost non-existent peace movement lost among the swelter of other social concerns even by progressives and leftists. Believe me Sam and I know of whence we speak on that one since more than once we have been among very few kindred out in the street protesting the current craze for war with North Korea or Iran, or both by the madmen in the White House, Pentagon and the Congress.          

As Sam always likes to say, which I can reveal now that he got from me who got it from my Irish grandfather, here’s the “skinny” on this one. I will admit I have played a little tongue in cheek on which seems right or a comic book-etched super-hero. Apparently Zeus, yes the Greek god, created humankind out of an act of hubris, who thereafter proved to be troublesome and not into perfection after the Fall, you know, the exit from the Garden of Eden, that he had created to give them something to do. His son, mother unknown, or at least unknown to me, Ares, who will armor up as the God of war in the pantheon, has the bright idea that the way to bring back the purified Garden now lost due to human culpability, is to kill off all the citizenry (an idea shared by the various generals in WWI given the casualty numbers). In short to make the good green Earth a wasteland fit only for him apparently. Zeus wastes but does not kill Ares in a titanic sky battle so he will live to wreak havoc another day.

Enter Diana, aka Diana Prince, aka Wonder Woman, or rather her mother who created her out of clay although the real deal is that she, the Queen mother, coupled with Zeus on the quiet. When all hell broke loose in the heavens among the menfolk she led her Amazon warriors, and no men, to a secluded spot and set up a female commune, nunnery, convent, military academy waiting for the wounded but not defeated Ares to make his inevitable charge. Diana will be the vessel who will champion the Amazons, champion the humankind cause once she breaks out of that female retreat and heads out into the messy real world.          

Enter the real world out of nowhere in the person of her future star-crossed lover Captain Steve, played by Chris Pines, who happens to be an American on loan to the British who are using him as a spy.  A spy trying to figure out what the nasty brutal Germans, the Huns, are up to in the days leading up to the Armistice maybe trying for one last bit glory and victory. The German strategy. Develop serious gas to exterminate everybody on the other side, along with those who get in the way. Steve finds the secret formula book laying around the secret lab of the well-known notorious Doctor Poison who is cozy with General Death (Ludendorff but let’s call him by his generic name, an evil guy no question who has a serious junkie drug problem from what Sam said when I asked about whatever Doctor Poison provide medication was giving him the energy to be a bad ass).   

After saving Captain Steve Diana (you already know aka Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman so let’s stick with her given name) and hears his story about the mass murder, injustice and civilian collateral damage going out in the real world beyond the retreat she senses this is the work of that damn Ares her mother keeps alluding to but wouldn’t confide in her about. Off they go to London so Steve can give the book to the proper authorities and await further instructions. For a foreigner, an isolated island young woman, she acclimates to society pretty well. Takes everything in stride, including sex and other such things that if she was not a super-hero she would be clueless about. She keeps clamoring to go to the front like any action junkie super-hero and so Steve and some comrades who Steve picks up along the way escort her there. Once there she cannot believe what humans will do to each other for whatever reason those in charge give.

Everything Diana was bred and trained for back in the barracks at home comes to the fore now and Steve and the other guys are just ornaments, back-up for whatever caper she is into. This is strictly her show from here on in. Along the way she solves the trench warfare stalemate that has taken many lives and driven many generals crazy by a frontal attack on the German trenches to get to that poison gas lab and a confrontation with General Death who she thinks is Ares in earthly disguise. Along the way the obvious attraction between her and Captain Steve plays out and they go as guys like Sam like to say “under the silky sheets” but I will just say have sex (off-stage of course). Her intelligence proved to be wrong after a mini-battle with General Death when she finds that the people are still going about the business of war full throttle.

These humans certainly have messy and contrary motives. As it turns out Ares is alive and well in the area in the person of a British War Council member who is conning the world into believing that he is leading efforts to bring an armistice to fruition. (That armistice will come in the real world on November 11, 1918 which is now commemorated in the United States as Veterans Day which Sam and his crowd is trying to get changed back to the original intention he wishes me to tell you). Diana, as you know daughter of Zeus in “real” life and hence a goddess, goes hand to hand with her brother Ares who now is dressed up in funny costume and she vanquishes him forthwith. Unfortunately for the lovely couple Steve committed suicide when he took a plane loaded with poison gas up and exploded it saving his little segment of humankind. Probably better that he got killed early on since Diana was still around 100 years later and he would have been long gone by then. Yeah, she was still around trying to figure what makes these humans tick and why does she have to endlessly go out and save their butts.    

It seems rather fitting, to me at least who has always been on my own and with Sam interested in history (we actually met at a forum on the influence of the Russian Revolution of 1917, the October one, on world politics in the 20^th century), that the backdrop to the storyline in this film is the fruitless, insane blood-letting of World War II. Yes, the war to end all wars, a faulting premise for going to war from the start, which this year will be commemorating the 100^th anniversary of the armistice that stopped the slaughter. For a while but as we are painfully aware did not resolve anything in the great scheme of things. Ironic as well, and probably every general’s wet dream was to have a warrior woman who could break the awful trench war stalemate by the force of her singular personality. The irony being, as is always a subtext in these comic philosophical underpinning, that the peacemaker will untold wreak havoc on her chosen bad guys (who not so strangely from an American view, comic strip or otherwise, happen to be the very same enemies of the British and the Americans with the “bloody Huns represented by a renegade general as the bad guys) with as many kills under her belt as any machine gun or bombshell. The old adage of blessed are the peacemakers takes a holiday in this film except as the two main characters go back and forth about the foibles of humankind.       

To finish up in the year 2018 after all of the stuff about male sexual harassment and sexual crimes against well-known women, and as it turned out by not so well known women by powerful public men in Hollywood, Washington, the media, academia and wherever else some men given an unequal power relationship use that for perverse purposes I have to deal with the implications of a film showing a super-woman with plenty of regular woman traits (empathy, sense of justice, compassion, sorrow) and some useful warrior traits that some of the #metoo women could have used to advantage. As mentioned above there is an odd confluence here between Diana’s basic “human” empathetic instincts and her means of playing that out as an aggressive warrior not unlike every warrior who has come down the path worried more about kill ratios than trying to figure another way to deal with the problem. Sometimes that is the only way but not always and you don’t have to be a pacifist to say that. You also don’t have to be a feminist, although it helps, to wonder out loud about what image being projected on the screen those very impressionable girls and young women with the tubs of popcorn and cup of soda in hand and cellphone at the ready are seeing about the way women have to navigate in the world.       

I won’t bother to address the “dress,” the scanty dress issue which seems to have been a bugaboo for some feminists, some women in general since the real point is about the character was projected and how and not about her attire, well-bundled proper lady in London and scanty warrior princess on the killing fields.   

[I would like to acknowledge, at least a little, Sam Lowell’s help on this first film review and some of the touchstone points may reflect the fact that we have been companions for a fair amount of time now and I have been reading his reviews for years. After this maiden voyage I will be better able to reflect my own “voice” a bit better. Sam thinks so too. Laura Perkins]