RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://quillette.com/2019/01/14/jihadists

Jihadists (dir. François Margolin and Lemine Ould Salem, Cinema Libre Studio 2018, 75m)

Some years ago, when assessments of the Arab Spring were at their most optimistic, it became common to hear it suggested that al-Qaeda was, if not defeated entirely, then virtually irrelevant. And yet, with all eyes on the Middle East, towns and cities in Mali would soon be falling like dominoes to al-Qaeda and its Islamist allies. This was the context in which two French filmmakers, François Margolin and Lemine Ould Salem, boldly journeyed to North Africa to document life in territory now governed by sharia law. The result of that trip is an extraordinary documentary entitled Jihadists, an unprecedented, unflinching, and unsettling glimpse into life under Islamist control.

While it is increasingly hard to miss the existence of this totalitarian ideology, the same cannot be said for Margolin and Salem’s film. Worried that Jihadists offered no dissenting voices to counter the extremists featured in the film, France’s National Center of Cinematography expressed concern that, rather than repel people, the film’s stark portrait of Islamic rule might instead serve as Islamist propaganda. The French government agreed, and the film was subsequently handed an “18” certificate—a classification both rare and prohibitive in France. According to Margolin, no documentary has been rated “18” in decades. As a result, Jihadists opened in only three theatres rather than the initially slated 30. It will have a belated American premier on January 25 in New York, followed shortly thereafter by a limited run in Los Angeles. That the film continues to struggle to draw widespread coverage is hardly surprising. Its topic and conclusions run contrary to the prevailing zeitgeist. This is a pity, because Jihadists is a powerful and important document that deserves a bigger audience.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/mary-poppins-returns-with-a-socialist-subtext/

Mary Poppins returns, we’re told, but only Baby Boomers will care. Roma offers the nanny Millennials can relate to. Who is this white British twit with a cinched overcoat and bumbershoot who goes about ordering around her betters and consorting with working-class inferiors? No one asked for Mary Poppins’s return to modern consciousness, but her reappearance unmistakably proves that Hollywood Boomers are desperate to justify their own mediocrity through nostalgic sentiment.

Also unmistakable is the nasty political undercurrent that prevents this reboot from being escapist fun. Take the new politically instructive songs in Mary Poppins Returns. Sure, they’re the usual Marc Shaiman pastiche — cliché Broadway compositions (from the composer of the lame musical Hairspray) that lack the memorable delight of Richard and Robert Sherman’s songs for the original Mary Poppins in 1964.

Incapable of a charming tongue twister, or relatable lyrics about medicine in sugary spoonfuls, Shaiman assimilates the #Resistance mood that has overtaken Broadway and Hollywood. Though pretending to be innocuous family entertainment, the knock-off tunes have a faintly repressive, pedantic note, especially in Shaiman’s balloon-song finale “Nowhere to Go but Up.” To careful listeners, it sounds like showbiz Stalinism: “The past is the past / It lives on as history / Let the past take a bow / Forever is now.” Why should a family-movie ditty recall the essence of Soviet erasure of history?

That erasure also reeducates memories of the first Mary Poppins film in which a subservient female nanny, who shows up weirdly out of nowhere, supports the bumbling male head of a stuffy British banking household. She sustained England’s class system almost supernaturally — or supercalifragilisticexpialidociously. Now Mary returns for no better purpose than commercial repackaging. (Meanwhile, minor characters play out a Socialist subtext, campaigning for underpaid workers.)

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/they_shall_not_grow_old_a_box_office_blowout__and_for_good_reason.html

Was there ever a more consequential war than World War I? As a result of the bickering petty politics of Europe’s inbred monarchs, we got communism and the Soviet empire from it, for one. We got 37 million deaths, millions and millions of bright people, a death toll so high that it skewed the demographics of nations such as France. We got grotesque forms of warfare – trench warfare, chemical warfare, and Howitzers, shell shock, tanks, and huge civilian death tolls. We also got the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire – Europe’s first truly internationalist empire of tolerance and melting pots – to be replaced by the crummy and oppressive European Union. We got the creation of the morally relativistic cultural Eurotrashiness of Europe in that war’s wake, too – dada art, stupid other kinds of modern art, and a Europe that refuses to fight or stand up for itself, no matter what may come down the pike. The death toll allows us to recognize the rationale with sympathy. And as an awful coda, the war was so badly resolved that it led to a second and even bigger world war. So this is a war that’s still very much with us in effects, one hundred years after the armistice was signed.

This is why Peter Jackson’s brilliant documentary is so compelling, just on topic alone. It’s the 100th anniversary of that war’s end, and the Imperial War Museum wanted someone to come in and look at its archives of grainy, jerky, faded, black and white footage to bring back to everyone today just what happened, show how that war looked. Jackson, the Academy Award-winning director of The Lord of the Rings, who has an artist’s eye for color, visuals, and framing a story, did a brilliant job framing this one through the eyes of the British ordinary soldiers in the war, having them tell their stories in the documentary, using oral histories from the BBC taken in the 1960s and 1970s, and pairing it with on-the-ground war footage of the soldiers themselves – signing up, uniforming up, acting like the World War II soldiers with “a job to do” – and dealing with trench warfare, privations, mustard gas attacks, Howitzer attacks, land mines, barbed wire, rats, lice, and bloody dead bodies, with considerable courage and aplomb. Not all of them were victims, as literary classics such as All Quiet on the Western Front or A Farewell to Arms suggested, worthy as those writings are (and what a pity the Millennials don’t read them). The soldiers cracked jokes, got used to deaths all around them, and dealt with the ordeal.

https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/they-shall-not-grow-old-peter-jacksons-masterpiece-war-memorial/

Our war memorials are usually made of brass or stone. But Peter Jackson’s astonishing new film They Shall Not Grow Old is a war memorial for the big screen.

Jackson’s film has done the impossible: He has created a time machine. Jackson was given access to the sound and video archives of the Imperial War Museum and tasked with producing a documentary about World War I in time for the centenary commemoration of the armistice on November 11, 2018. (Link to trailer here.)

After playing to sold-out theaters across the United Kingdom in October, the film will show just one more day in the United States – December 27. December 17, the only day the film has shown so far in the United States, saw packed theaters.

Jackson’s film portrays the World War I soldier as you have never seen him: in color, in high definition, and with sound.

They Shall Not Grow Old painstakingly cleans up the old jerky films of the Great War. It removes the blemishes, turns them into clean high definition, and colorizes them with thorough, painstaking accuracy. The film speed is even reset to natural motion, so no more unnatural gaits.

Jackson’s technical wizardry turns the landscapes of France into something vivid, expansive, and apocalyptic.

But it’s the faces of the young soldiers that will haunt you. Instead of the old washed herky-jerky films with their blurry soldiers marching by, Jackson uses modern technology to wipe clean the dust of a century and draw out the real people who endured unendurable trench life.

The faces are so young.

They are the kids down the street. They are the people you see every day in your own life. They gaze at you across the century and change forever the history of the Western Front in your heart.

An officer reads a morale-boosting charge before a company roars into the hell of the Somme in the summer of 1916. Jackson’s filmmakers dug up the original orders from that day and produced a voiceover of an officer using the geographically correct dialect based on the regional unit insignia. Indeed, Jackson employed lip readers and voice actors from the correct regions of the United Kingdom throughout the film to provide dialog anytime onscreen lips move.

https://www.steynonline.com/9075/eight-crazy-nights

Happy Hanukkah to all our Jewish readers around the world. I thought it appropriate to look out a slab of Hanukkah Hollywood, but the pickings are thin, save for this 2002 offering from my sometime fellow Granite Stater Adam Sandler. Born in Brooklyn, Sandler grew up in New Hampshire and was discovered in an LA comedy club by Dennis Miller, who recommended him to “Saturday Night Live”. Eight Crazy Nights was a flop on its first release but has become something of a cult film, and is in its way a significant cultural artifact: a big-budget multiplex animated gross-out comedy about a Jewish holiday. Only in America!

It takes its title from a lyric in a comedy sketch Adam Sandler first did on American TV three decades ago. Surrounded by Christmas standards, he decided to create the first Hanukah song – or, if you prefer, Channukah, it being the first major American holiday without an agreed spelling (the Presidents Day/Presidents’ Day/President’s Day variables are a punctuation dispute). Anyway, Sandler’s song includes the attitudinal line that “instead of one day of presents we get eight crazy nights”. Other than that, all I recall from it is basically a laundry list of famous Jews not generally known as such:

David Lee Roth lights the menorah
So do James Caan, Kirk Douglas and the late Dinah Shore-ah…

There was nothing much else in the way of Hanukkah pop, although a couple of decades back, just before he bombed out in the Iowa caucuses, the Utah Senator and songwriting Mormon Orrin Hatch disclosed to me that he was writing a Chanukah number. I don’t know what became of that, but, in the absence of Orrin, Sandler’s song, by default, got an enormous amount of airtime from culturally sensitive radio stations, grateful for a Hannukah anthem the goyim could get a handle on. I think I first heard it on WQEW New York, in between Perry Como’s “Santa Claus Is Coming To Town” and Peggy Lee’s “Winter Wonderland”. Having become Mister Hanukah, Sandler then parlayed his hit into Hollywood’s first mainstream animated musical Chanukkah movie. I’ve no idea why they even bothered to release this picture in Belgium or Germany. No other culture but America could have produced this film: not because it’s a mainstream movie about a Jewish religious festival, but because its view of that festival, as just another pretext for an all-purpose secular holiday celebration anybody can be a part of, is so American. Indeed, Seth Kearsley directs, Rob Schneider narrates and A. Film and Yowza! Animation animate the picture consciously in the style of those perennial Rankin-Bass Christmas specials also built around songs: Santa Claus is Coming to Town, Frosty the Snowman and, of course, the now reviled Rudolph. The animation is affectionate and reassuringly familiar. Coming soon: ‘Twas The Night Before Ramadan.

The story opens in Dukesberry, New Hampshire, where a thirtysomething criminal alcoholic (which struck me as a comparative rarity back in 2002, but is now near universal in the state) steals a snowmobile, attempts to total the town ice sculptures, and is delivered by the district court into the care of a septuagenarian basketball coach. Aside from the fact that “Dukesberry” seems to be the most Jewish town in New Hampshire other than the once popular Jewish summer resort of Bethlehem (seriously), Mr Sandler’s first animated feature is, at least initially, in conventional heartwarming holiday mode.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/american-film-institute-top-films-

In a rush to bad judgment, they heap praise on propaganda and scorn on moviegoers.

It’s the first week of December and the nation’s countless, overeager awards groups have already begun parceling out their year-end encomiums. They kowtow to Hollywood, obviously without having seen all the films yet to be released in 2018 — only movies that the big studios from Disney to Netflix have already decided are award-worthy.

The most egregious of these early-starters is the American Film Institute, which rushed the awards race with its 10 Best choices, sprinting out of the gate before a couple of the listed movies have even opened in theaters. The problem is that movies no longer have a chance to register in the culture or to become beloved or reviled by the public. It’s the case of yet another institution, based in Hollywood or D.C. (the AFI has feet in both), making decisions for the rest of us, indifferent to our participation.

The AFI began 51 years ago, after a Johnson-administration call for an organization committed to preserving America’s film heritage. It was originally funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, the Motion Picture Association of America, and the Ford Foundation, so its list sounds official. But the movie awards game is part of the commercialization of pop culture.

Even the debatable idea that the government should finance artists (through any means) is belied by the endorsement of commercialism rather than artistic expression. Be assured, there’s a political component to this: The films that won the AFI’s approval are all politically motivated and represent social-justice precepts rather than moral virtues or aesthetic standards. In other words, they’re propaganda.

Listed alphabetically, the AFI films assume the same values that are promoted in politically biased mainstream media; the list resembles an index for Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2018/11/26/the-green-book-a-review/

Sometimes a movie that’s been panned turns out to be more enjoyable than those that appeal to critics who pay attention to words like auteur and oeuvre. Sometimes a bowl of mac and cheese is preferable to pate de foie gras and so it is with great pleasure that I urge you to treat yourself to some comfort food in the sizable portion of Viggo Mortenson as you haven’t seen him before.

Playing a mob-connected, volatile bouncer who loses his job at the Copacabana, Viggo accepts a temporary job as chauffeur to Dr. Don Shirley, a classically trained pianist and head of a trio who must do a road trip from New York to the deep south. He needs a man like Viggo, trained in the public relations insights of bouncers because Dr. Shirley is a black man who will be barred from hotels, clubs and dining rooms yet is determined to provoke precisely those confrontations while en route.

To a certain extent, the set-up is a reverse rip-off of Driving Miss Daisy with a working class white man chauffeuring an elite and educated black man who trained in Russia, speaks multiple languages, knows little about pop music or its new stars but is immensely gifted and sought after as a performer. These two men have virtually nothing in common and the gentle comedy that ensues from their mismatch is what fuels the plot. It is the best part of the movie which loses its panache when it tries to drive home the already obvious message – segregation was bad and racists resisted the legal efforts to integrate the south.

Part of the problem is that Dr. Don Shirley, a man invested in the power of personal dignity is a stiff-necked goody two-shoes, determined to correct Viggo’s grammar, speech patterns and habits learned in the old neighborhood in the Bronx. We are amazed at his talent and genius (he was a real person for those who never heard him). But of course, Viggo – handsome even with a paunch – has the charm and common sense that often tag along with the personalities of bad boys and he remains the object of interest throughout.

Don’t minimize the skill involved in his performance – he is never out of character for a single moment and though he works with gangsters and people who don’t wait for backtalk, he manages to make us believe that he’s primarily a family man with a genuine capacity for friendship and love. Think Damon Runyon along with the mis-pronunciations and misunderstanding of vocabulary to distract us from what gangsters do. This movie will remind you of that disarming author and you’ll really enjoy yourself without working too hard. Just see it.