Where Eagles Dare

Every winter when the snow flickers down heavily and lies down thick upon the world, I always get a notion to watch the movie, Where the Eagles Dare. Growing up, this was one of my dad's favorite movies, and I remember being entranced by its snow storms, fights, intrigue, and battle scenes. This winter was no exception. When the snow fell, I thought about this movie, but I did actually this time rent and watch it.

What can I say. It still had all of the things I remembered. Of course, some of the special affects were not to up to par with what we have come to expect with today's movies, but that did not bother me. What can you expect? The thing that did bother me was the point of view in the movie. For most of the movie we follow the protagonist, Major Smith, but the annoying thing is we don't know what Major Smith knows. Throughout the entire course of the movie, we are trying to find out what is going on in the story, when Major Smith already knows what is going on; the storytellers just thought they would be crafty and not tell us. By the end, Smith's mind is finally revealed to the audience. This is a cheat, and a cheap way to tell a story. Any storyteller can withhold information, but can they withhold it in a creative way?

Compare this movie to Sixth Sense. We don't know what is going on in the movie, but neither does the main character. When we do discover the revealing truth at the end of the movie, that he really is dead, we discover this shocking revelation as he discovers it. That is good storytelling, no cheap tricks, but just plain storytelling, the viewer experiencing the drama as the protagonist would experience it.

Regardless of my little pet peeve, Where Eagles Dare still had those chilling snow scenes, and action-packed scenes of high adventure. Furthermore, it also has the most martial musical score that I've ever heard. I wish I could find it to post it, but alas, I'm afraid it is too rare of a find.

"Don't Hurt My Mules"

The other day, I was listening to the Dances with Wolves soundtrack, and I heard a part in the melody that reminded me of a scene---the death Timmons. This scene always has stirred emotion in me, but until now I never really had understood why.

In the beginning of the movie, we are introduced to Timmons, who John Dunbar describes as the "foulest man" he has ever met. Crude act after crude act from Timmons makes us realize that Dunbar is not exagerating, and that Timmons is defintely not meant for refined society. Also, when Dunbar asks about why they haven't seen any Indians on their journey through the prairie, Timmons curses and raves against Indians, stating how grateful he is that they have not seen them.

Which leads us to the emotional scene of Timmons death. In a gruesome scene, Pawnee Indians catch Timmons, unaware of their approach, alone on the plain. The Pawnee leader shoots arrow after arrow into Timmons body, slamming the life out of him bit by bit in one drawn out grueling affair. At the very end of he scene, Timmons, however, shocks us. He does not curse the Indians, he does not shout out in defiance, but rather he pleads, "Don't hurt my mules." The music, which before was a quick tempo, becomes soft and sad.

Besides the softening music and the tragic death, it occured to me what was at the heart of this scene. Here is this vulgar man who ever since we have met him, has given us every reason not to like him--his hatred of Indians, his disregard for the lack of buffalo, and his crudeness, but with his dying words, he shows that at his heart he cares, he cares for the animals that have carried him and provided him with a living. As he suffers a cruel death, he does not think of himself, but rather others. This makes this man real even though he only appears briefly in the first few moments of the movie. The main reason he dies is solely to have John Dunbar out on the prairie alone with no one knowing of his whereabouts. However, as unimportant as this character is, we see briefly something special. Despite Timons crudeness and other frailities, he shows us at death, that most intimate of experience, that in the end he is human, full of his frailities and virtues.

Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, and James Bond

I heard once the reason for McDonalds success. Heaven knows it has nothing to do with the quality of their food; I think most people I've talked to agree that there are better places to get a hamburger than the land of the "Golden Arches." The reason for their success is consistency and expectation. Everyone knows what their going to get at McDonalds, and that usually doesn't differ with each time.

It's the same with movies and books, too. This last Halloween season, Emilee and I sat down and watched all of the Harry Potter movies from The Sorcerer's Stone to The Order of the Phoenix. Watching the movies back to back gave glimpses into the story choice that J.K. Rowling made as she wrote her series.

Rowling loved to make good use of red herrings. This begins with Snape in the first movie, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. As the plot and story unfolds, the story makes the viewer along with Harry think that Snape is the culprit--the villian who longs to end Harry's life. Through the first time we meet him in the Commons area and Harry feels his scar burn at the same time--Quirrel, of course is standing just beside Snape with his back turned--to the disappearance of Snape on the night of Halloween and his resulting wound, and the bewitched broomstick in the Quidditch match with Hermione and Ron discovering that Snape is not breaking his eye contact with Harry and he's muttering enchantments under his breath--all of these lead the viewer and reader to believe that Snape is the villian. Of course, as one watched the movie from the beginning on second viewing, knowing the intended outcome, Rowling gave subtle clues all along--meeting Quirrell in the pub, Quirell always being where Snape is so that the mix-up becomes obvious. Hagrid becomes a red herring, of sorts, in the second book, as we discover why he was kicked out of the Hogworts long ago when he went to school with a certain Tom Riddle. In the third movie, it is a flipped red-herring--the person we think is a bad guy is actually a good guy--Siris Black. Of course, the subtle hints are there also, little hints like Ron's mother clenching the rat to Ron as he departs on the train. The fourth book has the sinister Moody who ends up not actually not being Moody. The amazing thing to me is that even though Rowling reveals that Snape is a red herring at the end of the first book, he continues to be one in the subsequent volumes. We never really know whether to trust him or not until the very end of the final volume of the series.

Anyway, what does this have to do with McDonalds and consistency? In addition to Harry Potter, Emilee and I also watched the fourth Indiana Jones movie. Before watching it, I watched the first and third, skipping the second. I've only seen that one twice--when I was a kid and when I was in college. The second time I thought to myself, "Maybe it's not as bad as I remember it being." It was. Well if was, of course. The elements that had made the first movie such a success were missing from the second movie. No exposition in the university classroom, none of the old characters except Indy himself. Of course, the worst thing in the second movie is there was no religious relic, no symbol to substantiate the Judeo-Christian tradition, which is what I think people in western culture liked about the first movie. Then, The Last Crusade came out, and everything they got wrong with the second movie they got right with the third. Indeed, Indy found the ark of the covenant in the first movie, now he sought holy grail--the cup Christ drank from on the night before his crucifixion. Also, I remember being extremely excited that they brought out the main characters in Crusade that were in Raiders--and even the same university classroom. I think that's what people want in a sequel. They want to return to that world that they loved in the first film. This happens in Harry Potter. We start out at the Dursley's, we usually have ride on a broomstick, and we always see our beloved characters--even when the characters don't have much purpose in the story anymore--for example Hagrid in the later stories. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull did this somewhat. It brought back Marian. A very nice move, but then it failed to bring Indy's father, or any of the other charactrs. But the biggest problem it had was it went to the alien creature--well they weren't aliens technically, but creatures from some other dimension. These creature's powers almost seemed to trump the Judeo-Christian relics of the first and third movies.

This brings me to possibly the most successful--at least the longest running series--of all time--James Bond. There is only one movie in which George Lazenby plays in--Her Majesty's Service. The reason he was only in one becomes apparent on the watching of the movie. Like Temple of Doom, Majesty abandons the established formula. In previous Bond films, Bond always received a mission from M went after the tyrannical, often insane, villian, met a few beautiful women along the way, and through cool gadgets was able to defeat the bad guy. This is the reason for the success of the Bond movies. In Majesty, Bond actually resigns from "her Majesty's secret service, goes on an aimless journey, meets a girl, falls in love, gets married, and then the girl is murdered at the hands of Bond's arch-enemy--Blofelt. This isn't how Bond movies are supposed to go. He's supposed to beat the bad guy at the end. But, despite all of these problems, I remember the one that disgruntled me the most was one time in the movie when Bond is bored and he decides to pick up a Penthouse magazine. Why in the world would Bond pick up such a book. He can go get the real thing--why in the world would he waste him time looking at photograph. Completely out of character, and it did not fit the high-class nature of Bond either.

So what's my point in all of this. Consistency and formula. I think a lot of movies establish a successful formula, their consistent with it, and that's why people keep going to see it. Even if it is the same story over and over again, if people love it well enough, they will keep seeing it.

The Story of My Life by Helen Keller

This is a book review I left on the Amazon.com website.

The Story of My Life by Helen Keller

If anyone had a right to complain about tragedy in life, it is Helen Keller. If anyone had a right to give excuses why she cannot achieve her dreams, wallowing in self pity and depression, surely it was this woman. But Helen Keller does very little of that. Amazingly, this woman holds incredible fortitude and optimism. She gives accounts of her hardships, but she always ends with looking at the positive side of things.

I also feel saddened by the reviewers who belittle this remarkable woman. They complain about a blind author, who explains things from a visual perspective. But I believe it is Ms. Keller who can see, and it is they who cannot. She has eyes, for other people are her eyes. I also do not agree with the reviewers who criticize the author for relating about the character of her friends. Her friends help make "the story" of Helen Keller's life possible. I think the moving element of this whole work rests in this principle.

Miss Annie Sullivan, her teacher, must be one of the most courageous, patient and charitable women ever to grace the earth with her existence. This woman came and aided and helped Helen out of her dark world into the world around her. When a person looks around, it is easy to only find self-centered people, who waste their lives away, but for Annie Sullivan, her life certainly was not a waste. Helen Keller likewise holds the attitude to achieve the most possible, and she exemplifies that throughout her life. This book makes me feel guilty for any time I fall into the trap of self pity. It surely is not the circumstances in which we meet life, but the spirit in which we meet the circumstances that determines our happiness.

Tender Mercies

I've been thinking a lot about what makes us like stories whether they are books or movies. One crucial aspect is that one must sympathize with the main character. Tender Mercies has such a character for me. In the beginning of the film, the main character, Mac Sledge, is in a drunken riot that ends with him passed out on the floor. Can you sympathize yet? Just wait. The next day, he wakes up and finds work with a young widow who runs a motel, doing odd jobs around the grounds for her. He tells her that his drinking days are over, and then asks her to marry him. Now, it wasn't Sledge's drunken rage that held my sympathy, but it was a man with a serious addiction who was trying to overcome it that gained my attention and interest. The two get married, and during the rest of the movie, I kept watching to see if Sledge would go back to his drinking. It's a simple problem for a story, I suppose, but it held my interest for the two hours that I watched it.

The title is significant. This man is on the rocks and is able to find mercy with this widow and her ten year old son, but the tender mercies take an ironic twist at the end. At the end of the movie, I felt like I had watched something quite moving. This is a slow-moving movie. It takes place in the barren flatlands of Texas which creates a lonesome mood to the entire work.

One last note about Robert Duvall's acting. If you look at the cover of this movie, you might think hey, a movie about a young Augustus McCrae from Lonesome Dove. Robert Duvall has the same mustache and beard. He also sports a cowboy hat with the same shape and looks as as Gus'. Don't be deceived, however. This is not Augustus McCrae, not the same character at all. We don't have the happy-go-lucky Gus, but rather a man at the end of a long dark road. It shows that Duvall can act, playing different rolls according to the part.

Saints and Soldiers

Saints and Soldiers.

Who would have guessed it? A "Mormon Movie" with some actual artistic merit. This is well-worth an evening of your time to watch. Unlike the other films that stormed Utah's theaters after the release of God's Army, this movie actually tries to tell a story, instead just presenting a badly scripted movie, dull acting, and a two-hour sludge fest, making fun of Mormon oddities. No, Saints and Soldiers actually delivers a movie with heart and soul, namely, charaters and a story. It was quite a refreshing experience. Set during World War II, Deacon, the Latter-day Saint hero of the story, find himself behind enemy lines. It is up to he and his fellow soldiers to get secret plans back to the Allies Headquarters before the Germans launch a major offensive. This story had spectacular effects, especially considering the budget was under a million dollars. It made me think that maybe all that money in Hollywood is a bad thing, and instead of improving movies it muddles them to no more than visual spectacles with no story and no soul.

Rating 4 Stars

I Am David

I Am David

Imagine only knowing the evil and the bad in the world. Imagine being raised in a concentration camp, knowing nothing of the goodness of people, but only the bitterness at the end of a guard's rifle. Such is the life of David, a young boy, who has spent his entire life in a concentration camp in eastern Europe after World War II. Through the help of someone--you don't find out who until the end of the movie--he is able to escape the camp, and he eventually makes his way to Italy where he begins a journey to the Netherlands. David has learned to trust no one, but he has to survive the journey, but the journey reveals interesting surprises for David as he begins to discover the goodness of people.

Rating: 4 Stars