How Barry Lyndon took my Movie Lover Virginity

 

I’m not gay.  I don’t know how the people I know that are gay come to the realization they are.  I don’t know if it’s a clarification of some sort like a lightning bolt (rainbow bolt?) or if it’s just a gradual thing that they eventually realize.  But, at some point, I’m sure they realize they’re attracted to people of the same sex.  At some point they realize they’re “different” than what many in society deem “normal” and, of course, I hope that it’s becoming easier and easier to come to the conclusion that they’re NOT different; they just are attracted to people of the same sex.  But this blog isn’t about being or not being gay.  And if I was truly interested when someone comes to the conclusion of being gay – I could ask many of my gay friends but, again, this blog isn’t about being gay – what it’s about is coming to a conclusion about one’s self.

I think this is called playing "forlorn" or, maybe, "sad."

 By 1976 I knew that I was a big movie fan.  I had seen many a Kurt Russell/Disney film at the great Bay Theatre.  We would watch “The Ten Commandments” on our 19” RCA color TV every Easter.  “Sound of Music” every Thanksgiving.  By 1976 movies were already a part of my life even before “Jaws” scared the crap out of me (Coliseum Theatre – now closed ) or “Star Wars” blew me away (Sno-King Drive-in – now closed).  When I started making money at my paper-route I wasn’t one of those kids buying comic books (oh, sure, I had my share of “Richie Rich”) or baseball cards (though I did end up with the complete “Star Wars” collection before I stupidly sold it).  The point was – I was a huge fan and when I got the opportunity to buy cable with Showtime and HBO and the Movie Channel – THAT’S what I spent my money on.  You see, I was lucky enough to have both the TV room and MY room be the same thing.  As money became steadier – I moved on to buying my own phone with my own number.  Something very few kids had back in the day.  By the time I was 12 I had my own checking account, by the time I was 13 I got bills in the mail.

The world of cable TV opened up to me.  And, at this time, it meant maybe 30 channels and they all went off the air around 2 a.m.

As the years wore on and “Star Wars” came and went and then “Damnation Alley” came and went and other films – it was not uncommon to have friends over to watch this movie or that.  Trips to downtown Seattle to see movies at the Cinerama or the King Cinemas (no longer there) and, of course, the UA 150 (no longer there) to see “Star Wars” for the 12^th or 13^th time.

 Great poster - not a great movie.

You get it.  I was a movie buff.  Enjoying those films that I was, as a white male at the age or 13 or 14 is SUPPOSED to enjoy.  If I could sneak into an “R” rated movie like “The Legacy” (crap) at the Aurora Cinemas (now closed), I would.

Films were, in essence, my focus.  Both in making and enjoying.

“Barry Lyndon” was not a film aimed for 14 or 15 year olds.  It’s a 3 hour long epic Stanley Kubrick film based on William Makepeace Thackery’s novel set during the 1700’s.  I probably stumbled across it because I liked Ryan O’Neal who had starred in three of my favorite films:  “What’s Up Doc?,” “Paper Moon” and “Nickelodeon.”  And maybe I stayed because this PG film had a bit more nudity than you find in a PG movie – but this film enveloped me in its music, acting and storytelling.

Sorry - this is just cool.  Okay, maybe I'm not sorry.

 

The cinematography was beautiful (years later I would find out that Kubrick used cameras with larger lenses so he could film in candle-light because he didn’t want to use fake light), the directing stunning and 183 minutes swam by faster than you can say “Apple Dumpling Gang” (Bay Theatre).

Yes, this scene is being lit by those candles.  ONLY those candles.

 

When the film came on again...I watched it again.  Remember, I’m a 13 or 14 year old boy here.  Three hours are supposed to be spent looking for (or at) porn.  Playing pinball at the local bowling alley (now closed) or watching the latest stupid Burt Reynolds film or Charles Bronson movie but I couldn’t take my eyes off of “Barry Lyndon.”

Nice!

 

After it was over.  After I had seen it a second or third time, I knew I was witness to greatness.  I also knew I had changed.  “BL” was not a movie that you call your friends and say:  “Oh my God, you’ve got to see how Kubrick lit the scene in the whore house!  The pacing of this story is amazing!  It’s three hours long but doesn’t feel longer than “Smokey and the Bandit III.”   It’s also not the type of film you brag to someone that you’ve seen.  When most of my friend’s film knowledge is wrapped up in either scenes with bare breasts or who had the best car chase or the biggest explosion – I realized that I couldn’t necessarily share the joy that “Barry Lyndon” was to me.  I was different.  Kubrick in his 3 hour long masterpiece had taken my film lover virginity and turned me from a film loving boy into a film loving man.  This film had such an impact on me I even bought the BOOK!  (Never read it, though.)

Oh, you bet it is!

 

By 1978 I was enjoying “Superman” (Lynn 4 theatre, now closed) but I was also traipsing down to the Kings Cinema to see “The Deer Hunter.”  What other movies came out in 1978?  “Grease” (Lynn 4), “Revenge of the Pink Panther” (Northgate, now closed) and the animated Ralph Bakshi version of “The Lord of the Rings” (Guild 45^th).

But I would remember “Barry Lyndon.”

And as I think about this, I wonder about other people who are huge film buffs and/or film-makers.  What films took their film lover virginity?  What films did they thoroughly enjoy when their friends are looking at them like they’re crazy?  If I think about the films that Nick has watched and I’ve exposed him to, I would think maybe it was “Brick” – though the film is about high school students.  Or maybe it was “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” – not necessarily a film that is geared toward the male 14 to 21 demographic (maybe because it lacks a lot of explosions) and not one you can easily explain while standing in the line to see “Iron Man 3.”

Maybe?

 After my paper-routes (at one point I had three routes and was “shack manager”) I would come home on a Saturday and turn on the Canadian Broadcasting Channel.  They would show classic films from the 40’s including the “Henry Aldrich” movies and films starring the “Dead End Kids" (aka "the East Side Kids").  Once-in-a-while I would slide over to channel 11 and watch movies there, too.  One film that influenced me was the movie “Invasion of the Star Creatures.”  A comedy film about two men who come across giant women and have to save the world.  I found this film to be gut-busting hilarious and channel 11 would show it a couple times a year and I would always seem to find it.

Henry did more than that.

East Side "kids" - I think they were all over 30.

A few years ago I saw that it was on DVD paired with another movie.  I was stunned!  Who knew?!  So I popped the movie in and watched it and realized that it was one of the stupidest, pointless pieces of celluloid put on the planet.  (The Leonard Maltin Movie Guide book doesn’t even list it.)    I imagine this is what it’s like when you remember kissing some gal behind the gym in the 2^nd grade and then you meet her years later taking up two stools at the local bar and you wonder what the hell you were thinking...

Yes, it's a comedy.

 

I haven’t watched “Barry Lyndon” since those fateful afternoons so many years ago.  Maybe I want the experience of having my film loving virginity being taken away to stay in a hazy glow of memory.  I don’t want to watch the film and think:  “Damn, Ryan, could your range of acting go beyond infomercial to something more along the lines of a fast food commercial?  Stan, could you pick up the pace a little faster...this film is just dragging me down!”  Do I own it?  You bet I do...but do I really want to revisit such an important film for fear it may let me down?  Or do I want to just remember the experience for what it was...enjoyable, enlightening, life changing?

All this guy's fault...whoever he is.

 

At some point I’ll sit down with the movie.  Maybe I’ll even talk Nick into watching it with me and maybe I’ll be awakened once again.  Or maybe I’ll just live with the happy memory of change and growth and know that I was different...

Around the World in 80 Days

 

Years ago I burned through three Mintek 7” portable DVD players.  I used them to watch hundreds (and hundreds) of films.  At a certain point, though, I decided to “upgrade” to a 7” tablet, rip films, upload them to the tablet and watch them.  As much as this “worked” – I didn’t want to rip EVERY SINGLE ONE of my films...I was soon missing my Minteks and finally bought a 9” portable DVD player and committed to watching my DVDs again...and then blogging about them.

Within a month, or so, I had finished the “Adventures of Ma and Pa Kettle” and the “Airport” films but the new DVD player started having issues and was not consistent and finally died.  After about 8 movies.  My Minteks lasted me through massive collections of public domain films – though they eventually died, too, but not within the first 60 days.

This weekend I decided, once again, to buy a portable DVD player and to continue where I left off in the “As.”

I unwrapped and popped in the Best Picture Winner of 1956 - the film "Around the World in 80 Days" based on the Jules Verne book.

I will tell you straight up that this film is not that great for a number of reasons.  It's, basically, a travelogue wrapped up in a thin-bare plot with vistas and sunsets and "adventure" though most of the adventure is done by a subordinate character - not the main character played by David Niven.

 Catinflas - far left

Well, here's the story.  David Niven plays a hard ass rich dignitary or something or other - a proper British gentleman who goes to the club and plays cards.  While at the club he makes a wager that he can travel the world in 80 days and before you can say "tea time" all the other stuffy gentlemen are making wagers that he either can or cannot accomplish this feat.  Accompanied by his new manservant "Parspatoo" (or something - who calls him "Master" all the time) they go off onto their adventure and for the next 3 hours you follow them from England to Spain to France to India (where they rescue Shirley MacLaine playing an Indian woman - I kid you not...) to China, Japan, San Francisco, New York and back to England.  Does he make it in time?  You'll just have to see.

Filmed in 1955 the movie does have the issue of not aging well.  (see Shirley MacLaine as an Indian woman) and, of course, they're attacked by Native Americans for no reason.  Parspatoo gets captured, people are killed in the most non bloody way possible.  David Niven finally learns to pull the stick out of his backside and falls in love (kinda).

Shirley MacLaine looks very Indiandy, doesn't she?

But, like I said, this film is more of a travelogue and not a real movie.  But...and this is where the film truly excels.  This film is a huge FU to television.  To dismiss this film as slight just outright is to do a grave disservice to the amazing cinematography they incorporated in the picture.  The filmmakers were bent on showing the audience:  "You want to watch TV?  When you can be seeing THIS!?"

 Politically incorrect Native American scenes to come.

The first thing the smart filmmakers did was bring in radio and TV news personality Edward R. Murrow to introduce the film.  And then old Eddie goes on to talk about the Jules Verne story and pulls in "Trip to the Moon" - George Melies' silent film.  Since, of course, “ATWI80D” is a widescreen picture, “Trip to the Moon” is very small on the big screen.  Again, saying to the audience in some subtle (or not so subtle) manner:  “You want to watch a small black and white screen...really?!  REALLY?!”  And then BOOM! the screen opens up and you’ve got wide and beautiful vistas and you’re literally on the back of a bike going through late 1800’s London.  This shot, I have no idea how they got it, shoots directly behind the bicyclist as the camera is mounted on the bike (they use the same mount later when the character is on a running horse!).  It’s a great shot and puts the viewer into the moment (and remember, I’m watching on a MASSIVE 7” screen).  When this was shot, these were not small cameras - so the ability to create this was pretty cutting edge and I could see/feel the audience going along with the “ride.”

Riding on Train

As the film/travelogue continues the cinematography never lets down.  Only once was there that cheesy “we’re going to film you in front of a screen while we project mountains on it” shot.  All the other shots, from what I could tell, were done very realistically.  More shots that were pretty great:  a scene on top of a train, the undercarriage of a stage coach, a ship on the ocean and more.  This isn’t “I Love Lucy.”  This isn’t “Playhouse 90.”

For instance, in 1955 the Best Picture winner was the film-based-on-a-play “Marty” – from Wikipedia:

Marty is a 1953 teleplay by Paddy Chayefsky. It was telecast live May 24, 1953, on The Goodyear Television Playhouse with Rod Steiger in the title role and Nancy Marchand, in her television debut, playing opposite him as Clara.

Ernest Borgnine wins Oscar for Marty finds fame as Mermaid Man

When the year prior’s Best Picture winner actually got its start on TV (God Forbid) – Hollywood needed to wake up and wake up they did with the 3 hour plus “Around the World in 80 Days.”

Should you see it?  Is it worth the 3 hours and multiple cameos of big stars (casting Buster Keaton as a Train Engineer was a stroke of genius)?  Sure.  But watch it not for the slight story but for what it meant to Hollywood to truly say:  “Television sucks.  Come over here and watch this.”

Lionel Lindon rightly won the Academy Award for cinematography.

3.5 stars out of 5.

Politics of Personal Responsibility

The Politics of Personal Responsibility

A few years ago a house burned to the ground.  Houses burn to the ground every year, this is not that surprising.  But what made this story heartbreaking was that the fire department watched it burn to the ground and did nothing.  Why?  Well the owner had not paid the fee to have the fire department put out the fire.  You see, in this particular community, you had to pay a fee (not a tax) to have the fire department put out a fire on your property.  This elderly gentleman didn’t pay the fee not because he didn’t want to.  He simply forgot, or lost the paperwork.  When the fire department showed up, he offered to pay the fee right then and there.  The neighbor offered to pay the fee right then and there.  But the fire department refused the small fee ($20?) and the house burned to the ground.  If there was a child or a person in the house would they have put out the fire?  Well...the guy didn’t pay the fee so I guess they would have died.

Of course this story got picked up by local and national news.  Progressives raised money for the man to help him rebuild.  Conservatives talked about the politics of personal responsibility.  That the guy should have paid the fee and shouldn’t have to expect his neighbors and others who “played by the rules” to pay his fee or his share of the fee.  Progressives used this as an opportunity to talk about community based taxes (we pay taxes so that when our house catches fire, the fire department can help put it out), Conservatives used this as an example of a person who didn’t want to take responsibility and thus, screw him (we have a responsibility to follow through with things, and if something happens, we have to face the facts that we didn’t follow through as we should have).

On Saturday, a week after the Trayvon Martin  ruling that George Zimmerman acted in self- defense and was let go, I got a call from my conservative Mother-in-Law.  Typically I do not talk politics with my conservative relatives.  They know my political bent, I know theirs.  I love them and respect them and appreciate their passion but, often times, a discussion becomes more of a “convincing.”  As if there’s an ultimate goal of not discussing what is and isn’t wrong with a certain subject matter but I HAVE TO CONVINCE YOU THAT YOU’RE WRONG.  Discussions become competition.  It’s not one thing to discuss the pros-and-cons of any sort of argument (i.e.:  apples v. oranges), but somehow you’ve got to convince that other person that they’re wrong and “win.”

A few years ago I saw this first hand when my atheist best friend commented negatively on a mutual friend’s faith.  What then transpired was a conversation blog between, at its height, 8 to 10 people, all weighing in.  This went on for weeks and when we finally printed up the “conversation” or “debate” it went well over 150 pages.  What were found in these comments/discussions were passionate feelings revolving around faith, belief, structure, history, speculation.  Angry words were spoken.  (I often played “peace-keeper”).  Keyboards were pounded.  Fingers were figuratively pointed and after those weeks and pages I honestly do not think minds were changed.  No one “won.”  Did the needle move on anyone’s faith scale?  Sure.  Did it help us all to think about things in different ways?  You betcha.  But did anyone who had a faith in God suddenly wake up and say:  “Golly, Jason’s right!  I don’t believe in God anymore.”  Or did an Atheist suddenly say:  “By gum, Eric is right!  I believe there IS a God!”  But I think, honestly, it made us all think.  For a while, it made us all relate to, and understand where that other person was coming from.  It didn’t mean that we agreed with their ultimate understanding or rationale, but it did make us all a bit more three-dimensional.

Back to Saturday.  My mother-in-law called to discuss something innocuous that seemed more of an excuse to just bring up the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case.  And, in the past, I would let the comment zip on by like I barely heard it but I couldn’t this time and so it was on.  She was passionate about how Mr. Zimmerman was just defending himself from the boy who, she reminded me, had marijuana in his system and that’s been known to “make people paranoid and aggressive” (note:  the pot users I’ve known in my day are the least aggressive people I know and maybe a little paranoid that someone took their last pop-tart).  She made her points after points but I kept reminding her of one simple fact:  “George Zimmerman, with a loaded gun, got out of his car and followed the boy who had done nothing illegal.”

She argued back that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.  I reminded her that he got out of his car and followed Trayvon.  She argued that Zimmerman was the “only one that got hurt” – I, of course, reminded her that Trayvon was KILLED.  And then reminded her that Zimmerman got out of his car.  She brought up the fact that Trayvon beat Zimmerman’s head against the concrete and I reminded her that ZIMMERMAN GOT OUT OF HIS CAR AND PUT HIMSELF INTO THAT SITUATION.

In other words, I was stating that this is the politics of personal responsibility.  Just like the guy with the burned down house.  If the guy pays the bill.  If he does what he’s SUPPOSED TO DO, then the fire department comes and puts out the fire.

If Zimmerman doesn’t have a loaded gun.  If he doesn’t get out of his car.  If he returns to his car when the police tell him to.  If he doesn’t stalk Trayvon.  If he doesn’t speak to Trayvon.  Then a 17 year old kid is still alive today.

I completely understand if Zimmerman follows Trayvon because he saw him breaking into a house.   I completely understand Zimmerman following Trayvon if he was waving a gun around and being a threat to people.  But...since Trayvon had done nothing wrong, all the responsibility, including stalking and killing an innocent boy falls directly on Zimmerman.  NOT on Trayvon.

It all started and ended with Zimmerman...but for some, he’s a hero.  A child murderer who can’t take personal responsibility is a hero, while others make excuses for him...?  I don’t think so.