General Lee, Surrendered

 

There was no good reason for the statue of a losing General on the wrong side of history to have so long stood, tempting history to set this metallic ass in its rightful place--off-stage. This is restorative history. This is correcting a myth (the noble General who fought for his home, not slavery) and undoing a harm caused by allowing that myth to perpetuate. The simple reality is, the South seceded because of slavery. The whole "states' rights" issue came down to only that: whether states could permit slavery or not. And whether non-slave states were obligated to be participants in cultivating, supporting and promoting that industry, being abettors of kidnapping and punishing those souls who yearned to breathe free. 

I want to take this moment to reflect on the disdain conservatives presently have for critical race theory, to talk about the Fugitive Slave Acts and the Dred Scott decision. See, the Fugitive Slave Acts decreed that black people were presumed to be slaves--laws were made compelling citizens to assist in the capture of runaway slaves (and any Black person could be suspect) and the basic due process permitted any citizen was explicitly denied to presumed enslaved persons. The Dred Scott decision held that Black people could never be treated as equal citizens because once enslaved, always of a different class. 

Netflix Finds: Cloud Atlas (2012)

Because I am trying to avoid being constantly mired in political mockery, I'm trying to be appreciative of artistic things (or, if I can't get appreciative, I can enjoy eviscerating them as a large dog enjoys destroying a toy made for a much smaller dog).  Today, I was in need of entertainment--Netflix, random-setting (i.e. spouse's choice) came up Cloud Atlas.

At a bit under three hours and with a promise of intersecting storylines crossing centuries, I was a little alarmed. This could be barking gibberish to a late-Friday brain ready for something a little less deep, and since I don't pay attention to popular culture except a little bit, wasn't there supposed to be something not right abou..aw fuggit, I finally decided, with true acceptance. I was going to just enjoy the ride.

Which paid off. Look, you should understand that you have a brilliant cast of people playing multiple roles across time--the advertising for the movie clues you in on the premise, and if you don't accept the premise--don't see the movie. I'm sure there's a Steven Seagal movie for you to see. He even does accents. He's like, the Meryl Streep of direct-to-video action movies.  He's even done some sf. Go see those. This isn't a put-down of Steven Seagal movies, since I'm apparently watching them--this is a judgment about you. You get in the right space to see Cloud Atlas, and you will see it the way I did--PMS-y and a little teary and loving all the touches. 

Now, there are some weak spots--Tom Hanks is a brilliant actor, but can not actually keep what I think was supposed to be an Irish accent to save his life. He plays one character in a way that veers from London to Dublin accent-wise in a way I'm not sure how to entirely accept-- but luckily, that particular character is not pervasive. And his performance in several other roles is amazing. 

Halle Berry--I love her in this. I love her as Luisa Rey and Meronym. I love Hugo Weaving for once again being the Agent Smith-style heavy in most of his roles in the flick, as he was in the Wachowskis' Matrix Trilogy. He does great menace. I am astounded by Hugh Grant just being in there in character roles in a not-Notting Hill way, but in a ballsy "have fun being characters" way.  OMG--Jim Sturgess and Doona Bae--there was fine work here. Ben Whishaw? Keith David? I just want to shout the whole cast out as stupidly good in a storyline that veers from scene to scene in a disjointed timeline to try and demonstrate how good deeds and bad follow people beyond their own lifetime. 

But it is beautiful. It's about deciding people matter. It's about looking beyond yourself, and seeing the other, and knowing this is also you. 

I just found it beautiful..

Netflix Finds: Salt and Fire

This evening, I watched a movie I did not personally pick out. It was the choice of my spouse, who sometimes sees something he thinks he might like and clicks on it even though I am in the same room and he could ask if I have any interest at all. Sometimes, he picks something really good. I recently enjoyed Lo Chiamavamo Jeeg Robot, which, while definitely reminding me of the problematic relationship so-called "(super)heroic" themes have with respect to female characters (vide The Refrigerator Monologues by Catherynne M. Valente which explores the "women in refrigerators" trope and The Geek Feminist Revolution by Kameron Hurley) also was a send-up of the application of fantasy to the "real world". And then there was this film I saw just now: Salt and Fire.  

I did not enjoy this movie. About 20 minutes in, I did a thing I often do after watching a movie, where I consult with online reviews to see if other people felt the way I did. (I seldom consult reviews before--for one thing, there is a risk of spoilers and setting expectations, which I just hate. I like to see a movie with little more than the trailers to get me going.) I was happy to know many felt the way I was feeling about this thing.

There's an irony to the theme of the movie (a hostage scenario) and my getting "trapped" into watching it. Me--I'm no sentimentalist when it comes to films. I will walk the hell out or quit viewing if I'm on my own watching a film. Not sposo mio. He commits. And I, as a part of our unspoken joint adventure together as media co-consumers, have decided it is better to just be part of the ride. I have watched, for fun, really wretched B-movie schlocky-ass stuff I would never subject him to--I understand my tolerances for crap. So I tolerate. I forbear. I bitch strongly afterwards. I know if something was truly unacceptable, violent, exploitative, he'd shut it off and not watch with me if I gave the word. But this time, because I'm trying to get away from just doing politics all the time, I'm submitting my multiple grouses with this nonsense in a review.

The actors did well with what they had. Michael Shannon and Veronica Ferres are not to be faulted for the dialogue that could not help but be leaden. I genuinely think they did as convincing a job as could be done with a story which is kind of The Worst. Veronica Ferres plays Dr. Laura Sommerfeld, a scientist who is part of a UN delegation to an ecological disaster in South America. Her delegation is taken hostage when they arrive at the airport, and the male members of the delegation have been segregated and afflicted with food poisoning to disable them. She comes to be aware that she is singled out by the kidnappers because of their mission, and she is told by Matt Riley (the head kidnapper played by Michael Shannon), after some weird nonsense about perspective in an Italian Renaissance mural and a little inquisition about her not being the custodian of her little girl, who lives in Morocco with her birth father (thanks, patriarchy!) , that the area is under threat because of a potential supervolcano threat which is more drastic really, than the ecological disaster in the long run, isn't it?. And then she is abandoned in a salt flat miles from anywhere with two blind little boys who basically just speak Spanish and the local dialect. 

And she perseveres. She takes the kids under her supervision, and works out how to speak with them, feed them, rationing water and trying to spare them the ugly truth of their situation, not understanding at all why they were abandoned this way. She plays with them, becomes affectionate with them. And then, as things look desperate, the head kidnapper and his guys show up and apparently he was the boys' adoptive father, and the ecological disaster he created (I don't care if I'm spoiling you regarding this movie--watch it at your own risk because it is dumb!) is what killed their natural mother and made them blind. (Also he abandons them with a female scientist he just thinks might be a hell of a mothering type because she has a child she is removed from--not father of the year material, him.)  He wants a cookie from her because he's going to "turn himself in" (I guess to the "ecological disaster police"?) and doesn't think she deserves an apology for being kidnapped or abandoned with these kids in a completely inhospitable situation because he's feeling sort of noble about owning up to his fuckery, and he's only done it to get her to be the very best witness possible to the full extent of his stupid fuckery so she could tell his story the way he perceives it.

Wonder Woman Hit the Right Spot

(Disclaimer--does contain spoilers.)

I'm going to put my hand up and admit to the ugly theater-cry phenomenon of just having a superhero movie that does origin without forgetting to also be about something, that shows a woman as hero where her gender isn't treated like an oddity, where bravery can be about protecting and caring and wanting to do the right thing, and strength is shown as being just as much about what is going on inside of a person, as what they can physically do.

Diana of Themyscira comes from a place and time outside of the 20th century larger world in which she will have her adventure. She is from a world where female excellence is actually the only kind she knows of. And all Amazons strive for it. Her world is disrupted by the outside world at first, when American spy Steve Trevor crashes into the beautiful water of her island home, and she rescues him, seeing for the first time an actual male bodied person. She then is introduced to the world from which he came in the form of the enemy army that followed him through the rift and, despite not even knowing where they are, respond to the Amazons with violence, killing several, including Diana's aunt, Antiope, who also trained her in martial skills.

There is something compelling about the idea of a feminist paradise where the world crashes in and needs to be dealt with. We are treated to the image of feminine strength and grace, a system that seems to be monarchic but at least somewhat democratic (there is an Amazon referred to as being a senator) and a justice system backed up with a truth-compelling lasso (which seems a little like a torture device, but it's magic, so I'm gonna buy-in that truth-compelling, even if my little US Constitutional heart says "But you can't even plead the Fifth!" is somehow working for them--maybe their society has the sense to ask contextual questions to determine if laws are broken for the right reason? )