Is the current oil spill mess in the Gulf just the latest in a series of examples we have all lived through that show the importance of at least some level of Federal regulation and intervention capacity in the world of business?
We have seen the toxic water supplies in east central California from PG&E negligence, the Exxon Valdez wreck, Love Canal, levee failures in Iowa and Illinois (and New Orleans), billions of dollars in employee retirement funds lost to criminal negligence on the part of CFOs and CEOs, and now a uncontrollable leak at the bottom of the sea pouring the equivalent of up to 15 Exxon Valdez wrecks onto the US coast over the course of the summer.
I'm not saying that the level of response and regulation for each of these crisis was justified (or even functional), but surely something needed to be done, both to correct the immediate problem and to ensure that it didn't repeat, didn't it? I'm not suggesting that the Federal Government be responsible for fixing each and every issue that pops up, either, but if they are needed to assist and support local and State agencies, then don't they have a responsibility to do so?
Using Jindal as our example, we see a very conservative governor calling for increased Federal aid and support (but not complete control, which I think is an important distinction) in local and State efforts to contain the level of impact the oil spill is having... and we see the Feds failing to deliver that requested aid and support. If this man, whom Ryan has said is a good fit for the Presidency of the United States, can see the wisdom in having the Feds make money, equipment and resources available to the State of Louisiana (and any other State that needs it)... why can't Ryan? Why does Ryan feel that there is no place for Federal intervention in such a crisis as this?
I'm not picking a fight... REALLY I'M NOT! I'm asking an honest question, and looking for an honest answer. If there should be NO Federal involvement, then Jindal is WRONG in asking for it because he is perpetuating or promoting bigger, more intrusive government. If there SHOULD be a degree of Federal involvement, then what is the limit of that involvement? What is ENOUGH, and what is too much?
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Doctor waiting rooms ...
I am convinced these are meant to prepare souls for Purgatory, oy.
No, you're right about Patton. And for the same reasons as "Bridge Over River Kwai." You just don't mess with that kind of perfection. I can only imagine our scoffing were our sons to come to us 30 years from now and say, "Dad, they're remaking Band of Brothers." But even though the current Hollywood crop are willing to make uplifting films/series about WWII, I still don't trust them with leaving the York message intact. They might be able to pull of "Desert Fox." But if Jambo's criteria is films that "need" to be made - finding something redeeming about our current enemy isn't exactly the missing message in today's conflict.
The kudos on Jindal are appreciated. Politics aside (many think the bigger this catastrophe the more it serves the Whitehouse's "green" agenda, so they are content to allow the bureaucratic malaise), I think its just this type of emergency that highlights the difference between natural, experienced executives like a Guliani or Jindal, and the plodding, committee based, consensus building characteristics of a legislator like Obama.
No, you're right about Patton. And for the same reasons as "Bridge Over River Kwai." You just don't mess with that kind of perfection. I can only imagine our scoffing were our sons to come to us 30 years from now and say, "Dad, they're remaking Band of Brothers." But even though the current Hollywood crop are willing to make uplifting films/series about WWII, I still don't trust them with leaving the York message intact. They might be able to pull of "Desert Fox." But if Jambo's criteria is films that "need" to be made - finding something redeeming about our current enemy isn't exactly the missing message in today's conflict.
The kudos on Jindal are appreciated. Politics aside (many think the bigger this catastrophe the more it serves the Whitehouse's "green" agenda, so they are content to allow the bureaucratic malaise), I think its just this type of emergency that highlights the difference between natural, experienced executives like a Guliani or Jindal, and the plodding, committee based, consensus building characteristics of a legislator like Obama.
Jindal, sand berms, and the 10th Amendment...
Ryan sends a scathing text this morning about the latest news from the oil spill clean up in LA. So, to make sure I have all my facts in order, I go ahead and do as much reading as I can on the topic. Let me just say that when I can only find 19 real, legitimate articles on the topic, I have to give Ryan some big old kudos for finding this headline... this is not front-line stuff yet, but it will be by tomorrow morning.
Anyway, Jindal wants the Feds to okay the construction of 5 to 7 miles of sand berms that would act as barriers against the oil slick as it approached the most fragile of the Louisiana interior wetlands. The Coast Guard has tentatively approved the plan, but needs a Federal "ok" to move any further, and the Army Corps of Engineers won't do anything without White House approval.
If the Federal approval won't come fast enough, Jindal wants to do it himself (meaning he will authorize it under his authority as the CIC of the State of LA), but there are snags involved in this course of action, too.
Without Federal approval, there is no Federal funding. Without the funding, LA can't build the berms, as they do not have the equipment at their disposal in LA... they would need outside contractors to provide the specialized sand and barges to begin the project. Furthermore, without the Fed's "ok", there is no guaranty that BP will reimburse the State for costs incurred as part of the general clean-up (which is all that BP is currently liable for... clean up costs, not prevention costs).
Jindal is right for demanding that the Fed get "out of his way" so he and the State can coordinate things as they see best fit, but in failing to get Federal approval, he could run up some big bills for Louisiana, and that is a bit antithetical to the GOP mantra. I think it is unfortunate in the extreme that the White House is playing the "who's in charge?" game with Jindal, and costing the people of LA a greater portion of their livelihood and ecology in the process.
On a side note: Isn't this a good example of HOW the Fed could effect change and bring some relief to an area hit by natural disaster without expanding the interventionist nature of government that Ryan so hates? Have the Feds provide the funding and means for local or regional recovery/relief/prevention, without having the Feds assume TOTAL control of the effort over and above the State level, seems like a good middle-ground for how the Feds can provide assistance in times like this. After all, we are talking about 1,700 miles of fishing grounds where the annual revenue for shrimp, oyster, crabs and clams (all effected by the spill) tops more than $40 billion and effects FIVE US States' regional economies. I'd say that is a "national concern" to say the least...
Anyway, Jindal wants the Feds to okay the construction of 5 to 7 miles of sand berms that would act as barriers against the oil slick as it approached the most fragile of the Louisiana interior wetlands. The Coast Guard has tentatively approved the plan, but needs a Federal "ok" to move any further, and the Army Corps of Engineers won't do anything without White House approval.
If the Federal approval won't come fast enough, Jindal wants to do it himself (meaning he will authorize it under his authority as the CIC of the State of LA), but there are snags involved in this course of action, too.
Without Federal approval, there is no Federal funding. Without the funding, LA can't build the berms, as they do not have the equipment at their disposal in LA... they would need outside contractors to provide the specialized sand and barges to begin the project. Furthermore, without the Fed's "ok", there is no guaranty that BP will reimburse the State for costs incurred as part of the general clean-up (which is all that BP is currently liable for... clean up costs, not prevention costs).
Jindal is right for demanding that the Fed get "out of his way" so he and the State can coordinate things as they see best fit, but in failing to get Federal approval, he could run up some big bills for Louisiana, and that is a bit antithetical to the GOP mantra. I think it is unfortunate in the extreme that the White House is playing the "who's in charge?" game with Jindal, and costing the people of LA a greater portion of their livelihood and ecology in the process.
On a side note: Isn't this a good example of HOW the Fed could effect change and bring some relief to an area hit by natural disaster without expanding the interventionist nature of government that Ryan so hates? Have the Feds provide the funding and means for local or regional recovery/relief/prevention, without having the Feds assume TOTAL control of the effort over and above the State level, seems like a good middle-ground for how the Feds can provide assistance in times like this. After all, we are talking about 1,700 miles of fishing grounds where the annual revenue for shrimp, oyster, crabs and clams (all effected by the spill) tops more than $40 billion and effects FIVE US States' regional economies. I'd say that is a "national concern" to say the least...
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Addendum...
The link I placed in the last post is an EXCELLENT biography site for the 1st Airborne Division of the Royal Army, and if you are a fan of the movie A Bridge Too Far, then this is a must-read site. The details and insight are amazing, and show just how close to "real" the movie actually was.
Check it out... it isn't often (even in 1970) that you see this kind of detail included in a Hollywood production centered on war and combat.
Check it out... it isn't often (even in 1970) that you see this kind of detail included in a Hollywood production centered on war and combat.
What????
Redo Patton??? My GOD, man! Seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Actor! Who could possibly do that better than George C. Scott? No, that is as untouchable as It's a Wonderful Life (which was redone, and the latter one sucked HUGE).
Honestly, I see your point, but I think Jambo's question was really "Which film NEEDS to be redone to convey the right message or story?" rather than "Which do you want to see again, bigger and better?"
Your points about Sgt. York are spot on, I know... but I think there is still an element in Hollywood that is willing to chance a "conservative" war message for a blockbuster income... and something like a remake of Sergeant York could do just that. Anther idea we threw around was 30 Seconds Over Tokyo... which was a great movie, but with the today's CGI opportunities and the right cast, that is a marginally inexpensive movie that could potentially make tons of money.
I think York needs to be remade... the message in the original version is too easily missed in the romance that was inherent in the movie making industry back then. Honestly, I'd bet the biggest hurdle to remaking York is the fact that the REAL York only allowed the story to be filmed if Gary Cooper played him, and the rights were sold (along with the conditions to the rights) in perpetuity. If they can't get around York's heirs and survivors (and estate lawyers) sticking to the letter of his wishes, it won't ever be remade.
Jambo and I talked about the reticence that Hollywood has for modern depictions of modern warfare, and your thoughts on Blackhawk Down are also true... but there are opportunities for criticism of the politics behind warfare that do not reflect badly on the soldiers portrayed. One example that both Jambo and I thought would be EXCELLENT was Desert Fox, which originally starred James Mason as Erwin Rommell... a great movie, but one I initially thought would be wide open to revisionist writing in that Rommell was a Field Marshal in the Wehrmacht and a standing member of the NSDAP since 1934. Could modern "pc" script-writers seperate the general from the German? Jambo convinced me they could, because of all the leading German military minds of the era, only Rommell was involved in the plot to kill Hitler and openly admitted it. His culpability for the crimes committed by the Nazi state ended when the Luger .38 passed through his skull, I think.
No, I think there are still good "war movie" makers out there. Private Ryan wasn't a great movie in my book, but only because it was fiction rather than fact that they made such a ground-breaking effort on. Look at BoB and Pacific... even Enemy at the Gate, which is a little older, I know, but still a good story and a well-made war movie right here in the modern era... these are all modern movies/series that tell the gritty, blood-soaked, sweat-stained story just as it needs to be told.
One more point... on the topic of your mentioning Patton... I had intially thought that A Bridge Too Far was a good choice, but then it dawned on me: How do you find a cast of actors that big and that good a second time? Sean Connery, Robert Redford, Ryan O'Neal, Elliot Gould, Michael Cain, James Caan, Maximillian Schell, Gene Hackman... and the unforgettable and unreplaceable Anthony Hopkins as Lt. Col. Frost, one of the most moving and inspirational figures in the entire movie. Surely you don't expect the "Ben Affleck-crowd" to fill THOSE shoes, do you? That is why that movie is NOT on my list of ones I want to see redone.
Honestly, I see your point, but I think Jambo's question was really "Which film NEEDS to be redone to convey the right message or story?" rather than "Which do you want to see again, bigger and better?"
Your points about Sgt. York are spot on, I know... but I think there is still an element in Hollywood that is willing to chance a "conservative" war message for a blockbuster income... and something like a remake of Sergeant York could do just that. Anther idea we threw around was 30 Seconds Over Tokyo... which was a great movie, but with the today's CGI opportunities and the right cast, that is a marginally inexpensive movie that could potentially make tons of money.
I think York needs to be remade... the message in the original version is too easily missed in the romance that was inherent in the movie making industry back then. Honestly, I'd bet the biggest hurdle to remaking York is the fact that the REAL York only allowed the story to be filmed if Gary Cooper played him, and the rights were sold (along with the conditions to the rights) in perpetuity. If they can't get around York's heirs and survivors (and estate lawyers) sticking to the letter of his wishes, it won't ever be remade.
Jambo and I talked about the reticence that Hollywood has for modern depictions of modern warfare, and your thoughts on Blackhawk Down are also true... but there are opportunities for criticism of the politics behind warfare that do not reflect badly on the soldiers portrayed. One example that both Jambo and I thought would be EXCELLENT was Desert Fox, which originally starred James Mason as Erwin Rommell... a great movie, but one I initially thought would be wide open to revisionist writing in that Rommell was a Field Marshal in the Wehrmacht and a standing member of the NSDAP since 1934. Could modern "pc" script-writers seperate the general from the German? Jambo convinced me they could, because of all the leading German military minds of the era, only Rommell was involved in the plot to kill Hitler and openly admitted it. His culpability for the crimes committed by the Nazi state ended when the Luger .38 passed through his skull, I think.
No, I think there are still good "war movie" makers out there. Private Ryan wasn't a great movie in my book, but only because it was fiction rather than fact that they made such a ground-breaking effort on. Look at BoB and Pacific... even Enemy at the Gate, which is a little older, I know, but still a good story and a well-made war movie right here in the modern era... these are all modern movies/series that tell the gritty, blood-soaked, sweat-stained story just as it needs to be told.
One more point... on the topic of your mentioning Patton... I had intially thought that A Bridge Too Far was a good choice, but then it dawned on me: How do you find a cast of actors that big and that good a second time? Sean Connery, Robert Redford, Ryan O'Neal, Elliot Gould, Michael Cain, James Caan, Maximillian Schell, Gene Hackman... and the unforgettable and unreplaceable Anthony Hopkins as Lt. Col. Frost, one of the most moving and inspirational figures in the entire movie. Surely you don't expect the "Ben Affleck-crowd" to fill THOSE shoes, do you? That is why that movie is NOT on my list of ones I want to see redone.
They'd never do York ...
And for the precise reasons we like it. Think about it. Not only does it see a pacifist reconcile the need to take life, but it glorifies (that may be a bit strong, lets say puts a good face on) Christianity. The reason York wont fight initially is because it's "agen" (read: against) the Bible. He finally decides with the aide of a senior officer that for him to use his talents to stop the German machine guns (by taking life) he is preventing even more deaths, thus remaining in the Good Book's good graces. Can you see Hollywood pulling that story off without suggesting York is sent to the front line because he's a closet homosexual? Who was too afraid to admit his preferences to his Bible thumping family? I'd just assume they leave that movie alone rather then take their PC, morally relative Edward scissor hands to it.
My second inclination was some of the Duke Wayne films (a favorite of mine, I grew up watching these with my Dad, a huge fan). The only problem with redoing one of his films is not having John Wayne. I mean, who do you get to play his character - Wayne essentially played himself in one form or another. That being said I'm a fan of Flying Leathernecks, In Harm's Way (there you have to replace Wayne and Kirk Douglas), and Back to Battan (Wayne & Anthony Quinn). Hollywood should like remaking that last one, they can glorify (and properly so) the Philippine resistance, I'd trust them with that.
Another thought I had is Clooney and his lot love to put 12 or 15 big stars in one film (they fancy themselves a modern day rat pack - yawn). I could see a Longest Day in there, like a tribute film that could be well done with the right stars ... maybe.
Midway isn't necessarily a "classic", being it was done in the 70's, and I'm not sure Hollywood has the stomach to vilify any minority, even those responsible for Pearl.
The obvious one to me, which has become a classic despite its' later release is Patton. Finding the right actor(s) to remake it would be the key. I think a hard line, guts and glory film done in this day and age would sell like wildfire. You have to get the right guy though, and one not just doing a George C. Scott imitation (although that wouldn't be the worst thing I suppose). Giving that speech in front of the flag, his various gruff sayings such as: "The point of war is not dying for your country. It's making the other poor bastard die for his." These are real quotes. Imagine them tucked in just right among a B.o.B gritty, realistic film style, perhaps quietly said and to less people, etc. The politics of post war as well, and his tragic ending. I think you have a new instant classic if it's done right.
The sad truth is despite our being at war for 9 years the film industry has yet to make a proper pro military film (or HBO series) of any kind about the current conflict. The last was Black Hawk Down. And to this day I still think the heroism which took over the movie happened almost by accident (in terms of film making). It was meant to be an anti war film (questioning Clinton's decisions & US war making policy in total); but the writing within the book combines with the talent of the actors, simply taking over the film, and it becomes a proper illustration of the heart and bravery of the men in action. So, sadly, we are left with the current crop of Hollywood moguls whom see US Forces as the obvious "good guys" only up to WWII. Anything post WWII is too "controversial" and our leaders motives "questionable." It is amazing to see an entire industry work counter to its own bottom line. A modern day pro US forces film would make a bundle, yet they churn out drivel that bombs (at the box office). They should be ashamed of themselves. Yet another feather in the cap of the baby boomers, whom run Hollywood at present.
Anyway, my 2 cents ...
My second inclination was some of the Duke Wayne films (a favorite of mine, I grew up watching these with my Dad, a huge fan). The only problem with redoing one of his films is not having John Wayne. I mean, who do you get to play his character - Wayne essentially played himself in one form or another. That being said I'm a fan of Flying Leathernecks, In Harm's Way (there you have to replace Wayne and Kirk Douglas), and Back to Battan (Wayne & Anthony Quinn). Hollywood should like remaking that last one, they can glorify (and properly so) the Philippine resistance, I'd trust them with that.
Another thought I had is Clooney and his lot love to put 12 or 15 big stars in one film (they fancy themselves a modern day rat pack - yawn). I could see a Longest Day in there, like a tribute film that could be well done with the right stars ... maybe.
Midway isn't necessarily a "classic", being it was done in the 70's, and I'm not sure Hollywood has the stomach to vilify any minority, even those responsible for Pearl.
The obvious one to me, which has become a classic despite its' later release is Patton. Finding the right actor(s) to remake it would be the key. I think a hard line, guts and glory film done in this day and age would sell like wildfire. You have to get the right guy though, and one not just doing a George C. Scott imitation (although that wouldn't be the worst thing I suppose). Giving that speech in front of the flag, his various gruff sayings such as: "The point of war is not dying for your country. It's making the other poor bastard die for his." These are real quotes. Imagine them tucked in just right among a B.o.B gritty, realistic film style, perhaps quietly said and to less people, etc. The politics of post war as well, and his tragic ending. I think you have a new instant classic if it's done right.
The sad truth is despite our being at war for 9 years the film industry has yet to make a proper pro military film (or HBO series) of any kind about the current conflict. The last was Black Hawk Down. And to this day I still think the heroism which took over the movie happened almost by accident (in terms of film making). It was meant to be an anti war film (questioning Clinton's decisions & US war making policy in total); but the writing within the book combines with the talent of the actors, simply taking over the film, and it becomes a proper illustration of the heart and bravery of the men in action. So, sadly, we are left with the current crop of Hollywood moguls whom see US Forces as the obvious "good guys" only up to WWII. Anything post WWII is too "controversial" and our leaders motives "questionable." It is amazing to see an entire industry work counter to its own bottom line. A modern day pro US forces film would make a bundle, yet they churn out drivel that bombs (at the box office). They should be ashamed of themselves. Yet another feather in the cap of the baby boomers, whom run Hollywood at present.
Anyway, my 2 cents ...
I gave this real thought...
And I am inclined to agree that, even though it was nominated for 11 Academy Awards (and won two of them), Sergeant York would be a great movie to remake.
Now, as Jambo and I discussed, no one can replace Cooper as York, but the film is more than a "WWI" film, it is a classic study of a pacifist coming to grips with the need to serve his nation in a time of war.
After my talk with Jambo, another really good one came to my head... Hangmen also Die! This is the first telling of the assassination of SS Reichsprotektor Reinhard Heydrich, the architect of the "final solution", in Prague in 1942, and the retaliations against Czeck resistance fighters and their families that resulted. I thought this a "great" story that was told "ok"... in fact, there was only one stand-out actor in the whole film, and that was the famous Walter Brennan (of "Old West" movie fame), so no egos or legacies will be damaged by the retelling. The movie touches on topical issues for today, too... this is a good movie to consider for this list.
Now, as Jambo and I discussed, no one can replace Cooper as York, but the film is more than a "WWI" film, it is a classic study of a pacifist coming to grips with the need to serve his nation in a time of war.
After my talk with Jambo, another really good one came to my head... Hangmen also Die! This is the first telling of the assassination of SS Reichsprotektor Reinhard Heydrich, the architect of the "final solution", in Prague in 1942, and the retaliations against Czeck resistance fighters and their families that resulted. I thought this a "great" story that was told "ok"... in fact, there was only one stand-out actor in the whole film, and that was the famous Walter Brennan (of "Old West" movie fame), so no egos or legacies will be damaged by the retelling. The movie touches on topical issues for today, too... this is a good movie to consider for this list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
