'It's Right, Because I Say So': Twisted, Indignant US Commentary

I posted before about how sickening I found it that American commentators were online a) telling the rest of the world we should ignore the US use of torture as it was their business and 'hey, guys it really works so that is a reason to keep doing it' b) debating whether various practices that all but the toughest special forces personnel can withstand, were real torture. Pain, being unable to breathe or move and suffering psychological pressure, all of these things are torture when a person or a machine is used to inflict them on someone else, end of story.

What is interesting is that these very aggressive challenges to commentary by the rest of the world continue. US politicians have been happy to condemn states as being in an 'axis of evil' as the 'evil empire' and so on, with no expectation of come back, because they know they are right. In their view there is no possibility of disagreement, because you cannot disagree with the truth. Post-modernism is clearly not on the curriculum in the USA. It is fine for them to criticise others but they cannot take it back in return. This is a long-running problem with US society. I have often spoken of the US perception that they are living out the 'manifest destiny' that the USA was always meant to be of the nature it is at the moment, no other alternative was viable (though of course I and many other people have shown many that were), so again, even to question the nature of the USA is either madness or highly offensive. The USA sought exemption for its troops from any war crimes charges. George W. Bush was criticised for using the word 'crusade' when in 2001 he used it in connection with his 'war on terror'. However, it was clear that, even if he was ignorant of the fact, this was precisely what the US administration wanted. To contextualise it, in theory to kill is against the Ten Commandments of Christian (and Jewish) faith. However, in the 11th century when the first crusades to the Middle East were launched (and to some extent since the 8th century when the Reconquista against Islamic rulers in Iberia began) those going on crusade were exempt from being damned for killing non-Christians especially if seeking to gain control of Jerusalem. In the same way, for its actions, its reconquest, the USA sought exemption from earthly condemnation.

The muddying of religious and civil and military aspects has been an ongoing problem in the USA especially with the rise of fundamentalist Christianity in the USA from the 1980s onwards. Ronald Reagan certainly felt that 'good' Americans were part of The Elect, who he felt would receive divine protection in the case of a nuclear war. George W. Bush drawing even more heavily from this religious constituency seemed to believe like Richard Nixon saying in 1977 that 'when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal' but applied this to the USA as a whole. For some reason unlike people living one metre beyond the US-Canada border, and especially in US eyes those living one metre beyond the US-Mexico border, citizens within the USA have to be seen as special compared to the rest of us and exempt from the kind of controls we would be under.

This perception and the belief that the US way is the only truth helps explain the extraordinary reaction from even the Barack Obama White House. We know that journalists have only just scraped the surface of the level of torture that went on (is going on) in US bases, but for White House spokesman Robert Gibbs to condemn repeatedly the British newspapers as never having any truth in them is stunning. On what basis did he make such a sweeping opinion that truth is left out of British newspapers? The provocation for this attitude, which coming from such a high-level person is incredibly offensive to the UK as a whole, was an article about further evidence from the Abu Gharib prison in Iraq where we know US soldiers tortured captives. I am no fan of the 'Daily Telegraph' which is a conservative right-wing newspaper, but I have no reason to doubt the veracity of its stories. Imagine the uproar if a UK politician said that all US newspapers lied, based on reading a single article. There would be a major diplomatic incident. Of course, the USA can ignore any indignation even from one of its oldest allies, but from the UK perspective it is very much 'with friends like these, who needs enemies?' The double standard, that the USA should be exempt from criticism and any critics should be harshly treated was brought to a peak with Bush's 'either for us entirely or an enemy' attitude of the early 2000s, but it seems even Obama's very different government has a lingering attachment to such attitudes.

Of course the Obama administration is seeing some of this kind of double-standard, arrogant self-righteous attitude itself, notably over the proposal to have Sonia Sotomayor appointed to the Supreme Court. She has been savaged by leading Republicans as a racist, simply because she said a Hispanic woman would have a different perspective on things to a white man. She trod so carefully in her language to make quite an obvious statement. This division between 'white', more properly Anglo, and Hispanic seems strange to people in Europe. No-one in the EU would consider people from Spain or Portugal to be racially different from people from Britain or Germany or Poland or Sweden or Russia and certainly not to people from Italy or Greece. Saying this you do see weird references on diversity monitoring forms on which 'White English', 'White Scottish' and 'White Irish', etc. are separated out. People have got to stop thinking culture means race. Hispanics are whites with, in some cases, a different history to the Anglos, but in most cases a very similar history. As in apartheid South Africa, minor differences between people are emphasised in the USA in order to either assert or reduce rights.

Given that more than half the population of the USA is female (there are 0.97 men for every 1 woman in the USA) and Hispanics make up 14.8% of the population, the second largest bloc after whites (at 52%) and compared to pure blacks at only 1.4%, it would not be surprising to see at least one or two of the 9 justices being Hispanic and at least 5 should be women. In his history the Supreme Court has only had two women and two black men, the rest have been white men. The age range has been 32-65; the second youngest (the youngest in the 20th century) was 40. The fact that people say that Sotomayor should Anglicise the pronunciation of her name, because as Mark Krikorian writing in the right-wing 'National Review' has said, 'there ought to be limits' on making English-speakers adapt to Hispanic and other language-based names. Mark, do you realise how low that makes your intelligence level sound? Once people would be proud in their ability to speak other languages, now they cannot see beyond their racist attitudes and realise how much of an idiot their negative attitude makes them appear.

The USA is going to continue to suffer from the kind of attacks that we have seen this week because for too long Americans have been brought up with the attitude that whatever they do is correct and that any criticism is an offence which needs to be published. I am astounded at the US websites that go after liberals, Janeane Garofolo being a prime example, cross-referencing statements made years apart to somehow show some hypocrisy. They do not understand that the bulk of us do not give a damn, we believe that there are different perspectives on things and do not feel that someone expressing those opinions is an indictable offence. I suppose the right-wing feels it is justified by God and we know from history what that leads to, just look at the crusades, all Jews slaughtered in Jerusalem on its capture in 1099. I know many of these commentators would prefer some theocratic dictatorship for the USA, but they have to face up to the fact that they have been lumbered with a democracy and in a democracy, you seek to persuade people to your point of view, not attack them virulently just because they say something different.

When the Star Doesn't Like Their Movie

Though I enjoy movies and in the past have read about the making of them and used to be a regular viewer of movie critic programmes, I have never been overly drawn to interviews with movie stars themselves. I would preferably read something from the director about the film than the actors' comments, though in contrast to many movie buffs I see the actors' contributions as being of greater importance to the quality of the film compared to those who tend to put all the blame or praise at the foot of the director. I also think the Director of Photography of many films is another person who needs attention when a movie is good or bad. Anyway, today I am going to talk about comments by movie actors (and actresses, if that word is still permitted) when they downplay or even denigrate a movie they have appeared in.


This is not a common occurrence. Generally any doubts they have, if they have not come out with the director on set, they keep to themselves and smile and promote the movie. However, some strong actors will make comments about poor movies they have been in. Some are very honest and say that they do bad movies for the money. Notable in this category is Richard E. Grant who quite consciously took any movie part (such as in the awful 'Spice World' (1999)) he could get to raise the funds to direct his own movie 'Wah Wah' (2005) the first movie ever to be made in Swaziland, where he grew up. Some actors, notably Colin Farrell in regard to 'Alexander' (2004), just are tired of the whole thing and want to party rather than tramp around the world saying great things about the movie they are in. 'Alexander' is pretty insipid, with one decent battle scene and far too much mysticism. It had the courage to portray the Macedonians as all with Irish accents to fit in with Farell's ,with the interesting consequence of Val Kilmer having to play Phillip, Alexander the Great's father with an Irish accent.

We do tend to have a rather patronising view of how people in the past should be portrayed as speaking. Unless you go with Mel Gibson's approach in 'The Passion of the Christ' (2004) and get everyone speaking ancient Aramaic to be authentic, you have to accept they are going to sound like us. I felt Keira Knightley was unfairly criticised for an upper class English accent in 'King Arthur' (2004) as she was supposed to be playing a Queen and maybe a 5th Century CE queen would not have spoken the way the queen does today, but it would have been the equivalent; she certainly would not have spoken like an urchin.


Sorry, I am getting sidetracked. The two case studies I want to look at are of movies which I like and think are of decent quality so I feel disappointed that the stars in them do not share my positive opinion of them. The first is 'Plunkett and Macleane' (1999) and the co-star of that movie, Robert Carlyle. Carlyle's career has been strong if varied. He is noted for his role as Albie Kinsella in the series 'Cracker' (1994), the peak moment in an excellent series and thuggish Begbie in 'Trainspotting' (1996). He was a reasonable baddie in the Bond movie, 'The World is Not Enough' (1999) and family man-cum-stripper in 'The Full Monty' (1997).  He played a similar character in 'The 51st State' (2001). He is rather typecast as the working class character with various attributes, usually looking to achieve more in his life and, to some degree, he even brought this to his portrayal of Hitler in 'Hitler: The Rise of Evil' (2003).  His physical stature actually matched that of the dictator. I have not seen all of his movies and I imagine in 'Ravenous' (1999), in which he plays a cannibal colonel in the 19th century, he steps outside his usual roles.


I can imagine why Carlyle had problems with 'Plunkett and Macleane' as I read in a magazine interview at the time, though it seems a pity. It was directed by Jake Scott (son of Ridley Scott) and, as in his father's work, there is a visual idiom which is informed more by pop videos than by classic movies. There are anachronistic elements in the movie such as the use of modern pop songs at the banquet.  This was an approach later adopted successfully in 'A Knight's Tale' (2001) and less successfully in 'Marie Antoinette' (2006). However, in other ways 'Plunkett and Macleane' is actually incredibly accurate in historical terms about the 18th century, something that many people overlook. For example, there is the filth, even of the rich people.  This was a time when the toilet facilities at balls were pots behind a screen in the corner.  It is good on the prison system; the fact that if you were in prison and wealthy you could live quite comfortably; that people were hanged at Tyburn (where Marble Arch is now in London) from tripods rather than the later mechanical 19th century gallows you see in almost all movies.  It also accurately shows that the rich could live in squalor during the day and live a vicarious life of parties, gambling, drink and drugs in the way celebrities do today; that one call fall in status easily; that there were puritans alongside the debauched and that corruption was rife; that it was difficult to rise in status but America was a real land of opportunity for those who could get there.

All of these things form a rich background to a romp movie, admittedly, but there is nothing wrong with a movie that has excitement and narrow escapes. The banter between the reckless, middle class Jonny [sic] Lee Miller character, Captain Macleane and working class Plunkett adds an extra and credible dimension to the movie.  Plunkett's anger, disappointment and frustration when he finds Macleane has gambled away what they had gained from being highwaymen, shows Carlyle's depth even when acting in a mainstream. populist movie.


I know Carlyle might not see 'Plunkett and Macleane' as his greatest hour, but in that I think he is wrong and it is certainly far better than 'The 51st State' which is a mess of a movie and lazy or '28 Weeks Later' (2007).  It is particularly better than the twee TV series 'Hamish Macbeth' (1997).  It is certainly at least as decent as 'The World is Not Enough' and, in fact, gave opportunity for a better range from Carlyle, as, in the Bond movie, his character is supposed to be devoid of feeling which Plunkett certainly is not. So Robert, do not disparage 'Plunkett and Macleane' be proud of it and keep working.


The second case study is 'The Truth About Cats and Dogs' (1996). Janeane Garofalo's career has been more focused on working in comedy television series appearing in 'Ellen', 'Seinfeld' and 'The Larry Sanders Show' and, in the 2000s, more in serious series like 'The West Wing' and '24'. However, she has made a number of movies in which she is often a minor character such as 'Reality Bites' (1994), 'Cop Land' (1997), 'Romi and Michelle's High School Reunion' (1997) or 'Dogma' (1999).  She was a great part of the ensemble in 'Mystery Men' (1999).  This is a little gem of a comedy movie about dysfunctional superheros which could be seen as a precursor to the current TV series 'Heroes'. Garolfo played The Bowler who had a bowling ball with the skull of her father in which returned to her hand when she throws it.

Garofalo probably unsettles Hollywood with her liberal political views and her appearance: black hair and being about 5'1" (c. 1.53m) is not what people see as that of a Hollywood movie star. Consequently she has done voicing for movies, notably as The Bearded Clam in 'Freak Show' series and Colette in this year's 'Ratatouille' movie.


Anyway, this brings us to 'The Truth About Cats and Dogs' in which she is the star (as in another, even lower key movie, 'The Matchmaker' (1997) another romantic comedy). It was another updated Hollywood remake of the Cyrano de Bergerac.  The first had been 'Roxanne' (1987) with Steve Martin.  That is a decent movie and retains the scene in which the lead runs through 20 jokes about his nose from the original play. However, 'The Truth About Cats and Dogs' did gender reversal and the two people competing for the same lover are women chasing after a photographer played by British actor Ben Chaplin.

Given Garofalo's feminist credentials, the original project would have probably featured more about the role of women in relationships in contemporary USA.  However, unfortunately, Uma Thurman was brought in as her rival and this meant the movie moved from the independent scene to the Hollywood scene. This is the basis on which Garolfo is annoyed by the movie.  She disliked what she saw as her 'ugly duckling' role and regrets taking part in it as you can read on a number of websites about her career. One bad thing is that Uma Thurman is listed as the star of the movie, when Garolfo is the key focus right throughout it.  She appears, or is at least being heard, in almost every scene. Would you expect to see Vincent Perez listed at the top of the actors in 'Cyrano de Bergerac' (1990) or Rick Rossovich for 'Roxanne' (1987) even though they played the part that is fulfilled by Uma Thurman in 'The Truth About Cats and Dogs'? Maybe, that in itself, is part of the message of the movie about the relative standing of women in contemporary USA.


I accept that Garofalo is upset by the loss of the more feminist aspects of the movie and it would have been fascinating to see the original version make it to screen. However, it does not make the movie a bad one and I feel that by having Garolfo as the heroine it still retains some messages that counter standard Hollywood approaches. In some ways, I accept I am biased, as, in terms of beauty, I feel Garofalo beats Thurman every time. Thurman may be blonde but she is gawky and unusual in appearance, this does not make her ugly but in herself she is quite removed from the typical Hollywood definition of 'beauty'.  Thurmanis far sexier in 'Pulp Fiction' (1994) than her portrayal in 'The Truth About Cats and Dogs' which is rather low key.

Garofalo's role is as a radio vet, Abby, who plays the violin and reads Jean Paul Sartre. Whilst Chaplin's character, Brian, is attracted physically to Thurman's Noelle actually he loves Abby's intelligence and culture and also her personality which is robust and yet caring. In fact, most men who are looking for long-term relationships are seeking a woman who challenges them and this is one thing that I like about 'The Truth About Cats and Dogs'.  For a romantic comedy it actually has its feet on the ground and, setting aside the humour, the relationship that develops between Brian and Abby is credible and has an authentic feel about it. It shows that a woman can be true to her strengths, she does not have to suppress her personality or her interests to find a man to share those with. In addition, it is fine for a strong woman to admit she is not made of iron and can have doubts and worries, like anyone else, without that meaning her giving up her right to be a strong woman.


These strengths of the film stem from the fact it is based on an excellent story which itself had roots in actual people, and, in that Garofalo is an actress with integrity which comes through even when things have been distorted to move nearer to what Hollywood seeks. I would advise teenagers to watch this movie for a better view of relationships than many other featuring submissive women that they will have pushed at them.  On that basis I would also underline '10 Things I Hate About You' (1999) based on the Shakespeare play 'The Taming of the Shrew'. Anyway, to conclude, Janeane, you are a beautiful woman, a good actress and comedian and, like many, you have been jostled by Hollywood but 'The Truth About Cats and Dogs' has not been shaved of all merit and be proud that it was in your career.

The Movie 'Ratatouille' and the American View of France

Well, I have addressed some classic movies and some far less classic. In this posting I am going to have a quick look at a recent release 'Ratatouille' (2007). This is an animated movie aimed at children. It features a rat living in France who develops the tastes of a connoisseur and moves to Paris where he can enjoy the cuisine on offer. Haunted by the ghost of a successful television chef he goes to the chef's restaurant and aids the dead chef's illegitimate son to return the restaurant to its former glory but conjuring simple but popular, delicious dishes. There is of course lots of running around, problems with the rat's relatives turning up, some romance for the human lead in the kitchen and generally a fine all round package.

What my issue is, is not about the whimsy of a connoisseur rat but how France itself is portayed in the movie. In the same way that well into the 1960s even after the clean air acts in US films London was always portrayed as being foggy, so there is a fixed view of France that seems to be even more lingering. It is as if every American director (in this case Brad Bird who directed the excellent animated movie 'The Incredibles' (2004)) is compelled to watch the Gene Kelly movie 'An American in Paris' (1951) to get his/her view of France. One assumes that the France portrayed is France in the 2000s and yet every television featured in the film is black and white. Paris is shown as full of those 19th century apartments with gurgling pipes and crimes passionelle being conducted behind closed doors but so noisily the public can hear; huge dated restaurants of the old style. The clothing seems contemporary and the female chef Colette (voiced by Janeane Garofalo who I always have time for) who rides around on a powerful motorbike seem like nods to the contemporary world. However, for the rest the movie seems like France circa 1964. France does have old world charm in small villages but so does most other countries in Europe; but France is also the country of high tech, DVDs were common there well before the rest of Europe as were smart cards on public transport and the minitel a sophisticated telephone/public information system in every bedroom before anyone had the internet at home. For the Americans, France always seems to be stuck in the Autumn, presumably when they go and visit it. If you have ever played the computer game 'Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars' (1996) you find exactly the same environment in Paris with golden afternoons and brown leaves blowing in the boulevards.

I can accept that 'Ratatouille' is supposed to contain elements of nostalgia in it, but it is rather alarming if this is the USA's view of what contemporary France is like. It would be the equivalent of a French or British film showing Americans clustering around to watch the McCarthy trials or go out to the corner drugstore for a soda and pretend that is the USA today. Either set your movies in the past and make this clear or have them in a correct present otherwise a lot of American children are going to be rather shocked when they travel on their trips to Europe to find countries actually more advanced than their own (and with four seasons), not stuck in some setting their grandparents knew forty to fifty years ago.