MovieMonday: The Biggest Little Farm

This is a charming film about a new kind of farm, one that more closely resembles the family farms of past centuries than the common corporate farms of today.

The story begins when when John Chester, a wildlife film photographer, and Molly, his food blogger wife, are evicted from their Santa Monica apartment, apparently because their rescue dog barks too much when he is lonely, i.e., whenever the Chesters are not home.

The only thing for it is to take the dog and buy a 200-acre farm an hour north of Los Angeles in an area surrounded by rolling hills that are dirt-brown most of the year.  The farm has failed and been foreclosed on twice by banks, but Molly and John have a new plan -- a biodiverse and harmonious collection of plants and animals, plus cover crops and culverts and a well to collect and hold scarce rainwater and refill the farm pond.  The transformation they achieve over time is lovely and gratifying to see.

The introduction of animals -- sheep, dogs, chickens, ducks, bees and pigs -- and the layout of various orchards and gardens (with the assistance of Alan York, an expert who shares the vision) is a project of ups and downs.  Uninvited snails show up to eat the orchards' leaves and fruit, but the farm's ducks eat the snails with gusto; the resulting duck poop nourishes the soil under the trees.  When the  inevitable gophers start nibbling and gnawing on farm plants' roots, they are kept in check by barn owls that have taken up residence in various box nests that the Chesters have thoughtfully placed in the eaves of farm buildings.  

Over years and through ups and downs, the farm grows more beautiful.  There are concerns about water during the long drought and wildfires that have grown more common in recent years in California, but Molly and John endure.

Transforming Apricot Lane Farm is presented as an exhilarating challenge, but it must have been, and must continue to be, very hard work.  In a time when most farms are much larger and devoted to single crops, the Chesters are among a hardy few who are trying something different.  There is no overt promotion of organic farming (or even a mention of the more controversial biodynamic farm movement), but only the suggestion that such a project is rewarding and fun.

This is a film that children will love, not least for the farm animals' antics.  Definitely take your young friends to have a look.  It appears that the farm now offers guided tours to interested outsiders, and it may inspire others to take up similar projects.

Still, as a non-farmer who has encountered various pesky garden critters, I wonder how Chesters can possibly keep thousands of starlings (birds that do not belong in the US) out of their orchards.  Or how they will deal with the packs of coyotes that kill chickens and ducks and seem undeterred by wire fences but only by gunshots.  If the neighbors of Apricot Lane Farm set up similar operations, I can almost guarantee the lush landscapes will attract large numbers of deer, omnivorous herbivores who only will be dissuaded by 10-foot fences around every field and entry, including the driveways.  In short, farming is not for sissies.

In addition, the film does not go into financial detail about how Molly and John found the unnamed investors who helped them to buy the farm, the livestock, the fruit trees and other plants and farm machinery and to pay the laborers necessary to make basic improvements required to turn their vision into reality.  Whether the farm's products can generate enough income to feed the family and repay those investors -- whether the farm can work as a going concern -- is not discussed.

Said shorter, the film is less a documentary than an enthusiastic fantasy, but enjoyable nonetheless.

MovieMonday: On the Waterfront

A new movie, Jack Wick 3, delivered on its promise to sell more tickets than that Avenger Endgame thing for the first time in a month last weekend.  The Idiosyncratist considered seeing JW3 but found the premise -- a professional assassin must escape or kill a bunch of other assassins before they kill him -- somewhat unappealing.  So this week's discussion concerns an older film that was new to the Id.

"On the Waterfront," released to great acclaim in 1954, shows its age in some ways but still is worth a look.

It is the story of Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando,) a longshoreman on the Bohegan (actually Hoboken) waterfront and his journey from being a self-described bum to a man of courage and conscience.

In the middle of the last century, corrupt unions and mafia families held great sway in New York and New Jersey ports.  There was enormous "leakage" from ship cargoes between docking and delivery.  Union bosses chose work crews, and were able to pad billings with fake workers and collect bogus wages.  The bosses also decided which longshoremen got good assignments (the compliant ones who played "deaf and dumb") and unlucky others who sometimes got a single shift a week and became dependent on cash advances from loan sharks to feed their families.

The film was inspired by a series of 1948 news articles called "Crime on the Waterfront" that ran in the New York Sun.  That work won a Pulitzer Prize for reporter Malcolm Johnson and spurred the creation of a New York Waterfront Commission that is still in business.  The news stories also caught the eye of screenwriter Bud Schulberg, who attended many commission hearings and spent time with longshoremen and others to understand the situation before producing the movie script that was taken up by director Elia Kazan.

The result is a film about a corrupt union led by boss Johnny Friendly (Lee J. Cobb), who threatens longshoremen into silence and complicity.  Friendly is opposed by a Catholic priest (Karl Malden) who exhorts the workers to honorable opposition.  Malloy, a former boxer and now a favored longshoreman, is caught between the two forces.  His hard-shelled exterior hides a damaged soul that is pushed further after he is duped into setting up a friend for what Malloy thinks is a bit of roughing up by (not very) Friendly's thugs but turns out to be the friend's killing.  Terry also is influenced by the dead man's sister, Edie (Eva Marie Saint) whose essential goodness he admires and whom he comes to love.

The movie has two more killings, but none of the murders is shown on camera.  One gun makes an appearance but never is fired. There is some action, mostly confrontations between thugs and their victims, but much more talk of values, as well as observation of Malloy's internal conflict between his comfortable situation and his yearning for fairness and honor. 

The ending is a little more pat and upbeat than would work in a film now.  It's also a story about morality and with a lot more God talk than we hear these days. But it's still a fine piece of work.

After the film was released and got eight Academy Awards -- best film, best director, best screenplay, best actor, best supporting actress, etc.-- Schulberg turned the material into a very popular novel with the same title; a New York Times reviewer said the book had "far more psychological depth and reportorial range" than the movie.  It's an interesting observation, not least because the "On the Waterfront" has more psychological depth than most of today's popular films. 

Let's compare that old movie with "Jack Wick 3," one entry in a movie genre that is characterized by manufactured and unrealistic situations that force a lead character to take up weapons for crowd-pleasing shoot-outs and knife fights.  As a practical matter, it's less of an acting challenge for Keanu Reeves to react to deadly threat (and then cede the fighting scenes to a stunt double) than it was for Marlon Brando to convince audiences that he was wrestling with a torn conscience.  

While JW3-style plots show good (or less bad) triumphing over evil, it's fair to guess that the point is really to justify the on-screen violence.  Am I the only one who wonders how influential these gore-fests are with the people, often young men, who buy the tickets?

Notes

Ports have changed since the time of the film.  Most cargo is shipped in large, locked containers and is conducted by big cranes into and out of the holds of ever-larger ships.  This has drastically reduced the number of longshore workers needed, but those who remain are much better paid and frequently make six-figure incomes. (The jobs are much-desired and appear to be awarded to young members of insiders' families.) 


The containers and smaller workforces also have reduced but not eliminated the opportunities for corruption.  Every month or so, the Id's journey to Costco passes a New Jersey diner where, in 2005, a smelly car in the parking lot was found to have a Genovese family capo's corpse in the trunk; his murder was said to be connected to some waterfront unpleasantness. 

-----

A more recent event, the West Coast Port Slowdown, was the subject of several Idiosyncratist posts in early 2015.   

MovieMoonday: The Hustle

This is the third iteration of a film premise.  Its novelty is that it is the first to feature two women in the lead parts.

The story is this:  A classy grifter, Josephine Chesterton (Anne Hathaway) has a nice gig fleecing wealthy men for money and jewels on the French Riviera.  She has been successful enough to establish herself in a villa overlooking the sea in Beaumont-sur-Mer and to assemble a supporting staff that includes a cooperative police inspector.

Josephine is upset when a cloddish American arrives in town and sets out to compete for the same clientele.    The bumbler, who has overstayed her welcome with the New York Police Department, is played by Rebel Wilson, who plays the part of Rebel Wilson Penny Rust.

Josephine tries to run Penny out of town, but the interloper returns (like a bad penny, perhaps) after learning that Josephine works the more elite end of the same con game.  Penny agrees to leave town only after Josephine shares the tricks of the de luxe version of their mutual trade.

If you've heard this story before, it is probably because it was a relatively popular 1988 comedy, "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels," which starred Michael Caine as Lawrence Jamieson and Steve Martin as Freddy Benson, the high-low fleecers of wealthy women.  A 1964 version, "Bedtime Story," starred David Niven as the courtly Jamieson and a camping-it-up Marlon Brando in the Benson role.  (Both are easy to find online.)

The second and third movies follow the plot of the first almost entirely, with different endings that reflect changes in social mores.  The current version arguably carries everything a bit too far.

None of the movies is great, frankly, but this one is the weakest.  Hathaway is a good actress, but her script calls for her to shift styles rather than stick to the noble-highbrow approach that worked better for Niven and Caine.  The result is less contrast and more overt battling between the two characters.  And Wilson, while good-natured and funny, lacks Steve Martin's comic range and Marlon Brando's acting chops.

In addition, this new version mashes in a lot of 21st century vulgarity -- Tinder, cellphones, STD-talk and a mile-high club joke, among others -- to no particular effect. 

Finally, the premise of all three movies -- two hustlers swindling people and then competing to see which is the more successful -- leaves all the films without natural resolutions.  The third act in each is a short surprise, a rabbit pulled out of a hat, that ends the thing.

It has been reported that the "The Hustle" was made almost two years ago, and it seems the studio knew it had a bit of turkey on its hands.  The opening was scheduled for a relatively weak weekend, but it still was outsold, four to one, by the not particularly distinguished  "Detective Pikachu," which comes from the company remembered most recently for that silly Pokémon GO game a few years back.

Olivia Dahl and Measles

Over dinner two weeks ago, I talked with two lively children about our favorite Roald Dahl books.  For me it was The BFG, while they favored James and the Giant Peach.  Others prefer Matilda and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.  They're all great.

Afterward, I remembered that I had read long ago that one of Dahl's children had died of complications from the measles.  What follows is what Dahl wrote about his daughter in 1986, from roalddahl.com

Olivia Twenty Dahl, 1955-1962

"MEASLES: A dangerous illness.

Olivia, my eldest daughter caught measles when she was

seven years old.  As the illness took its usual course, I can

remember reading to her often in bed and not feeling 

particularly alarmed about it.  Then one morning, when she

was well on the road to recovery, I was sitting on her bed

showing her how to fashion little animals out of coloured

pipe-cleaners, and when it came her turn to make one

herself, I noticed that her fingers and her mind were not

working together and she couldn't do anything.

'Are you feeling all right?' I asked her.

'I feel all sleepy,' she said.

In an hour, she was unconscious.  In twelve hours she was

dead.

The measles had turned into a terrible thing called measles

encephalitis and there was nothing doctors could do to

save her.  That was twenty-four years ago in 1962, but even

now, if a child with measles happens to develop the same

deadly reaction from measles as Olivia did, there would still

be nothing the doctors could do to help her.

On the other hand, there is today something that parents 

can do to make sure that this sort of tragedy does not

happen to a child of theirs.  They can insist that their child is

immunised against measles.  I was unable to do that for

Olivia in 1962 because in those days a reliable measles

vaccine had not been discovered.  Today a good and safe 

vaccine is available to every family and all you have to do

is to ask your doctor to administer it.

It is not generally accepted that measles can be a

dangerous illness.  Believe me, it is.  In my opinion parents

who now refuse to have their children immunised are putting 

the lives of those children at risk.  In America, where measles

is now compulsory, measles like smallpox, has

been virtually wiped out.

Here in Britain, because so many parents refuse, either out

of obstinacy or ignorance or fear, to allow their children to

be immunised, we still have a hundred thousand cases of 

measles every year.  Out of those, more than 10,000 will

suffer side effects of one kind or another.  At least 10,000

will develop ear or chest infections.  About 20 will die.

LET THAT SINK IN.

Every year around 20 children will die in Britain from

measles.

So what about the risks that your children will run from 

being immunised?

They are almost non-existent.  In a district of

around 300,000 people there will be only one child every

250 years who will develop serious side effects from

measles immunisation!  That is about a million to one

chance.  I should think there would be more chance of your

child choking to death on a chocolate bar than of

becoming seriously ill from a measles vaccination.

So what on earth are you worrying about? It really is almost

a crime to allow your child to go unimmunised.

The ideal time to have it done is at 13 months, but it is never 

too late.  All school-children who have not yet had a 

measles immunisation should beg their parents to arrange

for them to have one as soon as possible.

Incidentally, I dedicated two of my books to Olivia, the first

was James and the Giant Peach.  That was when she was 

still alive.  The second was The BFG, dedicated to her

memory after she had died from measles.  You will see her

name at the beginning of each of these books.  And I know

how happy she would be if only she could know that her

death had helped to save a good deal of illness and death

among other children."

-----

The first measles vaccine was released in 1963, one year after Olivia Dahl's death.

-----

Here, from the Los Angeles Times, is a graph of annual measles cases in the US from 2000 through 2018, and those in just over four months this year.  

The increasing number of cases matters because the measles are very contagious.  

If you take an airplane trip and a measles-infected person -- who isn't showing red spots yet -- is on the plane, there's a good chance you might get a call from the airline a few days later warning you that you have a chance of getting measles yourself.  

But if you eat in a restaurant, ride a bus or go to a movie where there happens to be an infected person, your odds of getting the measles go way up and you won't even be warned.  

In the winter of 2014-2015, at least 125 cases of measles occurred among people who had paid recent visits to Walt Disney theme parks in Orange County, CA, including some visitors whose immunizations were up to date.    Another hot spot was a Waldorf School in upper-class Marin County, where a number of parents had decided against vaccinating their children.  

As we know, immunizations are not effective in 100 percent of cases, which is one reason why broad-scale immunization programs are required by most public school districts. 

-----

In addition to the encephalitis that killed Olivia Dahl, side effects of measles can include ear infections, eye infections, bronchitis, pneumonia, hepatitis and meningitis.

Small babies are at particular risk because the first measles vaccination is not recommended until children are between the ages of 12 months and 15 months.

Pregnant women also should be concerned because measles can cause stillbirth or miscarriage.  

-----

Effective vaccines have been proven to prevent measles for 56 years.  The US declared victory over measles in 2000.  

Now it's back.  How stupid are we?  

Note

Other fine Dahl titles are The Witches, The Twits, Danny, the Champion of the World, Fantastic Mr. Fox and Esio Trot.  Any decent library will have a nice selection of these waiting for you to enjoy or share with fun-loving children of your aquaintance.

MoviesMonday: Breakthrough

This is a nice family movie that will appeal to an ever smaller subset of Americans:  Those who aren't offended by Christian themes.  

The story is this:  John Smith, a 14-year-old boy, adopted and uncomfortable at the idea his birth mother didn't want him, tussles with his tough-minded mother and over a related school assignment.  He enjoys basketball and his friends, both named Josh.  On Martin Luther King Day, the three boys venture too far out on some lake ice that breaks.  They fall into very cold water.

The two Joshes scramble out, but John does not.  After being submerged for 15 minutes, John is rescued and medevacked to a hospital where a diligent medical team warns his parents that John's prospects are very dim.

John's parents ask the lead doctor to do his best. and then the mother prays to God to send the Holy Spirit (one element of the triune Christian God; you could look it up) to save their child.  And, voila, given the title, the boy revives, slowly but surely.

Keep in mind that no angel appears to heal the young man.  There is no Jesus apparition or lightning strike that awakens the child.  And it is not suggested that this sort of recovery is made possible by the nature of his injury -- his body temperature shut down below functional level for 40 minutes or more and then revived.   But apparently this story did happen and was written up in a book that described it as a miracle.

Maybe there are miracles.  We cannot know.  But in Theidiosyncratist's background (Roman Catholic, not hardshell evangelical) there have been times when groups have been encouraged to pray for the recovery of ailing friends, and for the souls of the dead.  What other comfort can humans offer to families in distress?

What the movie suggests is the value of community -- broad-based community.  The son's basketball coach, his EMT rescuer and his trauma physician are all African American, as is the lead singer when a school choir sings outside John's hospital window on a cold winter night.

Let's consider the worst-case scenario:  The boy died.  Would there be something else his community could have done to save him?  Probably not.  But would the parents have felt bereft of friends and support if their prayers had not saved him?  Certainly not.  The comfort of others would have been meaningful to the family, whatever the outcome.

What offends me about this movie is not its plot but the reaction to it.  From a couple reviews:

-----

“'Breakthrough'” comes on as one family’s amazing story, no more and no less, yet the movie carries an implicit political dimension. You could put it like this: Who needs the Affordable Care Act — or, indeed, big government — when you’ve got God?

"On the surface, there’s no reason why a tale of mystical healing should inherently belong to either the conservative or liberal camp, especially given that the current leader of American conservative politics, Donald Trump, is a rage-fueled narcissistic demagogue who, measured by his words and deeds, is no more a Christian than he is a Martian."

-----

"Although it is based on a true story, 'Breakthrough' is another glib and unconvincing faith-based movie that pushes miracles, spirituality and divine intervention, hoping for box-office gold. A terrific cast is the only thing that saves it from last rites.

"'Breakthrough' assumes we'll only understand the emotional weight if they bring (it brings) up God or faith every few minutes because there's no way our audience will understand human emotion unless religion is involved."

-----

When The Id went to see this movie, the other people in the audience were an Asian man with his children and their friends and four older African American women.  My guess is they were Christian people interested in seeing a story about people who practiced their faith.  

To review the movie with (yet another irrelevant) Trump comment or to suggest Christian viewers couldn't appreciate a story without a religious theme betrays a narrowness of mind.  We are a big country with different people.  Sneering at perceived audiences without attempting even to understand them says more about a critic than the people who actually go to see the film.


Note

The film's credits list NBA great Stephen Curry as the executive producer.  There's a nice subtheme in the story about character John's basketball skills and team play that may well have been refined with Curry's help.