MovieMonday: The Current War -- Director's Cut

This film sets out to personalize an 1890s battle between Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse, the two innovators who wanted to standardize how electricity was delivered to American homes and businesses.

There's plenty of material for a story about this situation, but this presentation mostly does not work.

The lead character is Thomas Alva Edison (Benedict Cumberbatch), the most famous inventor of American history.  He does not invent the light bulb but develops the first usable light bulb and patents it.  At the time of the movie, Edison is promoting his distributed current (DC) with  installations in New York.  In addition, he is working on other big ideas, including the phonograph and moving pictures.

Edison is also what a young friend of mine would call a "dick."   He hires a penniless immigrant named Nikola Tesla (Nicholas Hoult) and mistreats him, breaking promises.  He goes to some lengths to smear George Westinghouse (Michael Shannon,) whose alternating current (AC) system proves more practical and less expensive in demonstrations in smaller cities in the East and Midwest.

Westinghouse hires Tesla and pays him well; together they develop one of the first hydroelectric power systems, a "dynamo" set at the base of Niagara Falls that provides electricity to Buffalo, NY.

The movie tries to build tension as Edison and Westinghouse compete to install an electrical system that will light up the night at the 1893 Chicago World's Fair, but it doesn't deliver a satisfying resolution.


The Problems

Making films that personalize historical figures is a fraught business because what matters most is what those persons have done.  Who cares what Galileo was really like?  Does it matter what Abraham Lincoln had for dinner the night he announced the Emancipation Proclamation?  The challenge is to link personal observations with historical or artistic or scientific significance.

This movie sketches in the characters of Edison and Westinghouse and their private and public lives, but it jumps around in jerky shots and short scenes that are often out of sequence.  The intent may have been to avoid making the thing feel like a sciency costume drama of the Gilded Age, but the effect is to make the audience think constantly, "Wait -- what?" It's distracting.

The Current War also doesn't make use of its ancillary characters.  The most memorable line about Tesla, the enigmatic polymath, is that his name will never be on anything -- haha now.  Edison's loyal secretary, Samuel Insull (Tom Holland), appears in many scenes, but his gotcha moment comes when he asks Edison whether the great man wants to be remembered as P.T. Barnum or Isaac Newton.  (This when Edison is attempting, falsely, to name the electric chair he commissioned as a "Westinghouse."  Much also is made of Edison's avowed opposition to the death penalty, possibly to make him less obnoxious to post-millennial audiences.)

In another odd characterization, J.P. Morgan (Matthew Macfadyen,) the premier financier of the US Industrial Revolution who funded both inventors' electric companies, comes across as unexpectedly passive, but is described by Edison's young son as having a funny nose.  Maybe the real J.P. had a red nose like Rudolph the Reinder, but why mention that and say nothing about Edison's near-total deafness?

Then there is a single Civil War scene, scattered across several acts, of Westinghouse as a young Union soldier encountering a Confederate soldier pointing a pistol at his face. This may aim to demonstrate how Westinghouse handles challenge, but it comes out of the blue and is like nothing else in the plot.  Why not highlight instead the inventor's patenting an air brake for trains (one that is influential even today) just a few years after the war?


The Provenance

The first version of this movie earned mixed reviews in 2017 at the Toronto International Film Festival, and a scheduled broad release was canceled.  Its director, the well-regarded Alfonso Gomez-Rejon, took the opportunity to rejigger the film, adding and subtracting scenes to come up with this current version.

Timing was another problem.  Harvey Weinstein was executive producer of that earlier version, and the TIFF airing came a month after Weinstein was charged with multiple abuses of women.  The film now in theaters lists Martin Scorsese, a Gomez-Rejon mentor, as executive producer.


Note

I doubt this is taught as such in schools now, but Edison and Westinghouse and Tesla were, in their day, rather like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in ours.  People might enjoy imagining the thrill of being able to read after sunset after thousands of years of campfires and whale oil and candles. The thrill of the new is always changing, and it wouldn't hurt if we could put it in perspective.

MovieMonday: The Rise of Jordan Peterson

This documentary is scheduled to open at theaters later this week, but good luck finding it if you want to see the thing.

The problem is the subject matter -- a Canadian professor who has studied psychology, literature, philosophy, religion, biology and evolution -- and who has spent a lot time thinking about all of it.  He's become a youtube celebrity, and his practical book on how to get your act together if you're unhappy with your life has sold 3 million copies, often to young men who seem to appreciate the message.

For this he has earned a remarkable amount of disdain. 

-----

From all reports, the film presents a neutral view of Peterson, including comments from people who disagree with him.  It seems to have grown out of a 44-minute television documentary that was aired last year by the publicly funded Canadian Broadcast Corporation and then expanded into a feature-length story about Peterson as a person and his family and what he believes.

Peterson earned oppobrium in 2017 when he said he opposed a Canadian law that was taken to mean that it would be a prosecutable crime not to call non-cisgender people by their preferred pronouns.  His logic, if I understand it, was that he would take the matter under consideration on an individual basis but that being compelled to obey was a step too far.

(In the US, the First Amendment prohibits government regulation of speech.  Our country is a cacophony of noise, often ranging from ignorance to hate, but at least we're mostly spared battles about what people are allowed to think and say.)

-----

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about Jordan Peterson, but last year I watched a couple youtube videos of him.  In one, he maintains his cool during an onslaught of accusatory questions posed in an interview by a British television reporter.  In the other, he talks with Camille Paglia, an American scholar who is too idiosyncratic to be accepted at a major university but who is always interesting. Personally, I enjoy discussions when serious people trade views without calling each other Nazis or communists.  

Here, from early 2018, is an Atlantic article (the Atlantic not being a retrograde right-wing publication) by a Southern California-based male essayist, Conor Freiersdorf, who wonders why Jordan Peterson is seen as social anathema. 

Later that year, a female columnist, also in Los Angeles, suggested in an Atlantic column that Peterson scares "the left" because his fairly traditional advice comes as a revelation to young men like her son, who have not been exposed to such in their formal educations.

It was the female columnist's piece that led Eric Levitz of New York magazine to publish a piece titled "The Left's Hatred of Jordan Peterson Is Perfectly Rational."

-----

Anyway.  The audacity of a neutral Peterson bio-doc has attracted the ire of contemporary activists who seem to value conformity over all else.  Examples:

1) When one or more employees of a theater in Toronto said they thought the film's scheduled run should be cancelled, the theater cancelled the run.

2) The same thing seems to have happened at a theater in Brooklyn.

3) Somewhere near Portland, OR, a pastor arranged to show the blocked JP movie at his church but decided against it after receiving an anonymous message that said the following:

                    “Several community organizations are planning to shut down your showing 

                  of the Jordan Peterson propaganda film.  While many of us aren’t Christian 

and some even flat-out condemn the religion, we do not want any harm 

             to come to your place of worship or those within.  However, we cannot allow fascism to continue to rise and will not tolerate its presence in our city, 

whether it is on the streets or on the waterfront or in a church. 

Read some history books, read about eugenics, read about sex and gender and 

then compare it to Peterson. Pray on it if you must. Do the right thing. 

As much as we joke about it, we really don’t want to have 

              to bring out the guillotine to fix society.”

(Translation:  “Nice little business church you got here, mister. It’d be a shame if something were to happen to it, know what I mean?”  Also in Portland, a similar threat caused the cancellation of a general city parade several years ago because members of a Republican group planned to march in the event.  Apparently the appearance of people who belong to another, perfectly legal national party was too dangerous to be tolerated.)

4) Of the three cities where I spend time each year, no theater seems to plan to show this film.

-----

The film's distributors have gotten the message. Peterson has attracted a great deal of interest in the last couple years, but one branch of what is now called "cancel culture" has been activated to limit the exposure or profitability of a film, even a non-hagiographic one, for fear it might find an audience in theaters or with nonprofit groups.

The net effect of all this is that if you want to watch The Rise of Jordan Peterson, you're going to have to stream it at home on your television set or your computer or your cellphone.

Haha: The incredible shrinking house

Nashville's Million-Dollar Homes Are Shrinking Fastest in U.S.

Do not fear.  If you spend a million bucks on a 5,000-square-foot house, it will not turn into a 4,000-square-foot house before you move in with your family and furniture.

Translated:  You get less home for your money in Nashville these days.

At the moment, however, expensive houses and condominiums are being developed much faster than the market can absorb them.  The article seems to be based on listing prices, not sale prices.

MovieMonday: The Addams Family

Someday there may be another Addams family movie that is worth watching.  This is not that film.

As everybody born within the last 90 years knows, the Addams family -- Morticia, Gomez, Wednesday and Pugsley -- are just like the rest of us except they live on the dark side.  They enjoy spiders and mummies and blasting caps and crossbows.  They are devotees of the macabre.

Ever since Charles Addams sold his first cartoon about these people to the New Yorker in the late 1930s, people have enjoyed the contrast in print, on television and in movies.  Addams-style humor also has been applied to various monsters and Transylvanians.

Since the last movie about this group was dropped in 1993, it was time for another one.  What seems to have happened is that a bunch of B-list writers and animation artists assembled a weak plot sprinkled with flat humor that is not funny enough to generate laughs or even chuckles.  And it got made into a bad movie.

About 15 minutes after the movie began, I started checking my watch.  I wanted to leave but stuck it out to the end.  Now let's talk about this hot mess.

----

This film opens with Morticia and Gomez' wedding, a Goth-to-the-max affair that so irritates narrow-minded yokels that they form a pitchfork brigade and chase the poor newlyweds out of town. 

The couple end up "somewhere horrible, somewhere corrupt, somewhere where no one in their (sic) right mind would be caught dead in."  Yep, it's New Jersey.  

Along the way the they find Lurch, an escapee from an abandoned insane asylum (huh?) lying on the road.  Then they travel up the road and find their dream home -- the dark, empty asylum itself.

Then the focus shifts to 13 years later.  Daughter Wednesday and son Pugsley have joined the family, which has not stepped out of its house or sent its children to school but is planning a get-together with relatives two weeks hence for Pugsley's "mazurka" (apologies to Chopin), an Addams tradition in which the lad will demonstrate his swordplay skills.

Then, all of a sudden, the Addamses realize they are not alone, and that there is a neighborhood of less eccentric humans just down the road.  At the same time, those humans notice there is a creepy old house up at the top of a hill.  Who knew?

Turns out the normal town is called Assimilation and was built by one of those television decorators, Margaux Needler.  It is the sort of place where children sing and dance to a catchy song whose lines include "What's so great about being yourself when you can be like everybody else?"

Margaux hoists her enormous blonde coif up the hill, introduces herself to Morticia and Gomez and  explains that their "off-brand" home needs to be updated so as not to frustrate her planned sale of the 50 houses she has developed in her adorable, pink-streeted town. 

Tensions arise, and there is conflict.  Ultimately, comity (but not comedy) prevails. 

So the story is about tolerance.  The Assimilationists are intolerant of the Addams family, and, to be fair, sometimes the Addamses are a little intolerant themselves, but not so much as their newfound neighbors.  Tolerance, of course, is a brand new, never-before-considered lesson that all of us can take to heart.

As for the film's script, the gags are weak and often strained, and the antics of the 3-D animation characters are not fun to watch even though those characters are "voiced" by famous entertainers.  

Honestly, theaters should pay moviegoers to watch dreck like this, but what do I know?  People bought $30 million in tickets last weekend.

-----

Those who are not acquainted with Addams family history may enjoy a recent and under-edited article, The Cultural History of "The Addams Family", on Smithsonian.com.


The article covers the bases and then concludes:   "The latest film looks to be, technologically at least, as far from the Charles Addams originals as Cousin Itt is from a barber."

In case you had forgotten Itt, a character introduced not by the original artist but in a 1960s television series, is depicted at right.  For some reason his vocals were done by Snoop Dogg.  No typecasting there, but no humor either.

MovieMonday: Joker

Have you ever spent time wondering how the bad guys in superhero movies got to be so evil?  If you have, now there's a movie for you.

Joker is what is called an "origin story" for the traditional Batman foe -- the sadistic nihilist with the cackling laugh and clown makeup.  The film is set in a dystopian 1980-ish New York City (aka Gotham,) and observes Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) as he becomes the character known as the Joker.

Fleck works gigs as a clown, and he wants to become a famous stand-up comedian.  The barriers to this goal are his raw self-obsession and an unfortunate "condition" that causes him to break out into involuntary laughing fits that suggest desperation or sorrow as much as humor.

Fleck is an odd cat descending into insanity, and his life circumstances do not help.  The city has cut funding for his useless psychotherapy visits and his seven prescription medications.  While working as a clown he is beat up by a bunch of young toughs.  He loses his job when he drops a pistol on the floor while entertaining children in a hospital.  While riding home in the subway, he breaks out laughing and for this is attacked by Wall Street guys in business suits.  Angry, Fleck shoots his tormenters and flees.

Press reports of an anonymous clown killing employees of loathed Wayne Enterprises spark a chord among frustrated Gothamites, who adopt clown costumes and begin tearing up the city themselves.

Meanwhile, a tape of one of Fleck's failed comedy routines catches the scornful eye of a late-night television host whom Fleck admires.  To his delight, Fleck is invited to appear on the broadcast.

Another plot element involves Fleck's mother and her absorption with a former employer, a rich guy who announces a plan to run for mayor of Gotham in order to clean the place of "clowns."

By the end, Fleck has become the fully formed Joker.  It's unclear how much of what happens in the story is intended to be taken as truth and how much is the product of Joker's fevered imagination.  Rather confusing.

Joaquin Phoenix carries the film here, and many have admired his performance.  It's hard to tell, however, whether his strength is acting or scrunching up his facial muscles into expressions that range from anguish to glee.

The writer/director is Todd Phillips, who made his fortune with the three Hangover movies and who is a big Martin Scorsese fan.

In fact, Joker borrows from two Scorsese films:  Fleck has much in common with the increasingly unhinged Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro) in 1975's Taxi Driver.   Fleck also behaves like Rupert Pupkin (also played by De Niro) in 1983's King of Comedy.  In addition, De Niro appears in Joker as the successful comedian/television host.

One weakness of the plot is its reliance on two-dimensional stereotypes about the Gotham milieu:  citizen rage about rich guys, suit-wearing subway thugs, New York City budget cuts (?) and so on.

A number of critics really can't stand this movie, and for various reasons.  One is that it humanizes a known bad guy.  Another is that it is more violent than is really necessary, which seems a little odd given the state of film today.  A third may be that the idea of an ostensibly serious movie about a cartoon character is just too weird.

Filmgoers seem not to be so troubled.  Only Avengers: Endgame has sold more tickets on its first weekend this year.


Batman Phenomenon

Batman stories -- and this is a variant on the theme -- are very popular.  The first Batman comic book was released in 1940 and followed by 712 others.  Batman has been the subject of many television shows and 15 movies, including a Lego Batman Movie in 2017 and an embarrassment called Batman V Superman in 2016.

Of the recent Batman movies, the best regarded are the three written by screenwriter Christopher Nolan.   The second of those, 2008's Dark Knight, illuminated a certain similarity between the menace of the Joker and the distance and darkness of Batman himself.

Heath Ledger's standout performance as the Joker in that film -- and his early death just before its release -- almost certainly suggested the idea of this newer movie.