Monday, March 2, 2009

Don't Challenge Me!



Jack Gustafson

In a previous column, I presented the idea that Hollywood is not of a liberal bias, and with this column, I must reiterate that stance. I am not going to say that Thirteen Days is not biased towards the Kennedy family, it most certainly is, however I must argue that the Kennedy family holds a certain place within the American Mythology. Americans, for the most part, do not care about the facts behind the Kennedy Administration, we want to hear things that go along with what we think, and this is a perfect task for Hollywood. Most Americans think of JFK as a good to great President, and we don’t want Hollywood mucking up our belief structure. Same goes with Nixon, we know he was a “bad guy”, which is why all movies about Nixon eventually show him as the flaw character that he was (and that we all are). With movies like Thirteen Days, we allow Hollywood to hold our hand as we “venture” into unchallenged myths.

Thirteen Days takes special care to convince the audience of its’ authenticity. Several scenes within the film are filmed in black and white, an effort by the director to make the movie seem based on specific facts, which I won’t deny. Artists have always messed with their medium to convince the audience of its’ authenticity, and even though I would hardly call this film “art”, and would also say that the use of black and white is a failure, I must respect the attempt. What does work is the use of real news clips to help guide the story while maintaining as sort of historical accuracy. Sadly, in this film with little character development, and lack of suspense, the news clips were the most exciting parts.

While the movie makes it obvious that it favored the Kennedy family through the attention paid toward the characters, I believe that it fails to successfully heap praise on them. If Hollywood was so liberal, you would think that they would take special care to make a good film, but in the end we get flat characters, a story that the national audience is already familiar with, and more Kevin Costner than should be allowed by law. I mean, look at the guy, his character seems to be a mold of like five or six different characters since the real Kenney O’Donnell had nowhere near the amount of power as the fictitious one did. It seems that Kevin Costner is only acting out his dream of hanging out with the Kennedy family.

Since the national audience is already familiar with the story within the film, the idea of creating this film should have been aborted, unless the director decided to add aliens, zombies, or alien zombies. The problem with making a movie like this is that everyone already knows how it will end. The only way to make the movie watchable is to show a different side of an already known character or to actually change history. Kevin Costner was not enough to keep me interested, and (surprise!) we beat the Ruskies. The result is that this film suffers the same fate as all Hitler assassination movies.

If this movie is deemed “Liberal” (capital l is intentional), then I have to believe that this is all part of the vast right-wing conspiracy; the movie does not entertain. In the end it is not about the story, but the size of the director’s ego.

Shame on You, Congress!


Blog Question: Does Congress deserve the bad rap it gets in the movies?

NOTE: This blog is Beth's addition from last week's events which precluded her from posting.

Dr. Meiers said in class that he would prefer to have 200 random people picked from the phonebook than the members of Congress we have now. I believe that’s an excellent idea. Politicians lose touch with the citizens of this country upon the election into office, particularly into the Congress. Any sense of working for the good of the citizens is depleted upon entering the game of politics.
For example, my most recent infuriation, in a recent story from the Kansas City Star on Feb. 21st about Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as possible secretary of health and human services, Kansas City’s “beloved” mayor, Emmanuel Cleaver is quoted saying “We’re just not going to be able to go there (referring to health care.) We have no money.” Are you kidding me? No money? Cleaver may have once done wonderful things for Kansas City, but I’m officially over him. No money? And you just spent billions of dollars on multiple corporate bailouts to line the pockets of CEOs again. You can’t find ANY money, to assist the million of people in the United States with out health care. And he calls himself a democrat, he should be ashamed.
Now that I’m off that soapbox, politics is a game that only snakes and skunks can play the best. And Congress is the forest harboring the worst kinds of vermin in this country. A person with good intentions and strong morals will never make it in politics, not ever. Even if you begin as a hard working, good willed American citizen looking to make a difference, the key to making it in politics is learning how to play the game. Once you’re in the game, it consumes you so completely, that you lose the simple, functioning ideals you came in with, and come out with a self serving ambition that can take you right to the top. The drive to please constituents, to make the money needed for re-election (and line their own pockets,) to take trips and have fancy dinners on tax dollars, and to pocket the right people to help you get what you want is what drives Congressmen to do what they do. But maybe, just maybe, if you took 200 random people, with no agenda, just coming with their experiences with the frustrations of middle and lower classes, Congress could finally get something accomplished.
Simply, Congress deserves every bit of the bad rap they get. Exploit the hell out of them, uncover all of their dirty little secrets and print them in your biased Medias for the world to see. I’ll eat up every word you tell me, because even if what you say isn’t true, deep down I know it’s probably that bad… or worse.

Beth Goin

The Loathsome Tale


If you hadn’t noticed already, I loathe all politicians. So it would be logical that although many Americans adore them, I consider the Kennedy’s to be no different. That being said I have to be honest that I know little to nothing regarding JFK’s time as president, being that I was not alive then and I don’t take much interest in history. I know that something JFK did must be shady because, let’s be honest, he got shot. Other than that my basis of information comes from Dr. Meiers brief summary before the movie. While I was watching Thirteen Days it occurred to me that Dr. Meiers has given these brief summations before movies the last few movies we’ve watched. And most of the time they show the ugly side of the topic of the movie. For example, Kennedy’s Operation Mongoose prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Dr. Meiers informed us about a series of terrible happenings the United States inflicted including rapes, burnings, murders and more. Interested and curious about the information given to us, I decided to do some of my own research on Operation Mongoose, as Dr. Meiers would tell us never to get all of our information from one source. I could not find one article discussing those types events taking place during Operation Mongoose. I want to be clear that I am not arguing the fact that these proceedings took place, but why would Dr. Meiers give us information that we would be unable to back up with an alternate source. In addition, why would he give us such controversial information before we watch a movie, so the whole time I’m watching, his synopsis of the events or people prior are fresh in my head resulting in my interpretation of the movie closely relating to the information given to me by Dr. Meiers. Maybe it’s a test. Maybe he’s looking to see if we gobble up and spit it back out, just like good little college kids. He could be checking to see if we form opinions of our own. Then another thought occurred to me. Is it possible that Dr. Meiers is a planning a political mutiny? And maybe he’s planting the seeds of revolt in the young, pliable minds of innocent college students to create an “army” when the time comes to enact a revolution? Doesn’t Dr. Meiers have a “following” of poli-sci students that take all his classes? Ok, so there’s probably no rebellion in the making. But it does remind me of an important point to remember. Use trusted sources and don’t get all your information from on place. Think for yourself and form your own opinions. Never trust a label- even PhD’s can have slanted ideas. What Dr. Meiers says makes sense. And as far as the Kennedy’s are concerned- politicians are snakes, especially those that make it to the presidency. Nothing surprises me, don’t believe what you see in the movies.

Beth Goin

Americans Only Watch Historically Quasi-Accurate Crap!


After hearing that President John F. Kennedy said "if I do not get at least a strange piece of ass everyday, I will have a migraine headache," it is almost painstakingly difficult to render a serious response to this blog inquiry. I will muster what analytical prowess I can in the spirit of completing this entry.

There is little secret regarding the power players, perfunctory cruelty and ruthlessness that the Kennedy administration often demonstrated. The film "Thirteen Days," however, does not adequately address said matters. The "sin of omission," while probably referenced by the more Republican or conservative viewership of the "B-" rate film, as underscoring an inherent liberal bias is undoubtedly done more for portraying the relevant and salient historical aspects of the military and diplomatic crisis that unfolded in 1962, than any deliberate attempt to further romanticize "Camelot."

Like many cases of artistic liberty, it is easy and rather mindless to criticize the proclivity of a film rather than to cite a production's true to period commitment. In this respect, there is one blatant misrepresentation within the film, the depiction of Laurence O' Donnell is misguided provided that the real-life character was charged with "prostitute procurement" for President Kennedy. The movie unnecessarily elevates the aforementioned character, much like Kennedy in other media, to the status of a devout Catholic-neglecting to mention the individual's morally questionable activities. This particular "liberty," surprised me because nothing makes for a more interesting and audience-entertaining story line than a politician chasing hookers for an venerated public figure. Credit should be given to the film's director and writer's for not taking the routine "low road," of Hollywood and maintaining a dedication to 'mostly' historical fact. The film, in all honesty, could have easily ventured into smut land-given the dastardly material that the Kennedy administration unknowingly generated for latter production value.

In terms of the depiction of the military within the film, according to my reference of administration documents, the portrayals are largely accurate. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, as shown in the film, was strong-willed and opposed to any interference or attempt at military direction without explicit "permission" of the president. To this end, McNamara allayed the sort of additional "shot over the bow" incidents ordered by other defense personnel-primarily, the Naval chief.

I was actually surprised that some moments of tense "pissed off" shots were shown regarding Kennedy. My expectation was that Kennedy would have continuously been idealized as the type of perpetually equable mind that many previous films and literature have falsely attributed to him. There is a certain reassuring humanity in knowing that in the midst of a national crisis the president of the United States remains demonstrative of real, powerful humanistic sentiments of which we can all relate to on an inferior stress scale.

"Thirteen Days," was actually directed and written utilizing "The Kennedy Tapes - Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis," an actual account of events within the Oval Office penned by Ernest May and Philip Zelikow. Analyzing the film and comparing it side by side with actual developments-though omissions were perpetrated, suggests a movie of unusual historical commitment.

Sure, "Thirteen Days" has its way with some minor historical facts, but if it were all real one thing is more certain than taxes and death, even fewer Americans than already did would have gone to see its cinematic debut.

Corey Scott-Vincent-William Dutra