|
 The must
see film currently in release is “Children of Men.” Beautifully acted.
Beautifully filmed. At times, the script is a mess, maybe because
there are so many writers, but its basic theme of hope amidst
hopelessness holds true. It is about a world on the verge of
collapsing that hints at our fate, if we are not careful. Then again,
no matter how much care we give to our world and its freedoms, it may
not matter, meaning we may not have much control over our future.
The film I had the most fun with last year was “Little
Miss Sunshine.” A joy and delight. Fine acting. Good story telling
about a dysfunctional family in an America often sanitized
tremendously for the sake of not offending anyone. It is a thumb in
the eye of conservative America. Its juxtaposition between Alan Arkin
– Grandpa – a drug abuser, old, and on his last legs, and Abigail
Breslin – Olive -- and her presumed innocence is a wonder to watch.
Despite the good time, feel-good yet bittersweet comedy, some critics
complained that the story is implausible. Does it really matter? The
final dance number is worth the price of admission.
 A
film that is necessary for another viewing, though more than a year
old, if you have the guts to see it more than once, is “History of
Violence.” Brutal and powerful, on the surface mundane, it seems to me
that it poses the question, is it really all in the genes? What role
does environment play in violence? The film is fierce, and unrelenting
in its mordant view of the world, with a strong script, fine acting
and taut directing. When viewing it, think about its message, because
we should not neglect what it says. Importantly, most of the story
takes place in Middle America where, in the end, though people may
feel they can hide, it is impossible to veil reality and one’s fate.
Robert DeNiro rarely directs movies. “The Good Shepherd” is only his
second effort. This is what he said when asked about his directing
technique. “Directors who are actors usually get good performances out
of actors. They understand the shorthand.” It doesn’t always apply,
but it is something to think about.
Here is a quote about documentary film that caught my eye recently.
“Documentary films are supposed to raise compelling questions.” Yes.
But why are so many of them small, self-indulgent, naïve, and dull?
 It
seems that every day there is another story about how a
photojournalist manipulated a picture, that is, how he or she altered
a photo to make it look better, more telling, more dramatic, often
motivated by politics. Whoa. Did we forget that picture editors have
always “fooled” with photos? That pictures are made darker or lighter.
That editors and photographers add more or less contrast. That often a
piece of the original photo, called cropping for the uninitiated,
becomes the photo that is finally published. Do not forget that much
of this took place in the days of film before the advent of digital.
Yes, Photoshop is one of the devices used today, but the culprit is
the all or nothing society in which we live. Until we are able to
subvert ego, and the need to influence a cause, whether for the self,
or something greater, altering reality will only get worse. Or is the
current spate of a “holier than thou” attitude a result of the war in
Iraq? Is it the influence of bloggers for or against the war, or for
that matter any subject that interests them? Is it the arrogance of
many bloggers with their presumed power because of the freedom to say
whatever one wants on the Internet? I think, too, that media critics,
often the first to cry foul, should lift their heads out of the sands
of righteousness and look at the real world. By the way, I do not
believe in manipulation of photos but I recognize that it exists and
there is very little any of us can do to stop it or change it. We
should view every photo carefully for its source, especially if it
comes from a place steeped in controversy.
Nothing in the world is “free.” Even the Internet with its freedom of
access comes with a price. But everyone should have equal rights to
the Internet. Once on a site, if there is a charge, you pay it or not,
but initial access should cost nothing. There will be advertising but
it is your choice whether you bite and buy. No one imposes his or her
will on you. Just when I thought net neutrality was a dead issue,
TVweek.com reports that Senators Byron Dorgan, D-ND and Olympia Snow,
R-Maine, are reintroducing new legislation. Called the Internet
Freedom Preservation Act, it favors a free Internet where everyone’s
access is equal. The bill aims is to stop some communication giants
from imposing their will and fees as central gatekeepers on the
Internet. It is all about money, as it always is. The big boys contend
that without the additional tolls they hope to collect they will not
have the revenue to expand the Internet and increase its speed and
pathways. The Internet seems to have done fine until now. There will
be a fight but it will attract little public attention. Mostly the
stories will appear on the business pages and we know that few if
anyone reads those. At least on this issue, for the moment, cheers to
the two senators and their bi-partisanship.
........................................................................................................................
At NBC News for 35 years, Ron Steinman was bureau chief
in Saigon, Hong Kong and London, was a senior producer on Today and wrote
and produced for Sunday Today. At ABC News Productions, he produced
and wrote documentaries for A&E, TLC, Discovery, Lifetime and the
History Channel. He has a Peabody, a National Headliner award, a
National Press Club award, a International Documentary Festival Gold
Camera Award, two American Women in Radio & Television awards and
has been nominated for five Emmy's. He is a partner in
Douglas/Steinman Productions, whose latest documentary, "Luboml: My
Heart Remembers," aired on PBS' WLIW/21 and the History Channel in
Israel, April 29, 2003. He is the author of, "The Soldiers 'Story",
"Women in Vietnam," and most recently, "Inside Television's First
War: A Saigon Journal," University of Missouri Press, 2002. |
