Deep Space Nine, the bleaker vision of the future in the Star Trek franchise of all the Star Trek TV series, has finally been released on streaming video via Netflix.  All the rest of the Star Trek live action series–Star Trek the original series, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek Voyager and Enterprise have been available since July 1.

I think Deep Space Nine suffered from a lot of things that didn’t meet the approval of fans of the other Star Trek series.  I liked the characters on Deep Space Nine, especially Jadzia Dax, Martok and Gul Dukat, but sometimes the episodes got too heavy-handed, and I felt like the show took itself too seriously, and in turn became too bleak for the positive vision of the future seen in the other series.  My least favorite character in any series was Kai Wynn.  Good villains need to give us some reason to at least understand what it would be like to be in their shoes.  The phrase “villains you love to hate” is different from villains you just plain hate.  I couldn’t watch Kai Wynn’s episodes as I thought she was too vile to be a leader of anything and I just couldn’t stop seeing Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.  (Did Louise Fletcher’s agent ever get that poor actress a role as a sweet lady?)  On the other hand Gul Dukat and the race of Cardassians and Jem’Hadar made great villains, that is, until Dukat killed off Jadzia Dax.

I thought there was too much focus on Bajorans, and I did not like the storylines with: Sisko as a religious prophet, Bashir as a James Bond character, those shape-shifting Founders, Bashir as a super genius, Odo and Kira as a love interest, Kira and Gul Dukat friendly with each other even remotely (I often wondered how Nana Visitor could play the part knowing her Bajoran character’s  past with the Cardassians), battles too grand and epic to be understood and to fit on a TV screen, and too many Ferengi-focused episodes.  It sounds like I don’t like Deep Space Nine.  I actually do like it, but it is just my least favorite Trek series.  The truth is I would probably watch any bad Trek episode over most anything else on TV. That said there are a lot of great reasons to watch DS9 for the characters and the better episodes.

Here are the best episodes I remember from Deep Space Nine, which I saw in the initial airing or in reruns a few years later, and look forward to watching again:

1.  ”Trials and Tribble-ations,” Season 5, Episode 6 – The care given to this episode, and almost reverence to the Original Series episode “The Trouble with Tribbles,” causes this bridging of two series to be one of the top episodes created for any Star Trek series. Klingon-posing-as-human Arn Darvin returns to use a Bajoran Orb to transport the Defiant back in time to the era of Kirk & Co. and the original starship Enterprise.  The DS9 officers must infiltrate the Enterprise and space station K7 to stop Darvin from assassinating Kirk, and at the same time must prevent the timeline from being altered.  All scenes with Jadzia Dax are brilliant and the buddy scenes with Bashir and O’Brien are their best team-up in the series, especially when they are dressed down by Kirk himself and Bashir has an “encounter” in the turbolift with a possible ancestor.

2.  ”The Visitor,” Season 4, Episode 3 – An accident in the Defiant’s engine room causes Sisko to disappear before Jake’s eyes. When Ben begins appearing to him for a few minutes at a time, with years between appearances, it becomes clear that he is not dead, but trapped in subspace. Tony Todd, who was previously perfect as Worf’s brother Kurn on Star Trek: The Next Generation, plays the older Jake brilliantly and makes this a beloved episode like the “Inner Light” episode from TNG.

3.  ”Duet,” Season 1, Episode 19 – A great espionage and mystery episode. Kira realizes that one of Bashir’s patients is a Cardassian slave labor overseer who was stationed on Bajor.  Kira places him under arrest to learn the Cardassian is the man who authorized the genocidal killings of Bajorans.  The counterpoint between Kira and her prisoner makes for great intrigue, but the story’s true strength is its examination of responsibility and guilt.

4.  “Second Skin,” Season 3, Episode 5 – Kira is captured and transported to Cardassia Prime, where she wakes up in the guise of a Cardassian woman. She is told that she is, in fact, a Cardassian by birth whose deep cover spying assignment necessitated her cosmetic alteration to look like a Bajoran rebel.  Several DS9 plots seem to be reworked TNG episodes, and this one plays a bit like Counselor Troi as a Romulan–but both are still fun to watch.

5.  ”Tacking into the Wind,” Season 7, Episode 22 – Worf kills Gowron to become chancellor of the Klingon Empire but immediately hands rule over to Martok.  Other stuff happens in this episode but to see Worf finally get to be a full-blooded Klingon is a nice change.  Visually beaten up Martok is a classic, almost epic, choice to rule the Empire.  Worf had to do so many dumb things over the course of his episodes on TNG and DS9 that it was nice to see Dorn allowed to act in some great scenes and situations here.   Note:  A lot of this episode and tangents have this long, drawn out epic Romulan vs. Cardassian vs. Klingon vs. Bajoran vs. Starfleet storyline and I found that my favorite parts of DS9 were the single story episodes, so there is not a lot I have here that is of the ongoing variety.

6.  ”Improbable Cause,” Season 3, Episode 20 – Odo and Garak discover ex-Obsidian Order mastermind Enabran Tain when Garak thinks that Tain may also be target of an assassin.  Andy Robinson was a great villain as Clint Eastwood’s nemesis in the original Dirty Harry, so it is fun to see what he was able to do when the writers focused on his character Garak in DS9.

7.  ”Little Green Men,” Season 4, Episode 8 – One of the all-time top 5 best Star Trek episodes is TNG’s “Darmok,” in part because it deals with the one thing humanity has the hardest time with, communication, which Star Trek refused to deal with because of the magical universal translators since the original series.  In two of the best Ferengi episodes, later Enterprise’s “Acquisition” and here with “Little Green Men,” we get to experience the Ferengi language and realities of the basic problems of communication between different cultures.  This is also an episode that harkens back to the original series returning to Earth.   Quark, Rom and Nog, whether you like them in other episodes, are in their best form in this episode.  Roswell in 1947.  A fun romp.

8.  “The Sword of Kahless,” Season 4, Episode 9 – Together, original series Kor, Jadzia Dax, and Worf go to a planet in search of the legendary Sword of Kahless.  But they have been followed there by Toral.  Toral was the last member of the House of Duras, who at one time tried to seize power and failed, with Worf letting him off easy.  The House of Duras ended up being a great foil for the other competing Klingon factions over the course of TNG and DS9 and even Star Trek: Generations.  Like TNG’s “Captain’s Holiday” and the quest for the Tox Uthat, this is a fun episode about discovery.

9.  ”Sons and Daughters,” Season 6, Episode 3 – The once wimpy and anti-warrior Alexander Rozhenko returns trying to prove himself as a Klingon.  The distance between his early appearances and the length of time that allowed someone like him to return was a testiment to the longevity of the Star Trek franchise.  Different actors played Alexander, but it makes you want to see a “where are they now” of Toral and Alexander.

10.  ”You are Cordially Invited…,” Season 6, Episode 7 – The wedding of Worf and Dax.  Great costumes and ceremony.  This was also the beginning of the end of the top episodes.  When Jadzia is later killed off it makes it hard to keep watching the series…

…so on that note, it’s time to queue up the Netflix and give it another go!

C.J. Bunce

Editor

borg.com

Cast:  Jack Nicholson, Louise Fletcher and Michael Berryman

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest

Jack Nicholson stars in the classic film, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

Con artist Randle McMurphy thinks he can skip having to work while in prison by claiming he is insane. His plan is to spend the remainder of his prison sentence at a mental institute where he thinks it’ll be a breeze, having fun with the “nuts” and getting out of having to do hard labour. What he doesn’t plan for is the head Nurse Ratched and her repressive attitude. Mac only sees her temper as an obstacle to conquer though, which he spends most of his time trying to soften and overcome.

Bringing a new life to the ward with card games, basketball and day trips out, Mac becomes a symbol of hope and joy to the other guys on the ward.  What unfolds is a beautiful story full of humour, love and courage with a bittersweet ending. It’s simple to see why One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a classic and after watching the film, it’s top of my list of ‘books to read’. It was the second film in history to win the ‘Big Five’ at the Oscars for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director and Best Screenplay.

All of the performances are fantastic; we see Christopher Lloyd, Danny DeVito, Vincent Schiavelli and Brad Dourif as the main “nuts”, each give an outstanding performance, especially Dourif as stuttering Billy Bibbit. Fletcher’s portrayal as harsh Nurse Ratched was a career-defining role for her and Nicholson’s performance really goes without saying, flawless. Most of his lines seem improvised which just shows his talents as an actor, it’s this great naturalness from him that allowed the film to be so well received and accessible. I really can’t fault any of the actors; they were all on form making the film one of the strongest I have seen cast-wise.

The appearance of the ward is very bleak and hostile. Sitting in a depressive state and sense of limbo, when Mac comes he certainly makes his mark. By having this stark contrast the film it really works to establish the dim and lacklustre atmosphere that had engulfed the ward before Mac arrived. With a brilliant story overlaid on the plain, dull setting though, a great piece of film is produced.

The film tells a beautiful story and is full of memorable, outstanding performances, a great piece of cinematography that still stands as one of the best films even 35 years after its release. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a must watch.

Star rating:  10/10

Directed by Miloš Forman.

Running time 133 minutes.

Based on the novel of the same name by Ken Kesey, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest was written in 1959 and published in 1962. Based on his experiences as a third-shift orderly in a California mental hospital, the novel shed light on some of the archaic treatments still being practiced as well as issues that haunted Kesey’s own life. Soon after it’s publication, Kirk Douglas bought the rights to turn it into the film. In 1963, it was turned into a stage play staring Kirk Douglas as R. P. McMurphy and ran for 82 performances. Still owning the movie rights, Douglas tried to find a studio that would be interested in it. Unable to find a studio, Douglas left the idea on the shelf and eventually passed it on to his son, Michael Douglas. With studios a lot more open to the project, Michael Douglas was able to line United Artist to fund the production.

Originally, Kesey was slated to be the screenwriter, but once cuts and changes started getting made to his script, he refused to continue on. Bo Goldman and Lawrence Hauben were brought on board to help shape the script into a more streamlined story. The biggest change they made to the original script (and book) was to tell the story from McMurphy’s point of view, instead of The Chiefs. This change, as well as a few others, caused Ken Kesey to basically trash the film and refuse to watch it. While I’m not here to make a call on wither the movie does justice to the book, I will say that it is one of the few adaptations that can’t really be compared to the book. Simply put, both the book and movie stand on their own.

The plot of the film revolves around Randle Patrick McMurphy as he tries to avoid jail time by spending it in a mental ward. After being brought up on charges of statutory rape, he is sent to the hospital to undergo physiological evaluation. While he doesn’t possess a mental illness, he plays it up to hopefully avoid hard labor. He finds himself surrounded by a variety of different men; all with varying degrees of mental illness. It doesn’t take long for him to see how the head nurse, Nurse Ratched, has everyone under her manipulation, even the doctors. McMurphy begins to push and Nurse Ratched pushes back; each time escalating more and more. It finally leads to a final, grand act of rebellion that pushes her over the edge and ultimately leads to a death of a patient and an event that changes McMurphy forever.

Jack Nicholson, though not the first choice for R. P. McMurphy, seems like the only person that could have played him. We see him change over the film from an independent, selfish person to someone with more consciousness and heart for the people around him. While I wouldn’t go so far as to call him “cuddly” and it is important to remind yourself he was being charged with raping a 15 year old girl (wither it was truly rape isn’t ever explained), his charisma makes him easy to want to follow. While he starts out taking advantage of the men in the ward (winning all their cigarettes in card games), he soon starts to care about them and fight against Ratched since they can’t or won’t.

Louise Fletcher’s portrayal of Nurse Ratched is one of the most iconic film performances of the past 50 years. She seems kind and working with the patients needs in mind, but as the film goes on you see the way she is really manipulating them. She doesn’t focus on them getting better, but plays on their weaknesses to keep them in her control. While not overtly cruel, it’s not until McMurphy has pushed all her buttons that her true ‘evil’ is revealed. Often times people speak about the last 5 minutes as being the most powerful, but to me it’s when she tears Billy down (without raising her voice) that is the most powerful moment of the film. It’s when her true cruelty comes out and leads to events that pushes McMurphy to the end.

The film went on to win five Oscars including Best Picture, Best Director (Milos Forman), Best Actor (Nicholson), Best Actress (Fletcher) and Best Screenplay/Adapted (Goldman/Hauben). It was also a film that went on to launch many careers including Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd, Brad Dourif, and Vincent Schiavelli. While most of these men had been working in film/television/stage before One Flew… it was this film that truly brought them to the attention of studios and directors. Despite it taking 10+ years from the publishing of the novel to the making of the film (a rather long span of time), it was still well received and a hit.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a film that still holds up and is brilliant for it’s simplicity. The characters are so real and so three dimensional that watching them do things as basic as ‘outdoor time’ or getting medication is enthralling. While I cannot directly relate to the film, who can’t relate to being under the thumb of authority? I always found it ironic that this book is a standard summer reading considering a majority of authority that kids encounter are through teachers and administrators. So often we have to toe the line and to watch a film where someone acts on his impulses is very cathartic. Even thought it doesn’t have a happy ending, it always touches me because it reminds me that you never know to what extent you might effect the people around you.

Image via Wikipedia

July 21 feeling and seeing yesterday’s #5 pivotal changes World-Wide prediction today…my plans have pivoted = at the time she was supposed to arrive, the housekeeper phoned to say her car wouldn’t start and so, she’s not coming in.  The house has to be cleaned so, I canceled my dentist appointment.  The dentist shuffles his schedule and other patients plans are changed…and so it goes…
…In the news today as predicted yesterday…”sexual and sensational oddities in the headlines”  = 17 indicted on charges of running a $400. to $3600. an hour and $10,000. a night prostitution ring that catered to Wall Street high spenders…Lost Marilyn Monroe porn film found…that was the sex, here come the oddities…The bones of Rudolph Hess, Hitler’s Deputy, have ben removed from his grave and secretly scattered in an un-named lake due to neo-nazis celebrating his birthday at the grave site…Apple stock to pay a one-time dividend of $81.00…Angelina Jolie feeds her children fried crickets (said to be like potato chips), a favorite dish in her adopted son, Maddox, native Cambodia…
…In the new and unusual products predicted yesterday, Facebook is putting-up a free, unique Deadline Hollywood Game that incorporates real-time, breaking news that influences the game play.  Predictions like dreams, often do come true…That’s the blog and here come the forecasts…          

July 22, 2011…a #6 adjustments made World-Wide Day when restaurants are less crowded, stocks settle in, alliances are established, domestic responsibilities and concerns in focus and universally we eat at home listen to music and watch TV. 
In your lifestyle: Family and emotional relationships need attention.  Personal needs are put aside to maintain harmony and meet obligations.  Beautification projects, children’s nurturing, neighborhood politics, hard-luck-stories, kitchen-table conversation, love and music in focus.

Generally compatible Birthday numbers for Master Number #22 are: #1 (business), #2, #4 (may be too materialistic), #5 (opposites balance one another), #6, #8 (material accomplishments), #9, #10 (business), #11 (both are Master numbers, can make  better world), #13, #14, #15, #17 (financial dynamic duo), , #18, #19 (business), #20, #24 (domestic, real estate) , #26, #27, #28 (business), #29 (both are Master Numbers, can make a better world), #31.

If July 22 is your birthday, you are a Master Number and through your constructive hard work,  intuition, vision and desire to serve the public and do good.  You have the ability to leave tangible evidence of your time on earth.  You can succeed in any line of work that meets with your ideals.  You suffer by scattering interests in youth and dealing dishonestly, being lazy or selfish and you cannot afford to have too many personal ambitions.  Many noted political leaders, corporate lawyers, inventors, musicians share this birthday that makes a  contribution and leaves a lasting mark on the future of the family, the nation or the world.

In 2011, you get a clue as to the direction your life should take.  At times you may feel like a martyr for this is a year when responsibilities may require self-sacrifice and you may need courage to meet your obligations and faith in your inner abilities.  You must help alleviate another’s problems with compassion and discrimination.: Take on only urgent causes in order to be able to finish everything you start.  Power months are February and November when problems are solved and finance is in focus.  With it all, you are making unseen personal adjustments that pay off in the future and you can be surrounded by love and friendliness and find contentment if you maintain your emotional balance and allow yourself to attract them. 

In 2011 wear the color blue to attract conscientious, protective, stable associates. 
Sapphire is your gem in 2011.
People whose names begin with the letters F, O and X are helpful and sympathetic in 2011
Friday is your lucky day of the week in 2011

Your 2011 lottery numbers are: 4, 6, 9, 15, 24, 27.  

Celebrities born on July 22 are: Lucia Albanese (Operatic Soprano), Orson Bean (Actor), Stephen Vincent Benet (Writer), Albert Brooks (Comedian), Alexander Calder (Sculptor/Hanging Mobiles), William Dafoe (Actor), Oscar de la Renta (Fashion Designer/Coty Hall of Fame), Bob Dole (Politician/Senator-R-Kansas/Presidential candidate - R-1996),  Louise Fletcher (Actor), Danny Glover (Actor), Selena Gomez (Actor), Don Henley (Drummer/Singer/Songwriter/”The Eagles”), Edward Hopper (Painter), Rhys Ifans (Actor), Rose Kennedy (Mother of a president and 2 senators), Emma Lazarus (Poet/”New Colossus” at the base of the Statue of Liberty), John  Leguizamo (Actor), Gregor Mendel (Monk/Geneticist/Discovered laws of heredity), Karl Menninger (Doctor/Established Menninger Clinic,  psychiatric research center), Shawn Michaels (Pro Champion Wrestler), David Spade (Comedian), Terrance Stamp (Actor), Alex Trebek (TV Host/”Jeopardy”), Amy Vanderbuilt (Authority/Author on Etiquette), Margaret Whiting (Singer), Wayne Wonder (Singer).

Often asked questions…Do I do personal e-mail written consultations?   Is there a fee? 
Answer: Yes – I answer 1 question per e-mail for a fee of $26.00 pre-paid through Paypal.com.  AND…
No, I do not e-mail extensive natal chart written reports (a natal chart consultation  including the career, personality, challenges and past, present and future and questions takes about 2 hours on the phone) – I do CD taped, phone consultations by appointment and they are not free.  The fee is $250.00. 

Thanks for your many comments regarding my books, numbers and the Blog design.  Please note:  I do respond to comments.  Scroll to the bottom…Responses to your Comments are on the left side, at the bottom of this Blog and yes, you can Subscribe to this Blog = see left side, bottom of page.

For your July 21 Birthday Life forecast order YOU ARE YOUR BIRTHDAY available at www.ellindodge.com \ click on BOOKS.  To see excerpts and to order books by Ellin Dodge:  NUMEROLOGY HAS YOUR NUMBER, YOU ARE YOUR FIRST NAME, YOU ARE YOUR BIRTHDAY, WIN THE LOTTERY! and FROM ACE TO ZUMMO  click on BOOKS at WWW.ELLINDODGE.COM now.

ph. Columbia

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you Louise Fletcher in the film adaptation of “Les Liaisons Dangereuses” called Cruel Intentions. Yeah she’s in this movie, undeservedly provoking Sebastian Valmont’s (Ryan Phillipe) misanthropy, one of the fakest things in the film. The Oscar winner’s got at two scenes, least five lines and loses meatier parts of the film to Christine Baranski or Swoosie Kurtz. Her role is more symbolic, as her century-old estate is the setting for Sebastian, her favourite nephew to clandestinely seduce Kansas born Annette Hargrove (Reese Witherspoon). So yes, I haven’t forgotten that this movie is about the kids.

Yes, this movie asks us to make too many leaps of logic, as Roger Kumble‘s script makes the characters swear too much but oh, they’re private school educated, which accounts for all the witty comebacks. And that their Calvin Klein, minimalist chic makes the actors look like their real ages as opposed to their characters who are supposedly 17. Or that all the rich adolescents in 1999 had therapists and wore two layers during the summer or wore tighty whities or had invisible parents. And that they all suddenly looked younger by the time they wore their private school uniforms.

But I still prefer this over Dangerous Liaisons, since Christopher Hampton’s script is still more affected and mannered than this newer version. The chateaus of France became estates and penthouses inhabited by New York debutants, its gardens turned into Central Park. My generation has probably grown up to be slightly ashamed of loving Sarah Michelle Gellar‘s turn as Kathryn Merteuil, but she matches Philippe’s smugness with her raunchy side, fighting her sexual desire for him and chooses to destroy him instead. Besides, she’s probably the only actress who can dress like Audrey Hepburn and still doesn’t look insipid subvert her character’s mean streak. And Philippe makes Sebastian appeal to Annette instead of simply seducing her, their growing feelings towards each other being both a product of rich man’s cabin fever and that she can actually see sincerity and fragility pouring through, bringing in the change that both he and Kathryn were afraid of.

Director:  Michael Laughlin

Cast:  Paul LeMat, Nancy Allen, Diana Scarwid, Michael Lerner, Louise Fletcher, Wallace Shawn

Introduction     Plot Summary     Impressions     Wrap-up

My rating:  Class K (6/7, orange star).  Maybe it was the company.  Maybe it was the alignment of the stars.  Maybe it was that the film is steeped in the ’80s.  For whatever reason, I didn’t like it and didn’t see the appeal, and neither did my guests.

Introduction

I actually found myself going back to the Parallel Universe entry for this film to make sure it belonged on the Top 50 List, and they seem to think it does.  Aside from one scene, two of the three of us couldn’t figure out why this was on the list at all, and the third didn’t even really care for the flashy scene.

There’s nothing wrong with the setup.  As the movie poster says, they came from another galaxy twenty-five years ago, and they’re still here.  In fact, they’re ready to go home now, only some humans who got too nosy might wind up going with them…

Some people have referred to this film as “subtly humorous” or as a spoof of 1950s SF.  It was originally planned as the second film in a Strange Trilogy, but did so poorly at the box office that the third film was scrapped.

On the other hand, it has garnered a cult following over the years, so someone thinks it’s a good movie.

Plot (Contains Spoilers)

Short summary:  Boy’s Ex-wife (and the mother of his daughter) disappears.  Boy goes to Ex-wife’s hometown and gets attacked by Aliens.  Boy meets Girl (she’s a reporter).  Boy figures out that Ex-wife’s hometown is full of Aliens.  Daughter gets kidnapped by Aliens.  Boy and Girl go to Ex-wife’s hometown to find her.  Boy discovers Ex is an alien.  Aliens decide to take hybrid Daughter back to their homeworld with them.  Daughter uses her powers as the Ex taught her and frees herself.  Boy, Girl and Daughter live happily ever after.

More details:  At the outset of the film, we see the beginning of the invasion of Centerville, at least in the sense that we see the people of the town doing their thing.  A UFO appears in the sky, and it is clear that something is causing the people to vanish, but we don’t see what it is or how it is happening.

Then the film moves twenty-five years into the future.  We see a professor living in New York, moving through a fairly prosaic life.  It is only when our hero Charles Bigelow, a professor of entymology, goes to the strange town of Centerville that things start happening.  The town seems trapped in the ’50s, and no one will admit to knowing Charles’ ex-wife or her family.  Charles’ dog disappears under strange circumstances, and then when he’s leaving, convinced something is really wrong, a figure with a non-human head fires a laser from his finger, blowing up Charles’ car.  Charles escapes and makes it back to New York.

Once back in New York, he talks to a government agency in charge of UFOs and stuff.  There he meets Mrs. Benjamin (Louise Fletcher), who tells him that all the stories are just bunk.  Later, he notices a picture in a newspaper that looks a bit like the alien, so he goes to meet the reporter, Betty, who did the piece.  She doesn’t believe there’s anything to Charles’ story (even though she wrote the article).  So Charles is stymied, but at least he’s met an attractive lady, right?

To make a long story short, the aliens come to New York to get Charles’ daughter, and they also unsuccessfully try to eliminate Betty.  The government is trying to keep Charles from doing anything, and actually impedes him from returning to Centerville to rescue his daughter.  But Charles and Betty do something unexpected when they go to a sanitarium to talk to one of the witnesses to the strangeness, something Betty knows about from writing the original article.

The crazy guy—not so crazy, actually—is Willie Collins; in a flashback, he tells of spending the night in Centerville and how his family was taken and killed.  It’s actually a gruesome scene, because his wife and two children are literally dehydrated alive, right in front of his eyes, before turning into balls of light which drift away.  Willie helps Charles and Betty make a plan to get into Centerville in spite of the government and the aliens, and all three return to Centerville for the final showdown.

It turns out that the aliens have been here studying the Earth, and now they’re ready to go home.  That’s why they went to New York and took Charles’ daughter; as a hybrid, she’ll be important to their continuing studies on their homeworld.  And while our heroes’ plan gets Charles into the spaceship, and he even reaches his daughter, he can’t get back out.

Folks, it looks like Charles may be taking a long trip…

But the aliens have a little surprise coming.  Charles’ ex left her daughter behind on purpose, and when the little girl was brought back to her, she taught her what to do:  when Mommy tells her daughter to do what she showed her, the little girl demonstrates that she can also shoot lasers from her fingers, and she and Charles escape.

As the ship prepares for liftoff, it releases blue energy balls, which return to their points of origin and turn back into people.  Even Charles’ dog is returned, and Willie gets his family back.

Impressions

There’s one scene in this movie that really impressed me, and it did so on account of the striking visuals:  the flashback in which Willie’s family is taken.  Other than that, really, this movie did nothing for me.

It felt a bit slow, taking inordinately long to get moving.  Most of the alien invasion films—be they overt attacks, like The War of the Worlds, or subversive infiltrations, like Invaders from Mars—open with the spaceship landing.  We do get that here, but somehow it’s flat.  It’s clear that the people in the town have vanished, but we don’t know what happened.  And then the film shifts forward in time twenty-five years and halfway across the continent.  Any momentum the film might have built up is gone.  Instead, we get to see a fairly boring professor moving through his life in New York: talking to his daughter, calling people on the phone…standard stuff.

The town of Centerville should probably have been unnerving, but I just found Charles’ efforts to find his ex-wife or her family boring and, to be honest, a little silly.  When we finally get the alien attack, it’s so bizarre—an alien who shoots lasers or lighting out of his fingers, and blows up cars—that I really didn’t know what to think.

Most of the film was like that for me, provoking any number of “what’s going on?” questions.  These moments aren’t full-fledged plot holes, but there were a whole lot of things that just seemed bizarre or silly.  Most of these moments weren’t sufficiently bad to be comical.  In no particular order, some of those questions are:  why didn’t Charles’ ex work out a better plan for returning home without her daughter, like, say, telling her people the little girl was dead?  Why did the aliens take Charles’ dog?  Why did the aliens feel the need to attack Charles when he hadn’t found out anything?  Why did the aliens feel the need to attack Betty, the very thing that convinced her that something was going on?  Why did the aliens take Willie’s family, but not Willie?  You get the picture, I think…

There are two bright spots in the film beyond the Willie flashback.  The first is Nancy Allen as reporter Betty Walker.  She brings a certain sexy, almost dirty quality to the screen.  That may be because of the ’80s style clothing combined with the lack of a bra.  Her character is likeable, too, which is a significant change from her role in Carrie where she played a very, very mean girl.  The other bright spot is also a woman, Fiona Lewis, who plays a waitress in Centerville.  When she comes to New York with the other aliens-disguised-as-townsfolk, she dresses up in full ’80s style clothing complete with kick-ass shoulder pads.  She infiltrates Betty’s apartment by claiming to be an Avon Lady, kills Wallace Shawn (the supervisor), and goes after Betty only to be shot and killed in an elevator.  Her demeanor during the city phase is absolutely amazing…she really projects an aura of menace.

When the aliens return all the townspeople to their original positions and conditions, including Charles’ dog and Willie’s family, I was disgusted.  In terms of the story, the aliens have just handed the United States government (a tacit conspirator in the entire sequence of affairs) a nasty problem in terms of hiding their presence on our planet, something the aliens went out of their way to hide up to that point.  That’s neither nice nor fair; these people haven’t aged a day in twenty-five years, for starters, and are probably going to have a very difficult time adjusting.  So the reason doesn’t seem to be humanitarian, but the aliens didn’t have any compunctions against killing before this (being in a car when it blows up is probably fatal, you know).  It just didn’t make any sense.

In terms of narrative, the aliens’ “benevolence” robbed the entire sequence of events of any consequences whatsoever (well, aside from the twenty-five years that have gone by; Willie’s wife is now a lot younger than he is, but since he’s an escaped mental patient I doubt that particular reunion is going to have a happy ending anyway).  In a wierd way the ending also denies the viewer their investment in the film.

Wrap-up

If this film was an homage to 1950s science fiction movies, updated for the ’80s, the narrative had some problems.  If it was intended to be a comedy, the humor is very subtle and I missed it all.  If the film was intended to be a spoof or a parody…where’s the spoofing?  It feels like a bad but updated version of 1950s SF.  I don’t recommend this film at all; its few good qualities are significantly outweighed by its tedium, plot holes and silly story, and I don’t understand what it’s doing on the Top 50 Films list.

In the 70s, before the accountants took over Hollywood and the merits of a film came to be judged largely by its opening weekend gross, there occurred a vivid flowering of cinematic creativity.  Scorsese, Coppola, Peckinpah and more rode the monster surf of the American New Wave but none were more audacious than Robert Altman.

After honing his craft as a documentarian, short film maker and director of television shows, he burst onto the scene in 1970 with the vibrantly shambolic MASH. The green light glowed above subsequent projects and there followed such critically-acclaimed, though less successful, films as McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971), The Long Goodbye (1973), Thieves Like Us (1974) and California Split (1974).

By mid-way through the decade, Altman had cemented a reputation both as a visionary film stylist and a perfectionist who would not be cowed by studios or producing partners. Yet scripts continued to flow his way. In 1975, he was approached to direct a film about the country music industry, intended as the debut vehicle of Welsh singer, Tom Jones. Altman, in his characteristic go-to-hell manner, kept the city and dumped the script and star.

The result was Nashville, undoubtedly Altman’s masterpiece, a bold and enterprising delight that just gets better with each viewing. Richly detailed, the foundation was a screenplay by fledgling writer Joan Tewkesbury, responsible for Thieves Like Us. Altman had sent Tewkesbury off to Nashville to scout out suitable storylines. In collaboration with Altman, the resulting script juggled 24 main characters, weaving the entertainment industry and a growing preoccupation with celebrity into the souring of a nation’s spirit by Vietnam and Watergate.

Altman traditionally drew upon a group of regular players for his films and many were earmarked for Nashville. Some early casting selections, however, didn’t play out. Louise Fletcher was the original choice to play Linnea Reese, conservative housewife and mother of two deaf children; Fletcher’s parents were deaf and she had grown up using sign language, experience that Altman incorporated into the final script.

When Fletcher dropped out to play Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (for which she won an Academy Award), she was replaced by Lily Tomlin. Haven Hamilton, vanguard of Nashville’s country music royalty, was earmarked for Robert Duvall; Henry Gibson, like Lily Tomlin, better known as a comedian on Rowan & Martin’s Laugh In, took the role and made it his own, down to a hairpiece that seems fashioned from a slumbering Ewok.

Gary Busey was an early casting choice for Tom, the priapic and emotionally distant folk singer which was eventually played by Keith Carradine. Bernadette Peters and Bette Midler both turned down the role of blowsy country music wannabe Albuquerque.

Altman allowed his actors to comprehensively inhabit their characters without censure. Considering a script more of a blueprint than gospel, he requested they improvise their own dialogue as well as write their own songs. His trust was usually well placed.

Jan Stuart, author of The Nashville Chronicles: The Making of Robert Altman’s Masterpiece (Simon & Schuster, 2000), told of an actor asking Altman whether he’d be in a close-up or a two-shot. “What makes you think you’re on camera at all? Altman replied. “When I say “Action”, just live your life. I’ll either see you or I won’t.”

Henry Gibson takes the Ewok for a walk

Some, like Gibson, stayed in character for the entire two month shoot. And a lot of the most memorable moments came not from Altman regulars but newcomers such as neophyte Ronee Blakely, portraying fragile country singer Barbara Jean, based on Loretta Lynn. Blakely wrote four of her own songs as well as the complex rambling monologue for her tragic on-stage emotional breakdown.

The women have the best roles in this film, facilitated by Tewkesbury’s script and Altman’s relish of female points of view. The result is a range of fascinating moral ambiguities; we may not agree with the choices made by many of the characters but we are constantly enthralled and care about them all the same.

Nashville plays towards a final major set piece organised around a political rally. We never see the candidate but, just as it seems the plot will culminate in a political assassination, it all gets turned on its head and one of the performers becomes the target of the opportunistic killer. In this, Altman was far ahead of his time in predicting celebrity assassinations; the quiet, owlish loner who wields the gun bears a disquietening resemblance to Mark David Chapman who, five years after Nashville’s release, would gun down John Lennon.

Another of Altman’s daring experiments was in the area of sound recording, creatively blending several conversations at once to propel plot and character development. Altman used technician Jim Webb, who had learned his craft on music documentaries such as Mad Dogs and Englishmen (1971) and later worked with Altman on Thieves Like Us.

Webb hooked radio microphones to each of the major players in a scene and recorded their dialogue onto individual sound tracks via an eight-track system. Altman could then mix the sound to his exacting standards during the editing process. The disappointment was that, given this revolutionary process, Nashville didn’t get an Oscar nomination in the sound category.

At the end of the two-month shoot, Altman had more than 200,000 feet of film, coming in at about 16 hours of footage. When it seemed that one movie wouldn’t be big enough for his vision, he briefly toyed the idea with creating two films, Nashville Red and Nashville Blue. This didn’t get beyond the planning stage, nor did a television mini-series utilising the extra footage. Decades later, a sequel to Nashville, reprising many of the major characters, was also stillborn.

As it was, the final cut of Nashville ran 2 hours and 40 minutes. Although the critics once again loved it (Pauline Kael of The New Yorker previewed a rough cut in a lengthy review that ran three months before the premiere, calling it “a radical, evolutionary leap” and “the ultimate Altman movie”), it made just $US7 million at the American box office (on a $US2.2 million budget). It wasn’t babka but it also wasn’t the return to financial form that had been predicted.

Altman would spend the next 15 years wandering the cinematic wastelands with ever-decreasing budgets and success until the career-replenishing double-whammy of The Player and Short Cuts in the early 90s.

Nashville, however, remains his great classic, a movie that repays every favour it asks of an audience and is as fresh and inventive as it appeared 35 years ago.

Words © David Latta

Dop: Haskell Wexler (replaced by)  Bill Butler

Year: 1975

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Summary:
Richard Clark has just left the well-known Wellington Academy to teach at Marion Barry High School. Now, he will try to inspire the D-average students into making good grades and try to woo a fellow teacher.

Favorite Scene:
The chicken run scene

Favorite Quote:
“As far vasectomies go, never use the home kit” 

After Thoughts:
Sadly this was almost exactly like the naked gun movies, except with more racial stereotypes. Most of all the jokes were either very dry, an overplayed stereotype, or  just too dumb to count for anything

 Checklist:
(No) Black Guy Dies First
(Sorta) Boobies
(No) Cheesy Fight Sounds
(No) Decapitation
(Sorta) Dumb Blonde
(Yes) Male Nudity
Stereotypes: Multiple regarding inner cities and bad high schools
(No) Urination
(No) Vomiting

Forman’s movie is a beautifully balanced mix of drama, comedy and character study set within the confines of a mental institution. Based on Ken Kesey’s novel, it tells the tale of Nicholson’s R.P. McMurphy, a repeat offender who sees an easy way to serve his time behind bars by conning people into thinking he’s gone crazy, thus serving his sentence in a cushy mental hospital instead of a brutal work farm. Once committed, his wit and streetsmarts turn him into the de facto leader of the small group also on the ward, which includes stuttering nervous wreck Billy Babbitt (Brad Dourif) and Will Sampson’s gigantic Native American mute Chief Bromden. All under the watchful eyes of Louise Fletcher’s Nurse Ratched, the group are intimidated and fractured; McMurphy soon allies himself with his fellow patients, and begins not-so-subtly undermining Ratched’s rule…

Now, you probably know all that. Yet Cuckoo’s Nest remains one of those classic films that surprisingly few people have seen; satirised by everything from Spaced to The Simpsons, the storyline has entered common consciousness. The film itself, however, is just as worthy of becoming standard, if not mandatory.

Nicholson, naturally, is the focal point, a bundle of energy, rakishness and wilful rebelliousness which almost nothing – not Ratched, not the other inmates, barely even Forman’s camera – can contain. The longer the film goes on, the more we side with McMurphy, largely due to the irrepressible charisma and verve that Nicholson brings to the role; the man known in Hollywood as simply ‘Jack’ may have never turned in a finer performance.

In an early scene we hear McMurphy’s rapsheet being read out, a list of crimes including multiple counts of assault and one of statutory rape, and it’s clear that in the ‘real world’ he is not a nice guy, to say the least. Yet within the frame of the hospital walls he bounces off of, McMurphy is a leader of men on an almost impossible level, leading the patients in uprisings tiny and huge. It’s hard to imagine another actor giving McMurphy the necessary mix of fervour, desperation and charm that Nicholson does; instead of being a broadly-painted paradigm of esprit de corps, R.P. is a deftly portrayed, deeply furious man who thinks he’s a step ahead but is in fact tragically behind. Nicholson, through his endless energy and masterfully crafted relationships – especially with Babbitt and Chief – makes Randle Patrick McMurphy a troubled icon and an unforgettable screen presence.

But even a star as massive as Jack Nicholson can’t make a classic on his own. Fletcher’s Ratched is colder and stiller than a mountain lake, only allowing emotion to flash across her face for a moment. Whether she’s prodding the patients’ deepest wounds or stumbling across McMurphy’s frequent chaos, Ratched barely reacts, her iciness more chilling than any burst of rage could be. Fletcher’s performance is a testament to underplaying a role without underacting it; each movement, each clearly clipped mention of “routine” or “medication” is carefully performed, and she’s a terrifyingly calm villainess as a result.

Although Dourif is hugely impressive as the unstable Billy, it’s Sampson’s gigantic Chief who stands out, literally and otherwise, from the hugely impressive supporting cast (which also includes superb work from young actors named Christopher Lloyd and Danny DeVito). The mute Chief comes to the fore in the final act, his silence and immobility replaced by passion and grace, and even Sampson’s extraordinary physique can’t cast a shadow long enough to overwhelm his performance. The closing sequence is amongst the most heartrending in cinema, and it’s largely down to Sampson’s emotive features and mine-shaft-deep voice. That final scene, now ensconced in the cinematic canon, is a product of 2 hours’ character development: when you spend most of that time without moving or speaking, it’s hugely impressive to create the kind of connection Sampson does with the viewer.

And if containing Nicholson’s charisma and Sampson’s stature wasn’t hard enough for Miloš Forman, he also must make a film set largely within one large ward room – and almost entirely indoors – exciting. His camera focuses on faces, not locations, to his eternal credit the Czech director realised that the power of this story was in its characters above all else, and although it is sometimes kinetic – capturing the bacchanalian excesses of McMurphy’s party, the struggle of reeling in a catch on the fishing trip – it’s always trained on the brilliant actors before it. The first and last shot, both of the countryside around the hospital, are patient and wonderfully composed: each doused in indigo predawn half-light, they keep their subjects central, and the vivid, deep colour palette Forman uses starkly clashes with the ascetic whites of the ward.

It’s difficult to think what more you could realistically ask for from a film than what One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest gives you. Joy, despair, personality, flair, skill, humour, terror, pain, redemption – all these feelings and more are squeezed into just 133 minutes of cinema. Flaws in Forman’s film are hard to find, and searching for them would be an act of true madness.

Verdict: A film not just containing six or seven magnificent performances, a taut and tight script, a master director at his best and arguably the best actor of a generation, but a memorable, affecting story and a heartbreaking, yet triumphant, finale. Cinema as it should be.

With lovable characters, a compelling story, and a perfect blend of comedy and intensity, those who haven’t seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest are missing out on a wonderful film that is the source of many an allusion (including a great Futurama episode where Bender is McMurphy and Roberto is Chief).

The script produces a wealth of characters who all bring something unique and valuable to the table.   McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) teaches the individuals in his ward of the mental hospital that they may not be quite so crazy as society thinks, while taking them on adventures they’d only dreamed of having.  Each chapter of the story reveals a little more about McMurphy and with each of his actions, his new friends become increasingly bold and rebellious.

The acting is superb; All the actors play their characters perfectly.  Each character is believable and viewers will be able to connect with them, regardless of their conditions.

The special effects aren’t anything new or fantastic.  There is some blood, they’re on a boat, etc. but nothing in particular.  But none of them were poorly done, or ruined immersion, so it’s a non-issue, really.  If special effects alone determined a movie’s quality, then Avatar would be the best movie ever.  (It’s not.)

The soundtrack is appropriate, but not great; Average would be the right word for it.

The directing and cinematography produce a diversity of camera angles, stylistic choices, and silences at the appropriate moments for the appropriate periods of time.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest could be watched many times, and a new piece of detail gleaned from it each time.  Viewers will find themselves invested in the fate of characters immediately and their eyes glued to the screen to find out what happens to them.

Director -Michael Laughlin

Cast – Dan Shor, Michael Murphy, Louise Fletcher, Fiona Lewis, Arthur Dignam, Dey Young, Marc McClure, Scott Brady, Charles Lane

Release Year – 1981

Reviewed by John of the Dead

I had somewhat high hopes for Strange Behavior, mainly because it is a slasher film from the year 1981, the year of Friday the 13th Part 2, The Prowler, and My Bloody Valentine, three of the greatest and most notable slasher films ever made, and I must say that my hope for Strange Behavior achieving “rare gem” status was not achieved. Strange Behavior gives us an interesting story and some decent kills, but in the end failures on execution kept this from being anything but moderately enjoyable for me.

When a strange doctor offers to pay young high school students to take part in a medical study, they think nothing of the study and only of the “easy money”, and accept the offer. Little do they know, the charismatic doctor injects them with a seemingly harmless drug that will soon turn them into heinous killers who act on his command, shaking up the small town and allowing the town’s police chief one last vengeful shot against the doctor who escaped the grasp of the law many years prior.

Horror films involving evil people using naïve individuals as pawns to carry out their heinous acts are not new to the genre, but in my experience they are seldom, if ever, used in the slasher sub-genre, so I appreciate this Australian/New Zealand/US flick giving us slasher fans something that we rarely see. The majority of the film plays off of the medical experiments, following Pete Brady(son of the police chief), who signed up for the drug trials and soon realizes that he has found himself way over his head. We are given a few kills, although not many for a “slasher” flick, and as far as the nature of the kills I only found maybe half of them worthwhile, with the others just generic and nothing special. During the latter half of the film we come across more from Pete’s dad, Chief John Brady, and the reasoning behind his vengeful hatred of the doctor, as well as a twist that I did not see coming but at the same time did not find very shocking. As far as the overall storyline goes it’s an OK one, which with good direction could have possibly come out a positive watch, but that was not the case.

Director/co-writer Michael Laughlin did an OK job with this film, which compounded with the film’s OK storyline really does not add up to anything more than a mediocre experience. I will admit, Strange Behavior had some good horror at times, and I applaud Laughlin for that, but it really could have been much better, and in fact, it SHOULD have given the flicks’ unique storyline for the slasher sub-genre. The budget is of a low amount, and it shows with Laughlin’s sometime’s laughable execution of the kill sequences, as well as most of the acting performances involved. Personally, I did not have a huge problem with the kills being as cheap as they were, but had the execution of the kills been better than the film could have had a higher rating. I have seen other flicks with the same low budget do more with the horror, and that is why I am not so forgiving.

Overall, Strange Behavior gives us a cool premise for a slasher film but sadly fails to capitalize on the good elements provided. We get some positive horror here and there, but it comes and goes so quickly that the vast majority of the film was nothing special, resulting in just a mediocre watch at best.

Rating: 5/10

In una Los Angeles futuribile, un coinvolgente scontro tra il Bene e il Male.

Non è piaciuto alla critica (per il Morandini “…un film artificioso e sensazionalistico, condotto al ritmo convulso e meccanico di un videogame”), il pubblico ne ha decretato l’insuccesso al botteghino eppure l’opera di Brett Leonard (specialista di film sulla realtà virtuale, suo è Il Tagliaerbe del 1992, uno dei primi lavori cinematografici a trattare questo tema) possiede non pochi meriti che lo rendono degno di una visione che lo riqualifichi.

La grafica computerizzata è di ottimo livello, il ritmo è veloce e scattante, la fotografia e l’ambientazione da plauso, la trama tutt’altro che banale (offre più di uno spunto di riflessione). Naturalmente c’è molta violenza, il che può dare fastidio… ma un thriller fantascientifico di questo tipo può farne a meno? Si aggiunga la notevole performance di Denzel Washington (sempre a suo agio qualsiasi ruolo interpreti) e Russell Crowe (non ancora celebrato come protagonista de Il Gladiatore e A beautiful mind, ma semplicemente perfetto): ambedue carismatici e credibilissimi (da ricordare che s’incontreranno nuovamente sul set per American gangster, 1999).

p.s.

Più suggestivo, anche se meno commerciale, il titolo originale del film

scheda

premi e riconoscimenti

sito ufficiale

Sigourney Weaver can't believe the box office numbers for this film.

(1999) Drama (Firstlook) Sigourney Weaver, David Strathairn, Julianne Moore, Chloe Sevigny, Arliss Howard, Louise Fletcher, Aunjanue Ellis, Sara Rue, Nicole Ari Parker, Ron Lea, Dara Perlmutter, Marc Donato. Directed by Scott Elliott.

We all live our lives in a kind of haze of normalcy. We take comfort in the little rituals of the everyday, ignoring the fear that it can all be taken away in a moment. Sometimes, day-to-day living is just so chaotic that we don’t even notice that we’re falling from grace until we hit bottom.

That’s essentially what happens to Alice Goodwin (Weaver). She’s a school nurse and her husband Walter (Strathairn) runs a farm in rural Wisconsin. They’re originally from the city and although the locals are friendly enough, most regard them with a certain amount of distrust. The exception are their best friends, Theresa (Moore) and Dan (Lea) Collins, whose children regularly play with the Goodwin children.

Where Alice’s home is a symphony of chaos and mess, Theresa’s home is orderly and well-kept. While Alice struggles to keep on top of things, Theresa always seems to find time to bake muffins and do crafts with her kids. Alice is envious, even to how well-behaved the Collins children are. Emma, the eldest (Perlmutter) Goodwin child, is an absolute harpy, shrill, selfish and mean. Alice gets little or no help from Walter in keeping the house kept and the kids minded, which frustrates her.

On the last day of school, Alice has a run-in with Carole McKessie (Sevigny), the irresponsible single mother of a high-strung boy (Donato) whom she repeatedly sends to school sick. Alice is weary of dealing with sick kids and irresponsible parents and makes wiseass comments to a fellow teacher.

When Theresa asks Alice to baby-sit while Dan and Theresa take a little romantic time for themselves, Alice is only too eager to oblige. After all, she has a pond on her property, farm animals and all sorts of things to keep bored kids busy. Things are going as normal – chaos on the brink of hysteria – when things take a nastier turn, as things often will. The resulting tragedy leaves Alice in a state of shock.

Her shock is about to multiply. A few weeks after the incident, Alice is arrested for sexually abusing the McKessie boy. The Goodwins, already on the edge of financial oblivion, cannot afford her bail so Alice is obliged to remain in jail while awaiting trial on the charges, which are beginning to pile up as other children come forward.

Alice, her world already reeling from shock, finds herself in a prison where she is harassed by Dyshette (Ellis), an inmate with plenty of attitude, a chip on her shoulder and anger management issues. Alice is slowly beginning to break down, sabotaging the efforts of her frustrated lawyer (Howard) to get her off the hook.

Meanwhile, Howard is struggling trying to keep home and hearth together. He is aided by Theresa, but an attraction is developing between them that neither one of them want. The map of the world which they’ve all drawn for themselves has grown vague; whether it can take them home or not is by no means certain.

Alice is a complex and not always lovable role for Weaver, who has made a career of playing strong role models. Her Alice certainly has some strength, but that is balanced by a lot of vulnerabilities. The resulting juxtaposition between the two characteristics makes Alice a compelling character, although not always likable. Her means of dealing with the grief of her situation borders on the self-centered, but certainly that’s understandable; her very core has been threatened and she has gone totally into self-preservation mode.

Strathairn is amazing as always in his role as Walter. He plays a man who is anything but strong, constantly leaning on his wife for everything. When he has to step up to the plate, he doesn’t always manage but he’s in there plugging away. When Theresa compliments him as being “a very good man,” she’s not just whistling Dixie. Anybody thinking of getting married on a lark should see what this man goes through before saying “I do.” Talk about “in good times and in bad.”

This is definitely a film meant for women. The standard of women as nurturers and caregivers for their family is seen here as the state of grace. When a woman falls from grace, she is no longer able to care and nurture her family, hence the fall. That Alice in some ways relishes the fall is what makes the movie real and compelling.   

This is one of those little films that kind of slipped under the radar when it was released. I saw it recommended on Netflix, and was curious, and was glad that I chose to satiate my curiosity. It’s well worth checking out, even if, through no fault of your own, you’re a guy.

WHY RENT THIS: An unflinching look at how things can spin out of control. Straithairn and Weaver are both terrific in their roles, and the cast is generally outstanding.

WHY RENT SOMETHING ELSE: Weaver’s character is often unlikable, so much so that it takes some effort to relate to her.

FAMILY MATTERS: There’s a little bit of sex and a smattering of bad language, particularly in the prison scenes.

TRIVIAL PURSUITS: Weaver was nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Drama for her role.

NOTABLE DVD FEATURES: None listed.

BOX OFFICE PERFORMANCE: $544,965 on an unreported production budget; the movie probably lost money.

FINAL RATING: 6.5/10

TOMORROW: Battle: Los Angeles

The newly released independent film The Genesis Code is advertised as “the Christian movie of the year.” Family Christian Stores promotes it as “one of the most powerful Christian movies of the year.” Focus on the Family has approved it.

Conservatives and evangelical Christians are being urged to support the film and “vote with their dollars” to show moviemakers that it’s good business to make family-friendly films.

Are these promotional snippets accurate? What is the movie about?

Here’s my synopsis of the PG-rated movie:
Kerry is a college student, pastor’s daughter, and committed Christian. She interviews Blake, the college’s hockey star, for a story in the school newspaper. As the relationship develops, Kerry learns that Blake has a crisis — his mother is in a coma, and family members disagree about life support. Blake dismisses Kerry’s prayer suggestions. He “knows” science disproves the Bible, especially Genesis. Suddenly Kerry hits strong challenges to her faith at school. As a result she seeks to show, with help from her physicist brother, that science and Genesis do not conflict. Her brother unveils a “solution” — the Genesis Code — to show that what science teaches and what Genesis records are both true and in agreement.

Familiar stars in the movie include former US Senator Fred Thompson from Tennessee playing a judge, Oscar winners Ernest Borgnine (92 years old) and Louise Fletcher playing Blake’s grandparents, and Catherine Hicks (Annie Camden on Seventh Heaven) playing Kerry’s academic advisor.

Jerry Zandstra plays Kerry’s pastor-father. He’s a real-life pastor and economics professor at Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, MI. He was also the executive in charge of production for the movie and is vice-president of American Epic Entertainment.

Industry professionals and Christian conservatives joined to form American Epic Entertainment to provide family-friendly alternatives to Hollywood movies. It’s the feature-film sister company of American Saga Productions. ASP shot “Station House” in 2008, a fire station reality-TV pilot.

The company spent $5 million making The Genesis Code, their first release. It’s 2’15″ long.

Filming occurred for five weeks during July and August of 2009 in Grand Rapids, MI on the campus of Calvin College, at the Patterson Ice Center where the hockey scenes are filmed, the Grand Rapids Public Museum, and in the Michigan cities of Walker, Lowell, and Wyoming.

The movie was released to limited showings in Michigan in August 2010 and Indiana in October 2010. The nationwide release began February 18, 2011.

Here’s the movie trailer:

There are many good aspects to the movie:
- Repeated references to God’s transcendent wisdom.
- Multiple references to and affirmation of “absolute Biblical truth.”
- Frequent Scripture quotations, including Psalm 90 and repeated readings of Genesis.
- Meaningful prayers.
- Effective portrayal of muscular and compassionate and articulate Christianity.
- Warm family relationships and healthy, supportive friendships.
- Articulate science prof explains that what makes sense to his scientific mind is belief in the Judeo-Christian God.

Content issues:
- Two instances of taking the Lord’s name in vain.
- Bar scene with a beer chugging incident and a show-off biting into, chewing up, and spitting out a beer glass. It’s auxiliary to the movie, primarily for humor, and to paint the scene. The main characters are present but not involved.
- Male pastor discusses barbaric tribal rite with female professor. Although his point hits home, the subject is inappropriate for a family movie.

For those who require romance in their movies, Blake and Kerry provide it. Kerry is chaste and when pressed by Blake says she won’t give away something she’s saving for marriage. Clothing is modest; there are no titillating scenes. There is one short kissing scene near the end of the movie.

In my opinion the romance has two negatives. Kerry as a Christian should not pursue a romantic relationship with non-Christian Blake. Secondly, most of the initiative in the relationship comes from Kerry instead of Blake.

There are three major issues that generate conflict and interest throughout the movie.
- Discrimination against Christians in academia
- Sanctity of life
- Science vs. Genesis

It’s commendable that the movie treats these current issues in an entertaining and engaging manner. All are worthy of exploration. Movie treatments, like Jesus’ stories (parables), can often communicate more effectively than abstruse essays.

Kerry faces the all-too-common viewpoint discrimination against Christian beliefs in the classroom and especially from her academic advisor who tries to coerce compromise.

She engages her professor cogently in the classroom over his description of the “sudden Cambrian explosion of life with no apparent antecedent.” She underscores his reference to “order emerging from chaos” and points out that order is never observed emerging from chaos. In contrast, order naturally devolves into disorder. “Doesn’t that indicate the necessity of a Watchmaker?” she asks.

Kerry could have been more effective in answering her advisor’s contention that absolute truth does not exist. Instead she seems disconcerted by the professor’s strong insistence that she must abandon her Biblical beliefs to be successful. However, her pastor-father shows the professor that the professor herself lives by moral absolutes despite her claim that there are no absolutes or certain truths in the moral and philosophical arena.

Blake’s mother is in a coma with cancer, and the family struggles with conflicting views on whether to terminate life support. Blake comes to recognize prayer is a primary resource.

The movie is advertised as treating “Science vs. Faith“. It asks the question, “What if both are right?”

Of course true science (the word literally means “knowledge”) and true Biblical faith are both right and in harmony with each other. The Almighty who created the universe recorded His activity accurately in Genesis. But today, “Science” usually means “Scientism”, the belief that truth is determined scientifically and that the scientific community is the arbiter of truth. Science in this sense and Biblical faith cannot both be right.

Before viewing the movie, I was concerned about its harmonization of Genesis with science. Would it turn out to be, like most harmonizations, some version of theistic evolution?

The movie’s harmonization, called the Genesis Code, is not a secret code, but rather a framework for understanding the passage of time. It’s presentation is entertaining, but most people won’t fully understand without some knowledge of Einstein’s relativity theory.

The movie uses the physics of time dilation to argue for a billion-year age for the universe. It explains that time measurement depends on acceleration and mass. For example, an increase in mass or acceleration slows time. Therefore different frames of reference will measure time differently. The movie suggests that the six days of creation in Genesis are from God’s “cosmic” reference point, while the same thing viewed from earth would take 15.75 billion years.

The characters say repeatedly, “Genesis says created in 6 days.” But their Genesis Code harmonization is to interpret “day” as a time-dilated POT (passage of time) lasting from billions to hundreds of thousands of years. They believe in Six POTs of Creation which ends up being a version of theistic evolution, often termed progressive creation.

During the harmonization portion of the movie, the group marvels that God was able to inspire Scripture in such a way that “mankind had to evolve to its current level in order to understand the story as it was originally written.”

I disagree with the movie’s message in this area. Time dilation and the stretching of the fabric of space (Isaiah 40:22; 45:12 and 7 other verses) help explain how we see light from stars billions of light-years away even though the universe is only 6,000 years old. But it’s not a satisfactory explanation for age.

God inspired men to write the Bible to communicate His truth to mankind. He would have to use man’s frame of reference to communicate with man. Genesis is written from the reference point of earth, not from a cosmic reference point somewhere in the heavens that may have a different time scale.

During the harmonization the pastor says, “Genesis is not an easy book to understand.” I disagree. Genesis is straightforward history and is one of the easiest in the Bible to understand.

As I feared, the movie’s “reconciliation” of science and the Bible is all one-way, at the expense of literal Bible interpretation. The Genesis Code does not support creation in six literal days about 6,000 years ago. The movie accepts as indisputable fact scientists’ speculations that the universe is 15 billion years old and strives to find a way to interpret Genesis to fit this.

Near the beginning of the movie Blake says that if you can’t believe the beginning of the Bible, why believe the rest of it. This is a crucial point. If we can’t believe God’s plain words in Genesis, how can we believe other events science disputes like Noah’s Flood, Jonah’s Rescue, Virgin Birth, Resurrection?

So what do I think of the movie? Do I recommend it or not?

I give it a qualified thumbs up. While disagreeing with a major component, I still found it interesting and enjoyable. In case you’re wondering, I did not fall asleep like I do with some non-Indiana-Jones, Jane-Austen-type movies.

The movie doesn’t consider that scientism’s view of the past may be fallible. Some people will leave the movie thinking that if science and the Bible disagree about the age of the universe, then it’s the literal interpretation of the Bible that must be modified. But the plain meaning of the Genesis text is that God created everything in six normal earth days about 6,000 years ago.

I think we should stick with the plain meaning of what Yahweh said. Soli Deo Gloria.

Supplemental Material (rebutting the movie’s thesis):
Here is a series of six cogently-argued articles defending an age for the universe of about 6,000 years and countering the thesis of the movie that the universe is 15.75 billion years old:
Age of the Earth 1 — Essentials
Age of the earth estimates are usually based on interpretations of physical evidence, not on direct observation. Interpretations are driven by worldviews. Dependable answers to age questions require eyewitness testimony. The only record of eyewitness testimony for the creation of the earth is Genesis which specifies heaven and earth were created about 6,000 years ago. A 6,000-year-old earth blows Evolutionism out of the water. This is the real reason for the relentless attacks on the Genesis genealogies.
Age of the Earth 2 — Jesus’ View
How would Jesus answer the question, “How old is the earth?” Jesus would have interpreted the genealogical and chronological texts literally and historically, just as He did with other Scriptures, and just as His contemporaries and His apostles did. Therefore Jesus would have answered the question with “Have you not read Moses and the Prophets? It’s about 4,000 years old.” Jesus believed in an age of only thousands of years for the earth — not millions or billions. It is incumbent upon those who follow Jesus as Lord to accept His view as their view and to reject fanciful interpretations which violate the literal sense of Scripture.
Age of the Earth 3 — Genealogies
Scripture is filled with chronological information. Chronology anchors Scripture solidly in real-world history and underscores its authenticity. The Genesis chronogenealogies record an unbroken line of descent from Adam to Abraham and provide a solid foundation for constructing a reliable chronology. Grammar and context support this, and numerous other Scriptures confirm it. The Genesis chronogenealogies show that Adam to Abraham covered 2,000 years.
Age of the Earth 4 — History’s View
Throughout history the great preponderance of scholarship regarding the Biblical records and the unanimous testimony of cultures worldwide is that the earth is only thousands of years old. This was also the historic teaching of the church until the ascendancy of the theory of evolution in the 19th century. The push in the last two centuries to increase the age of the earth was motivated, not by evidence, but by evolution’s requirement for long eons of time. What have scholars through the ages taught about the age of the earth?
Age of the Earth 5 — Radiometric Dating
Is it conceivable that today’s scientists are dead wrong about the age of the earth? What are radiometric dating methods? The reliability of radiometric dates hinges on the validity of three questionable assumptions. If radiometric methods are wrong for rocks of known age, why trust them for rocks of unknown age?
Age of the Earth 6 — Scientific Dating Methods
Is there positive scientific evidence supporting the Biblical timeframe of thousands of years? Hundreds of different processes have been used to estimate the age of the earth. Scientific evidences from many fields dispute evolutionary timescales but cohere with Biblical chronology. The weight of the scientific evidence is that the earth is thousands, not billions, of years old.

Here is an article showing from the Genesis text itself why the Creation Days of Genesis must be understood to be normal earth days and not long eons of time as the movie argues:
Are the Six Days of Creation Regular Days or Long Ages?
The historical record in Genesis supplies compelling reasons proving the Creation Days were regular days. Six Days is the key distinguishing characteristic of the Biblical explanation of origins.

This article explains “What is science?” and “What is its relationship to Biblical truth?“
What Does Jesus Think of Science?
Science is often confused with Scientism (faith in science as the arbiter of truth). Scientists often play bait-and-switch with Science and Scientism, claiming for Scientism the reputation and authority earned by true science. There is no conflict between Jesus and Science. He created nature and the minds that strive to penetrate its mysteries. However, the conflict between Jesus and Scientism is irreconcilable.

This article explains why the The Big Bang! is wrong from both scientific and Biblical perspectives.
The Big Bang!
“Nothing exploded into everything.” That’s the Big Bang theory in a nutshell. Nothing could be more wrong, for from nothing, nothing comes. The prevailing worldview asserts the universe popped into existence with a Big Bang 15 billion years ago. How could this be? What caused the explosion? Where did the matter and energy for it come from? How did the physical laws that governed the explosion originate? This article discusses scientific and Biblical problems with the Big Bang theory.

Click here for an AMC coupon for a $5 ticket to the movie valid till March 10, 2011.

Soli Deo Gloria.

©William T. Pelletier, Ph.D.
“contending earnestly for the faith”
“destroying speculations against the knowledge of God”
(Jude 1:3; 2 Cor 10:4)
Sunday February 20, 2011 A.D.

SUBSCRIBE – Don’t miss future blog posts!
Click the sidebar’s “SUBSCRIBE” button to follow the Bible-Science Guy Blog. You’ll automatically receive new posts by email. Click Subscribe Now!

Read my February 2011 Bible-Science column:
Where Did Cain Get His Valentine?.

It is the Lord who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom, and by His understanding He stretched out the heavens.
(Jeremiah 51:15)

Randle Patrick McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) is a lazy-wise-A criminal.  So in order to avoid a sentence of hard labor and frustration, he claims insanity and hopes to live out the rest of his sentence in the more relaxed environment of a mental institution.  There we are introduced to fellow crazies, Martini (Danny DeVito), Billy Bibbit (Brad Dourif), Max Taber (Christopher Lloyd), Charlie Cheswick (Sydney Lassick), Dale Harding (William Redfield), and Chief (Will Sampson) – the deaf and dumb 7 foot tall Indian.  The coop is run by Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher) and she’s something.  She humiliates, she degrades, she makes McMurphy’s life a living hell.

So guys.  What makes this movie great?  Let’s talk about all of the “before-i-saw-the-actual-movie” bits.  First, it won the big 5 Oscars (directoractoractressscreenplaypicture).  It’s ranked #20 on AFI’s top 100 movies.  Jack Nicholson is IN it and he gets to be in a mental institution.  An iconic classic of the ’70s.  Everyone’s heard of the title even if you haven’t heard of the movie.  So walking into this, my expectations were high.  And, luckily, I actually knew a lot less about the plot than I thought I did.  Except, naturally, that Nurse Ratched is a nazi-woman who is far crazier than her patients. (Seriously… AFI’s Heroes and Villains list really screwed up some things about movies for me… Maybe I should just stop looking at anything about movies until I watch every movie ever made.  Eh, not worth it).

Everyone knows that Jacky boy is bad-A.  He’s as hard core as they come.  (And I just watched The Shining not too long ago…)  Man is he great in this.  He’s loud.  He’s a leader of the pack.  He’s an unrelenting optimist, refusing to succumb to the lows of the nuthouse.  He frustrates Nurse Ratched enough to put a flicker in those calculating eyes.  He embodies that role with more enthus than I thought possible and few are as good at wreaking havoc as he.  What a guy.

What I didn’t expect was how attached I was going to become to every single other nut job.  It’s so easy to connect with their childlike mannerisms and you have hope for their futures.  Martini’s ever present grin, Billy Bibbit’s stutter, Chief’s admiration for McMurphy.  You’re cursing Ratched’s name and you’re  cheering for any small triumph they may have over her (and her name sounds like a cuss).  At first, I couldn’t decide if all the buzz for Fletcher was legit, but her acting performance will always remain a triumph for she’ll forever be remembered as one of the sickest villains in history.  Subtle and malicious.

I feel like the overall greatness is built up of small scenes of genius.  Stealing the van… teaching Chief to play basketball…. McMurphy petitioning for the World Series to be displayed and consequently monologuing an imaginary play-by-play to show his inmates how to stick it to the man and stray from the norm… all brilliant.  They, of course, build upon one another towards an ending but they also stand out as individual moments in which the audience could connect to the action.  The penultimate scene with Billy and Nurse Ratched is particularly moving as heart breaking as it may be.  Each scene is so perfectly constructed, and on emotional overload.

The music is solid, Milos Forman’s  directing is without fault, the script is unforgettable, the cinematography is bleak, morbid, and stunning.  The tone is an interesting mix between humor and misery, with tragic undertones to comedic exchanges; it’s barbaric how mental institutions actually used to be like that – electroshock therapy and lobotomy to boot.  But in the end it’s about character growth.  At first I wasn’t sure what to think of the ending but after thinking (like I usually do for hours after a movie as pivotal as this…) I recognize its poetic and beautiful wonder.  But no matter what – the journey was worth it for these guys.  And worth it for Chief. 9/10

As we know the Best Picture Oscar usually goes to very popular movies, which made a lot of money for their producers. But that doesn’t mean what’s accepted as popular is always mediocre, or even predictable.

This week my list of five favorites is of movies that have won that award. And, even though the Academy has gone to nominating 10 films instead of just five, I’m sticking to tradition.

To some extent, my list goes to show that the Best Picture award has occasionally gone to somewhat offbeat movies that no one would have expected to have been contenders when they were being produced. Yet, upon their release their excellence just bowled over that year’s competition. (Both stills are from “Casablanca.”)

“Casablanca” (1942): Directed by Michael Curtiz; Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Claude Rains

“Midnight Cowboy” (1969): Directed by John Schlesinger, Cast: Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight, Brenda Vaccaro

“One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” (1975): Directed by Milos Forman; Cast: Jack Nicholson, Louise Fletcher, Danny DeVito

“On the Waterfront” (1954): Directed by Elia Kazan; Cast: Marlon Brando, Lee J. Cobb, Eva Marie Saint

“Unforgiven” (1992): Directed by Clint Eastwood; Cast: Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman

Maybe soon I’ll put together a list of favorites that didn’t win, but I think they ought to have.

One Flew over the cuckoo’s Nest (1975) – Director: Milos Forman  Screenplay: Laurence Hauban and Bo Goldman
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Louise Fletcher, Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd, Brad Douriff  OSCAR COUNT (5) – Best Picture, Best Director, Best Leading Actor – Nicholson,  Best Leading Actress – Fletcher, Best Adapted Screenplay – One of only three films in history to win all big five prizes at the Academy Awards.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, today, seems like the last gasp of the  Baby Boomers trying to change society. Maybe that is why it still so beloved. Many of those “changes” that were advocated in the sixties never got anywhere, but those who promoted them use the same sort of language McMurphy does: “Well, I tried, dammit. I tried.”

That statement, more than any other in the film, resonates the most with me. McMurphy is a character who is constantly winning – at cards, at schemes, at anything he sets his mind to. The one thing he was unable to do, by himself, was escape from the situation he had created. But he was not going down without a fight. He was going to try, even if he could not succeed.

Maybe that is why the film continues to be a sort of source of inspiration. At a glance, a film about patients in a mental hospital, some of whom will stay that forever, is not one that will give confidence to people. But those mental patients, each of whom have been abused by the system, finds some brief comfort in rebellion. There were many negative portrayals of the counterculture movement of the sixties. Most of them raise many good points. However, there was still the sense of believing in something. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest managed to capture it.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest does many things right. Yet the best thing the film did was casting Jack Nicholson as McMurphy. Some actors are just born to play certain roles. Nicholson was born to play this character, as he demonstrated in films like Five Easy Pieces. Some of the dialogue was improvised, but it is hard to say what, exactly. Nicholson gives each line and each movement the same deliberate energy. He ceases to become Jack Nicholson and becomes McMurphy while the film is playing. It is one of the great characters and great performances in American film.

Every great character needs a foil, and Nurse Ratched provides that in spades. While McMurphy is a free spirited, Ratched seems to be Nixon in a nurse’s garb. She is not evil or even particularly malicious. She is merely as obsessed with order as McMurphy is with spontaneity. As such, the two cannot co-exist together. Their battle of wits never really lets up – they are both equally committed. That makes the film almost an exploration of human nature. In any debate, I have rarely known anyone to give up deep seated beliefs. That same stubbornness is the cornerstone of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

The rest is basically filler for this parable of rigid order versus freedom. But it is incredibly well done. The supporting characters are well defined (even the Chief, who narrated the novel and has a lot of exposition cut out, still comes off as strong). They transcend their supporting roles – in fact, at some points they even manage to draw attention away from McMurphy. It is easy to see why McMurphy comes to care about them. They come across as actual people with histories and desires, rather than characters as a part of a whole. That is what helps the film enormously. It is so well acted that you can find something new in each performance every time you see it.

My favorite scene in the film is the one above, the one in which the patients rebel against the nurse. They all try to become McMurphy, and, in some cases, they succeed. In some ways, nothing is accomplished. Ratched does not budge. The people who participate in it are punished. Even McMurphy tires of it, smashing his hand through the glass. But I always get the sense that the patients did not really care. They are just wishing to participate in some sort of rebellion. And, at least one part of it was accomplished; a window broke. But like the rest of the film, so much of it depends on what the actors and the way that the camera focuses on their reactions. That is what turns a good film into a great film. The way the camera is positioned in a way that the audience feels a part of the crowd. They share the isolation of the patients. That makes the scene that much better.

DID YOU KNOW? Even though the movie is highly lauded, one notable person who disliked it was Ken Kesey, author of the original novel. He claimed that he had never seen the completed film and even sued the film’s producers.

*Taken from Reason.

They touch our lives in so many ways, and now Reason.tv acknowledges those who tell us that if it looks good, tastes good, or feels good, it should be illegal.

Live (to tape) from the fourth floor of the Sepulveda Center in Los Angeles, California—it’s the 2010 Nanny of the Year Awards!

Over the past year, Reason.tv has recognized plenty of busybodies who relish minding other people’s business, but who deserves to succeed 2009′s winner (Meddlin’ Mike Bloomberg), and take home the 2010 Nanny?

Will it be the heartland mayor who sacked the Lingerie Football League? The Peach State pol who sued a man for growing vegetables in his own yard? A member of the food police?

Remember, it’s a dishonor just to be nominated. So get your awards season started off right, and tune in to the only black-tie ceremony that delivers busybodies, bikini babes, and bacon!

It’s not that I want to watch purple Barney or G-rated kiddie movies. But something in the middle would be just great.

This led me to consider – why do I find this film so hard to watch? I don’t have the same gut-wrenching response to the violence of “The Godfather” or the bloody battle scenes of “Patton.”

I think my reaction is the result of an internal “justice meter.”

Cruel injustice and wasteful loss of life or resources hit all my hot buttons. I despise them in any form, even a film depiction. In an oddly twisted sort of way, the violence of Mafia hits or wartime battles still have justice at their core. The bloody results aren’t pretty, but they serve a purpose perceived as deserved or just.

It’s injustice, undeserved cruelty and pointless loss that I can’t stand.

My reaction probably also stems from how closely I can (or can’t) relate to the subject matter. I haven’t been in front-line combat or seen shootings in real life. If I had, I’d undoubtedly have stronger negative reactions to those issues portrayed on film, too. But I have been bullied. I have been subjected to abusive authority figures. These topics are far too real for me to “enjoy” them as entertainment. And I have been in a hospital, feeling vulnerable in the care of others who held my life in their hands.  The thought that someone could abuse that level of trust is unconscionable to me.

As for other film choices for the year, by far the biggest box office draw was “Jaws.” Hmmm, I like the beach, so nix that one too.  Next was “Dog Day Afternoon,” a rough tale of transsexual relationships and a bank heist gone wrong which one writer describes as “captur(ing) perfectly the zeitgeist of the early 1970’s, a time when optimism was scraping rock bottom.” Wonderful.

Perhaps we should just put 1975 behind us!

And a Whole Lot of Popcorn: This film brought lots of stories to mind – I could go on and on with this one! In fact, I’ve already told some relevant personal stories in earlier “Whole Lot of Popcorn” entries, covering similar topics such as:

• Unjust use of authority, on July 5th (“Mutiny on the Bounty,” 1935)
• Cruel and unjust behaviors, on July 21st (“Rebecca,” 1940)
• Bulllying by authority figures, on August 26th (“From Here to Eternity,” 1953)

But since this film most pointedly shows an untrustworthy medical professional, I’ll share an experience I had with a doctor who was so caught up in his own interests that he lost focus on what was best for me, the patient.

It involved an injury to my right wrist. I had stressed the tendon in the wrist by gripping heavy Redwell legal files. My wrist hurt badly. I was referred to a specialist – an orthopaedic surgeon. After a brief trial treatment with an anti-inflammatory, he quickly concluded that the tendon was torn, and said I would need surgery to repair it. There would be at least an eight week healing time after surgery. Since I am right-handed, I’d be off work and out of commission for two months

The odd thing was, part of the pre-op appointment included reviewing the MRI results – but no tear was identified on the MRI images or in the radiologist’s report.  The surgeon became flustered trying to pull up the images on his notebook computer, and said you couldn’t exactly see it, but since the surgery was scheduled already we should just proceed. He said, “I don’t put much stock in radiologist’s reports.”

That was the moment I began edging toward the door. I just didn’t feel right about it. I saw my general M.D. He agreed with my concerns, and recommended time and rest, rather than surgery.

Four people from the surgeon’s office called me over the following week, trying to convince me to stay on the surgery schedule. I declined.

Over the next several months, my wrist improved. It healed without surgery through conservative treatment.

The white coat doesn’t always know best.

During this situation, I talked to an attorney I work with. He said something profound: always trust that little voice inside your gut.

He was right. At the end of the day, that’s all you got. You trust yourself more than anyone else, because you have to live with the consequences. And no one can be more right about what’s right for you, than you. Period.

Next up: “Rocky” – 1976