My new post on Politics Daily / Woman Up:

Watching “It’s a Wonderful Life” has been a Christmas tradition since the 1970s. Hard to believe that today’s beloved classic was a flop when it premiered in 1946.

It was even reported to the FBI as Communist propaganda. Ironic, since director Frank Capra said he made the movie to “combat a modern trend toward atheism.”

But it’s another Frank Capra film starring Jimmy Stewart that comes to mind now, with all the talk of health care reform and potential filibusters, followed by the Senate vote on Christmas Eve.

The HR 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as it’s known in the Senate, contains 2074 pages and clocks in at a shade over 20 pounds.

The bill is posted online, but when a document the size of a bread box gets introduced and passed in a matter of weeks, one has to wonder how many Senators actually read the bill.

In one memorable scene of Capra’s “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” junior senator (and unwitting pawn in a graft scheme) Jefferson Smith suggests that maybe he should read the bills before voting on them.

“The bills?” says an incredulous Senator Paine, played by Claude Rains. “These bills are put together by legal minds after long study. I can’t understand half of them myself, and I used to be a lawyer.”

Forget it, he tells Smith. “When the time comes, I’ll advise you how to vote.”…

Read the rest on AOL. Health Care Reform and That Socialist Frank Capra: Mr. Smith Won’t Shut Up.

Last night I watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) for the first time. Upon finishing it, I couldn’t believe that I hadn’t seen it sooner. The movie is seventy years old and just as relevant today.

I loved so much about this movie. I was sold fairly early on, when, upon arriving in Washington, Mr. Smith goes around the city, visiting the National Archives and monuments. When he announced he planned to take a trip out to Mount Vernon before starting his first day in the Senate, I was in love.

Congress could use a few Jefferson Smiths, I think: people who have principles and truly believe in them, who will stick to them no matter what, who remember the Declaration, Constitution, and the great men in our history. (Also, Hollywood could use a few Jimmy Stewarts.)

And so I leave you with one of my favorite quotes of the movie.

“Just get up off the ground, that’s all I ask. Get up there with that lady that’s up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something. And you won’t just see scenery; you’ll see the whole parade of what Man’s carved out for himself, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so’s he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed. That’s what you’d see. There’s no place out there for graft, or greed, or lies, or compromise with human liberties. . . . And it’s not too late, because this country is bigger than the Taylors, or you, or me, or anything else. Great principles don’t get lost once they come to light. They’re right here; you just have to see them again!”

“Awww, shucks! It’s a Briefcase, Jim!”

Daaang, I’m watching Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I’m very much enjoying it. Everyone speaks fast,  I feel like I’m watching a movie in a different language… it’s definitely English, though

I think I’m having issues with drugs, I took some old penicilin for my throat. I have tunnel vision. HELLOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

My parents went to a visitation for a deceased friend (may she rest in peace) so, I did not get my film developed. Tomorrow, alas. I am now five days away from winter break !!!

I have an honest question, how can I make this blog more interesting? I feel like my day is kind of a stupid thing to just post day to day. How about like… favorite fruit friday or something? Tell meeeee.

I didn’t realize Mowgli’s upbringing was possible but apparently it is? What would you do if you were raised by wolves and then suddenly found yourself in civilization? I think I’d scale a building to start…

Hollywood taught me about Democracy

No Usage Based Billing

Four Google execs may face jail terms because they didn’t pull an offensive video from their site BEFORE anyone complained about it.

Surprisingly, it didn’t seem to be a very big story, yet it is a perfect illustration of the incredible danger facing the internet. There is no way that large busy websites or the ISPs that host them can possibly monitor all of the material that is uploaded to the internet without seriously curtailing what is being uploaded to the internet.

For instance, when logging into Flickr I am told:

“There were 2,710 uploads in the last minute ”

Thousands of people upload images to Flickr every minute. It would take thousands of people to screen those images. If Flickr was forced to hire thousands of people to police the images members upload to the site, suddenly what Clay Shirky calls “ the transaction cost” would stop being nearly nil because the cost to maintain Flickr would skyrocket. It is doubtful that Flickr or YouTube or any other wildly successful website could cope with this without going bust.

Wikipedia, for example, has many people all over the world contributing articles and changing other people’s articles all the time. You would think that this would result in all kinds of internet vandalism happening.   But it doesn’t.   Sometimes people make mistakes, and the way Wikipedia works is that other people can fix those mistakes, And they do. And Wikipedia users also correct deliberate misinformation or vandalism.   So even if someone attempts to do a bad thing and vandalize wikipedia articles or disseminate misinformation on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is policed by its own editor/users.

As soon as anyone complains to Google, or YouTube, or Flickr about offensive content, the content is taken down. Now, I have to tell you, even though I am not by any means a young pup, in terms of understanding the internet, “I am only an Egg.” The internet we know today didn’t exist twenty years ago.

Like most people, I’ve been busy, so I wasn’t paying very much attention. Every now and then some new toy or gizmo having to do with computers would pop up — like iphones or ebooks or blackberrys. Or some new uber-cool thing like blogging or facebook or twitter or VOIP would suddenly be everywhere. And we can’t forget endless tales and dreams of dot com millionaires. The way the wold works has been changing very very fast. Six months ago I had no idea what Usage Based Billing was. About two months ago I started writing a simple little article explaining the mechanics of how the internet works. It turned out to be incredibly difficult to learn, let alone explain and mushroomed into “the alphabet series”. Simple? No, and the more I learn the more important I realize Net Neutrality is.

So I do understand why most people don’t even realize that this stuff is going on, or even that it matters. But the thing is that the internet has been slowly growing up and becoming more important in the world, and at the same time a much larger force for change. Which is why it is so important that there be Net Neutrality. Because the internet has come so far so fast it is especially important that it not be turned against it’s users.

Alongside Net Neutrality people in this brave new world are also talking about file sharing, “3 Strikes laws” and ACTA. Terms like piracy and theft are being hurled around and “copyright infringement” has been elevated to a near executable offense.

Why now?

It is no secret that governments around the world have been lobbied long and hard by the “copyright lobby” large media corporations, music and movie companies who are attempting to legislate prograss back into the twentieth century and change the way we think. They have been turning their media might into a propoaganda tool of epic proportions. Because of the incredible power that they can bring to bear, copyright laws around the world are being changed to appease these lobbyists.

Hollywood taught me spying on citizens is bad

Copyright law “improvements” enrich the lives of Americans

An inflammatory Chicago Sun Times headline reads Woman arrested for trying to record ‘Twilight’ on digital camera. The article recounts a story about a young woman who is being criminally charged– to the same extent and in the the same way a professional bootlegger would be charged– for recording scenes of her sister’s birthday party at the movies. The video picked up about 4 minutes of movie fragments. This is the equivalent of charging a teenager with one joint as a drug dealer, or the child who swiped a tempting lollipop from the grocery store with grand theft. It is simply not reasonable.

I’ve taken photographs of family and friends on special occasion trips to the movies. I’ve made videotapes of birthday parties. If you make a video of a child’s birthday party and a movie or video game was playing on the TV in the background, you too could be criminally charged. Under ACTA what will happen when you email a copy of this copyright infringing video to Grannie in England? Will she be fined or jailed or will you?

These laws are already absurd. And then… here comes ACTA.

All of the citizens of the world are being deliberately excuded from all ACTA negotiations. President Obama, so recently praised for his commitment to Net Neutrality, believes this to be a matter of National Security.

There is a huge difference between “personal use copying” and “commercial bootlegging” which the copyright lobby is lumping together as “piracy”. This is all a wrongheaded attempt to legislate away progress. Instead of trying to adapt with the technology, the copyright lobby has chosen to pour millions (billions?) into lobbying for this legislation that will not in fact do anything to stop commercial bootlegging. To give the appearance of doing something they instead choose to criminalize the mostly young citizens who are not harming this special interest group. Personally, I would rather see the best and brightest of Canada’s younger generation find themselves in universities rather than jail.

ACTA is bad. Very Very Bad.

Hollywood Influences

Growing up I learned a lot from “Hollywood”.

Like most Canadians of my generation TV and Movies gave me a better understanding of the American legal system than the Canadian.

Hollywood taught me that:

• free enterprise is admirable.
• free speech is important
• individuals have rights
• democracy is good, and good government is responsive to the wishes of the citizens
• communism is bad, because the government spies on its citizens
• a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty

BUT.

Apparently that was all just “content”.  ACTA makes it pretty clear that Hollywood’s true objective is for governments around the world to:

• suppress free speech,
• shackle their competitors,
• dismantle democracy,
• spy on citizens and
• throw out the rule of law to punish people on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations.

The saddest part is that it isn’t for some misguided ideological reason that they think will improve the world. This is pure greed.

ACTA links

“Canada and its international trading partners each have distinct copyright policies, laws and approaches for addressing the challenges and opportunities of the internet. Canada’s current framework provides strong intellectual property protections and our copyright laws apply in the digital context, including on the internet. Moreover, Canada’s regime for

the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights is fully consistent with its international obligations.”

– The Honourable Tony Clement, The Hill Times – Canada’s Politics and Government Newsweekly

YET.

Somehow Canada continues to participate in the secret ACTA treaty negotiations.

“Secret ACTA negotiations would criminalize Canadian internet use” says New Democrat Digital Issues Critic Charlie Angus, who demanded that Tony Clement reveal the ACTA negotiation mandate letter. Tony Clement Responds To Concerns That ACTA Will Circumvent Canadian Copyright Law

Ambassador Kirk: People would be “walking away from the table” if the ACTA text is made public . Maybe that is what should be happening.

Russell McOrmond tells us about:

Word manipulation, hypocrisy, and the so-called Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in it world.

Bytestyle TV’s Shelly Roche tells us a few things about ACTA, including the fact that it is being undertaken as an executive order, and therefore will not require ratification by the U.S. Congress. If it’s any consolation, American citizens are being kept just as much in the dark as Canadians, and, well, every other country in the world. ACTA: Internet Users Guilty Until Proven Innocent and ACTA: Will Corporate-Run US Government Destroy the Internet?

The Electronic Freedom Foundation Senator Bayh Responds on ACTA illustrates just how badly informed Americans (including Senators) are about ACTA.

Fortunately all Senators weren’t created equal. Senators blast Obama’s secret trade talks as Fox head calls for ‘3 strikes’

Michael Geist brings us: EU ACTA Analysis Leaks: Confirms Plans For Global DMCA, Encourage 3 Strikes Model

Where Paolo Brini passed along the news that the ACTA “negotiations now are not compliant with the Lisbon Treaty, which has come into force the 1st of December” EU negotiators show too many incompatibilities between ACTA and EU laws and Telecoms Package: 3-strikes forbidden in Europe He says further that “The agreement between the Council and the Parliament led to a new amendment which clearly forbids 3-strikes, in the sense meant by ACTA, and restrictions to fundamental rights without following very precise parameters (not respected by ACTA).”

Jamie Love’s blast from the past: Seven Secret ACTA documents from 2008 which includes the link to a PDF of the “Canada Non-Paper on institutional issues under the Agreement” is then discussed in Howard Knopf’s EXCESS COPYRIGHT: Canadian Proposal for ACTA Secretariat

Wired Magazine weighs in with the Threat Level column: Privacy, Crime and Security Online Report: U.S. Fears Public Scrutiny Would Scuttle IP Treaty Talks

New Zealand would like to know: Dunne: What are we signing up to, Mr Power? – 4 December 2009

Last week on BoingBoing Cory Doctorow passed along Javier “Barrapunto” Candeira’s information on the Spanish activists issue manifesto on the rights of Internet users which was created to battle the proposed suspension of due process “in the name of ’safeguarding Intellectual Property Laws against Internet Piracy.”

1 .- Copyright should not be placed above citizens’ fundamental rights to privacy, security, presumption of innocence, effective judicial protection and freedom of expression.

2 .- Suspension of fundamental rights is and must remain an exclusive competence of judges. This blueprint, contrary to the provisions of Article 20.5 of the Spanish Constitution, places in the hands of the executive the power to keep Spanish citizens from accessing certain websites.

3 .- The proposed laws would create legal uncertainty across Spanish IT companies, damaging one of the few areas of development and future of our economy, hindering the creation of startups, introducing barriers to competition and slowing down its international projection.

4 .- The proposed laws threaten creativity and hinder cultural development. The Internet and new technologies have democratized the creation and publication of all types of content, which no longer depends on an old small industry but on multiple and different sources.

5 .- Authors, like all workers, are entitled to live out of their creative ideas, business models and activities linked to their creations. Trying to hold an obsolete industry with legislative changes is neither fair nor realistic. If their business model was based on controlling copies of any creation and this is not possible any more on the Internet, they should look for a new business model.

6 .- We believe that cultural industries need modern, effective, credible and affordable alternatives to survive. They also need to adapt to new social practices.

7 .- The Internet should be free and not have any interference from groups that seek to perpetuate obsolete business models and stop the free flow of human knowledge.

8 .- We ask the Government to guarantee net neutrality in Spain, as it will act as a framework in which a sustainable economy may develop.

9 .- We propose a real reform of intellectual property rights in order to ensure a society of knowledge, promote the public domain and limit abuses from copyright organizations.

10 .- In a democracy, laws and their amendments should only be adopted after a timely public debate and consultation with all involved parties. Legislative changes affecting fundamental rights can only be made in a Constitutional law.

The Spanish government withdrew the draft law that would have legalized punishment without due process.

Spanish Blogroll:

[this is only a smattering of the websites bearing the manifesto... a Google search shows "de aproximadamente 351,000 de manifiesto en defensa de los derechos fundamentales en internet"]

• http://www.blogbuscadores.com/1133/manifiesto-%E2%80%9Cen-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet%E2%80%9D/
• http://www.escolar.net/MT/archives/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet.html
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=186879394498
• http://www.microsiervos.com/archivo/internet/en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet.html
• http://alt1040.com/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet
• http://mangasverdes.es/2009/12/02/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet/
• http://www.kriptopolis.org/defensa-derechos-internet
• http://ciberderechos.barrapunto.com/article.pl?sid=09/12/02/086200&from=rss
• http://gallir.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet/
• http://www.nicobour.com/2009/12/07/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet/
• http://www.juanmarketing.com/manifiesto-derechos-internet/2009/12/07/
• http://www.scriptor.org/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet.html
• http://bu2on.blogspot.com/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos.html
• http://freakdimensions.blogspot.com/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos.html
• http://nachovegas.blogspot.com/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos.html
• http://www.futboldelux.com/2009/12/05/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet/
• http://www.softwarelibre.net/manifiesto_en_defensa_de_los_derechos_fundamentales_de_internet_i_ii
• http://www.mariallopis.com/2009/12/07/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet/
• http://swlibre-annapon.blogspot.com/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos_07.html
• http://lamazmorradecuco.blogspot.com/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos.html
• http://www.decemuladores.com/foros/noticias/29519-manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet.html
• http://www.economiasolidaria.org/documentos/manifiesto_en_defensa_de_los_derechos_fundamentales_en_internet
• http://gamebyte.es/literaturizate/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet/
• http://periodistas21.blogspot.com/2009/12/en-defensa-de-los-derechos.html

and the list goes on….

Bravo Spain.

Talk about this.

And please, contact your MP, Prime Minister Harper as well as the Honourable Ministers Clement and Moore.

Because ACTA is bad. Very very bad.

STOP Usage Based Billing

The answer, of course, is that they have both been placed in films consistently over the last 80 years or so. To read more interesting details about product placement in Hollywood films, check out my research report here. It looks at Wings (1927), Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939), The Best Years of Our Lives (1946), The Greatest Show on Earth (1952), The Graduate (1967), Jaws (1975), E.T. (1982), Independence Day (1996), and The Dark Knight (2008).

More posts will come soon. I promise. It has been a busy semester, but I can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington confronts the issue of political corruption through the character Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) who is appointed to Senate on a lark by a spineless governor. The comedy-drama raises questions about government and American spirit that are still relevant today. This film won an Academy Award for Best Original Story and is a must see for those interested in old movies.

Jefferson Smith is an idealistic senator thrown into politics by the governor after a Senator dies right before a vote on a bill that would make lawful a land swindle at a place called Willet Creek. The governor believes Smith is too naïve to learn about politics quick enough to stop the passing of the crooked bill. However the Governor is wrong and Smith goes on a mission to pass a bill that would use the Willet Creek land to build a national Boy Rangers camp.

 In the most dramatic scene of the film Smith filibusters for 24 hours in order to get the bill passed. After which he proceeds to pass out from exhaustion. You will have to watch the film to see whether his efforts were successful!  Check out the media section for a clip of this scene.

The film debuted in Washington D.C. and was sponsored by the National Press Club. Director Frank Capra mentions in his autobiography that some senators reacted negatively to the film calling it “silly and stupid” they believed it made the Senate look like “a bunch of crooks,” Senate Majority Leader Alben W. Barkley said. Many Senators walked out of the film halfway through the premier. 

Behind the Scenes: Director Frank Capra and his crew went to Washington, D.C. to film background material and to study the Senate Chamber. The Chamber was replicated to in full scale with precise detail on the Columbia lot. James D. Preston, Capra’s technical advisor for the Senate set and political protocol, was a former superintendent of the Senate press gallery.

Far too many things inspired me to write Check Mate for me to list, but I’ll try my best over the coming posts to provide you with images, thoughts and sources.   I’m a huge movie buff, especially fond of classic films, especially the films of Frank Capra.  Those classic films have influenced my writing both stylistically and thematically.  This is only one scene, from one favorite films, which had an impact on Check Mate:

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: The end of the filibuster

On Saturday night, the Senate voted to begin debate on the Health Care bill. As David M. Herszenhorn wrote in today’s New York Times, this means “a legislative floor fight of galactic proportions through much of December.” For those of us who watch C-Span the way others watch ESPN, this promises to be quite a show — a unique opportunity to observe everything that makes our legislative process so simultaneously fascinating and antiquated (see the ‘playbook’ above).

“Some of the clashes will be for show,” Herszenhorn writes. “There are tactics designed to force votes on pet issues, and other tactics to avoid votes when lawmakers do not want to go on record with a position. Simple as it might sound, the most fearsome tactic available to any senator is the ability to burn time, to drag out the debate in ways that can grind legislative business to a halt and leave the Senate caught in an interminable purgatory.” That’s right: the beloved filibuster. An option treasured by Senators from Cato the Younger, circa 50 B.C., to Mr. Smith, circa 1939:

Is there a better actor of all time than James Stewart? I think he is my favorite, and there have been some mighty fine actors through the years.

Every day on TV or the radio, the back and forth squabbles between our political parties continue. This not the place to say who is right or who is wrong, we each have our opinions. It just depends on who has the majority as to which party will be out to foil the other.

I was thinking about this when I decided to find a clip from one of my all time favorite movies, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Jimmy Stewart was so good in this movie. He was nominated for the academy award but did not win. He may not have won, but he won me over with his performance.

Here is about the last 10 minutes of the movie. Jimmy Stewart at his best.

Every time I talk about top 10 lists,  I always start with the  disclaimer that I know  how pointless they are.

And then I ask myself:  OK, if they are  so pointless, why do I have so much fun reading them and doing  them and sharing them?

No good answer, In fact, making lists is far from the only pointless thing I do.

Today, I am adding some new films and slightly changing the order.   It is not a 10 best list.  It is a list of my ten favorites. A  list of 10 best films  would be beyond nervy given how many films have a legitimate claim to inclusion.

But it seems perfectly fair to make a list of ten favorites since they are, in fact,  only my favorites.

My favorites have stayed the same for over a year.  But for the last few months I have been mulling over “No Country for Old Men”  and “The Lives of Others.” (Now I can really hear you saying: This guy need a life! Who has time to mull anything over?)

Seriously, I want to make some changes to my list.  But according to ground rules that some friends of mine and I set up many years ago in a UCLA dorm room, I have to remove one film for each one I add.  I posted my last 10 favorite about a year ago. Here is my new one along with a list of contenders.

Comments welcome. Lists welcome. Ridicule welcome.

My Ten Favorite Films as of November 15, 2009

1. Dekalog

2. Godfather 1/Godfather 2

3.  Salesman

4. The Lives of Others

5. Amarcord

6.  Goodfellas

7  No Country for Old Men

8  Fargo

9. Rear Window

10 Night and Fog

__________________________________

Other Contenders (not in order)

Midnight Cowboy

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Au Revoir les Enfants

Shop on Main Street  (1965)

It’s a Wonderful Life

Jeux interdits

Come and See

Smile

Atlantic City

Three Kings

Das Boot

The General

Paris, Texas

Shoah

Invaders from Mars

Strangers on a Train

The Graduate

The French Connection

Double Indemnity

Les Enfants du Paradis

Les Diaboliques

Psycho

Le Salaire de la peur

Sunset Boulevard

The Exiles

The Last Laugh

Hotel Terminus

Happiness

The Third Man

M

The Marriage of Maria Braun

Today I wanted to wish all 5th graders in New York State the best of luck on their state social studies tests.  I think the test this year was pretty good.  If you had issues with the test with your classroom, let me know.

I was drawn to a posting on OpenCulture that had 100 free movies online, many of them true classics.  I decided to embed Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) as an example.  I know, its hackneyed, hokey and anything if not sentimental, but at least it conveys the ideals of what public service should be about.  It makes for a great opening or closing film about U.S. government.

Many of these films will work great in your classrooms.  If you have any suggestions for more free movies, please inform us at the Neighborhood.  We’re here to help.

Capa do DVD

Homem simples do interior com valores morais firmes, Jefferson Smith [James Stewart] é indicado ao Senado dos EUA por causa de sua disposição dócil e manipulável. Um grupo de políticos o acompanha até Washington, onde assumirá uma cadeira no Senado. Eles o adulam para que vote a favor de um projeto do Senador Paine [Claude Rains], que por sua vez é manipulado por um empresário que controla quase toda a mídia em seu Estado. Paine incumbe a relações-públicas Clarissa Saunders [Jean Arthur] de assessorar e direcionar Smith.

Achou familiar?

Eu também. Tanto é que durante muitos anos pensei que era James Stewart que tinha feito O Galante Mr. Deeds e nunca lembro quem é que foi para Washington: a trama é bem parecida, o diretor é o mesmo Frank Capra e até a Jean Arthur aparece nos dois filmes como a garota que luta pra vencer na cidade grande, torna-se durona e se apaixona pelo homem ingênuo e de caráter firme que veio do interior.

James Stewart e Jean Arthur

A mensagem final é a mesma em ambos: o dinheiro/poder não compra a felicidade [hm, outro filme de Capra também com Stewart], vale a pena lutar por seus ideais, manter-se ético, não perder as esperanças e confiar na humanidade, o bem vence o mal, espanta o temporal, o azul, o amarelo, tudo é muito belo!

Mas, bem aqui cá entre nós, tem também uma crítica feroz contra a imprensa. Contra a classe política de modo geral, mas contra a imprensa bateu tanto nos jornalistas quanto no dono do jornal. Dizem até que as críticas da imprensa em Washington foram bastante negativas no lançamento do filme, em represália por Capra retratar os repórteres como bêbados e cruéis.

Eu revi o filme durante a crise mais recente no Senado brasileiro, o último Fora Sarney, e foi impossível não comparar a situação fictícia com a real regional, né? Nós não temos um Mr. Smith que suporte a campanha maciça de difamação – nem tanto pela força de vontade, mas pela falta de alguém com tal força de caráter – nem uma autoridade suprema que resista à pressão corporativa como o personagem de Harry Carey, nem mesmo um senador corrompido que se arrependa de seus atos e abandone o Lado Negro da Força.

Sim, tou numa fase Saunders, não Clarissa.

Mr. Smith perde a cabeça.

O filme fala bem claramente do poder do homem comum, de democracia e liberdade – mesmo liberdade de imprensa, ainda que manipulada pelo dono do jornal – em 1939, início da Segunda Guerra Mundial. Assim, não foi surpresa que tenha sido banido na Alemanha, Itália, Espanha e Rússia. Segundo a página de trívia no iMDB, Frank Capra recebeu muitas cartas de pessoas que decidiram entrar para o mundo político depois de assistir A Mulher Faz O Homem.

Quanto ao título brasileiro, não sei, me passa uma ideia diferente do que eu vi. A personagem de Jean Arthur tem, sim, uma importância enorme, ela é responsável, sim, pelo crescimento e pela força de Mr. Smith, mas, mas… Podia ser o mesmo Cornelius Cobb de Mr. Deeds, não faria diferença. Mas foi uma tentativa simpática mesmo assim, se a gente considerar que a mulher nem ao menos podia ter propriedades ou conta bancária em seu nome no Brasil antes de 1962.

Acho que é por isso que vejo determinadas primeiras-damas que se contentam com a vida de dondoca e fico pistola da vida de raiva pelo desperdício de espaço ocupado e oxigênio consumido, heh.

Nos EUA, país de origem do filme, as mulheres só adquiriram o direito de votar em 1920, meros dezenove anos antes. A primeira senadora norte-americana ficou apenas 24h no cargo e ocupou a cadeira por indicação [assim como Mr. Smith], para ocupar a vaga de seu marido falecido em 1922. A primeira senadora eleita foi Harriett Wyatt Caraway, do Estado de Arkansas, em 1932. Ela foi reeleita em 1938 e ocupou o cargo até 1945, mas, no filme, não há nenhuma senadora.

Talvez venha daí a inspiração do título brasileiro: a influência feminina na política só seria possível nos bastidores.

Ficha técnica

Título original: Mr. Smith Goes To Washington
Gênero: Drama/Comédia
Duração: 02h09
Ano de lançamento: 1939
Direção: Frank Capra
Roteiro: Sidney Buchman, a partir de história de Lewis R. Foster
Produção: Frank Capra
Música Original: Dimitri Tiomkin
Fotografia: Joseph Walker
Edição: Al Clark, Gene Havlick
Direção de Arte: Lionel Banks
Figurino: Robert Kalloch
Efeitos Sonoros: John Livadary
Efeitos Visuais: Slavko Vorkapich

Elenco
James Stewart Jefferson Smith
Jean Arthur Clarissa Saunders
Claude Rains Sen. Joseph Harrison Paine
Edward Arnold Jim Taylor
Guy Kibbee Gov. Hubert Hopper
Thomas Mitchell Diz Moore
Eugene Pallette Chick McGann
Beulah Bondi Ma Smith
H. B. Warner Sen. Agnew
Harry Carey Presidente do Senado
Astrid Allwyn Susan Paine
Ruth Donnelly Emma Hopper
Grant Mitchell Sen. Mac Pherson
Porter Hall Sen. Monroe
Pierre Watkin Sen. Barnes
William Demarest Bill Griffith
Dick Elliott Carl Cook
Billy Watson Peter Hopper
Delmar Watson Jimmie Hopper
Johnny Russell Otis Hopper
Jack Carson Sweeney Farrell
George Chandler Repórter
Edmund Cobb Sen. Gower
Ann Doran Secretária de Paine
Donald Kerr Repórter
Hank Mann Fotógrafo
Frank O’Connor Sen. Alfred
Robert Walker Sen. Holland

Serviço
Ficha no iMDB
Review no FilmSite
Verbete no Wikipedia
Women in the Senate
Facts About Women in the House and the Senate
Women’s rights na Wikipedia

Post relacionado
Mr. Deeds Goes To Town / O Galante Mr. Deeds

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington em 13 partes no Youtube, sem legenda

Parte 1

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcLCwEg9sQc

Parte 2

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t44k1hIYOnk

Parte 3

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy_ynoZjZVE

Parte 4

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxiTzjicKCs

Parte 5

ink http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV3WM1g0iMA

Parte 6

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQyOv2EolcI

Parte 7

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3YOGavoEeo

Parte 8

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBJGBBIUzYM

Parte 9

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpMWlZfQG1w

Parte 10

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofv1PjHTNM0

Pàrte 11

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZiIjwETN1I

Parte 12

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaqtIQFMWi4

Parte 13

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdHBjWpyDsk

My buddy Mike Boon encouraged me to write a “real and significant” book, as opposed to fiction. (BTW, I’m ready to break 25K words — halfway point — in this year’s NaNoWriMo. WooHoo!)

As I explained to him, government ethics rules prohibit civil servants from earning a second income stream from the job we’re paid to do by the tax-payer — which takes these topics off the table: space, communications, or public service.

Then it hit me what I could write about — human nature.

That’s broad enough not to sic NASA’s ethics lawyers on me, don’t you think? After all, I started learning these lessons way back in high school when I locked horns with our band director. (Yes, that’s me with the whistle in my mouth out front. I still have those white boots and purple baton! I may even have the whistle….)

1973 Parade march: San Marcos High School Band

My book concept: short and not so sweet.

Here’s the deal. I’m envisioning a tiny board book, the kind you can buy at the counter in Barnes and Noble. I’m serious. Really. Think the itsy-est bitsy-est book you’ll ever imagine – the CliffsNotes version of my life experiences both inside and outside my career in the federal government (back off lawyers.)

Would you pay for my Top Ten Rules on how to stay in constant trouble?

Name your price. $5.00? $10.00…if I throw in Rule #11? Anyone? Ok. Fine. I’ll share them with you here. No purchase necessary.

Let’s be honest: I doubt you would choose to pay for trouble-in-book-form, no matter how small the book or price at the check-out counter.

Feel free, though, to correct my assumptions. I’m happy to take your money. (‘Kidding, ethics lawyers! KIDDing.)

So, what to do about the title? Since my grandmother always told me I’d be the first female President of the United States, I’m thinking about a book title that goes something like this:

Why I’ll NEVER be Elected President of the United States.

Or, if that doesn’t work for you, how ’bout this:

How to Win a few Friends and Make MANY Enemies.

Now that you’re on pins and needles, here ya’ go. My rules for a life worth living:

1. Make a decision.
2. Don’t waver from the decision (from principle, not stubborness).
3. Take a stand.
4. Stand tall, head high (eyes open and ever ready to duck flying objects).
5. Pick a side.
6. Stay on that side (but, not the slippery, slimy side. Please!)
7. Speak out against injustice.
8. Keep voice steady and clear (even in deafening silence).
9. Stick up for the little guy.
10. Give him hope for tomorrow. (Please don’t rob him of tomorrow. I didn’t say ’stick up’ the little guy.)

Yep, that about says it all. Unless I come up with Rule #11. I’ll let you know if I do. (Ok, Mike, are you happy now? There. I’ve written my book. I’ll let you judge whether it’s real or significant enough.)

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

And, sorry Grandma. I don’t see national-scale politics in my future. I’ve barely survived office politics through the years.

My hat’s off to you, fictional Mr. Smith. They made a movie about you. I don’t think my little book will garner the same attention — except from the few friends I win and many enemies I rile up.

But just in case someone rushes in with a movie deal, do you think I can request Angelina Jolie to play the part of me? (No resemblance, I assure you. But what the heck? I’m the creator. Don’t I have a say?)

It dawned on me after I posted the previous installment of this series that I failed to write a pithy little introduction. My apologies. It is difficult when one takes into consideration that by the time I’m finished with this project I will have written about 20 such intros. What makes it even harder is that my taste in movies tends to be so eclectic, something that is really being driven home to me as I write these little dittiess, that usually there’s nothing to tie any 5 of these movies together. Today’s entry is a perfect example. There are virtually no similarities between any of these five films. I suppose the good thing is that with such a wide variety of things that I like I am bound to touch on atleast one thing or another that’ll be of interest to everyone.

65 Airplane!

If anyone were ever to build a Mount Rushmore of parody films, the first and foremost honoree would have to be Airplane!. Made in 1980, the film is meant to spoof a plethora of 70’s airline disaster flicks. It’s cast is a brilliant collection of heretofore tough guy types known for their dramatic roles, most notably Robert Stack, Leslie Nielsen, Loyd Bridges, and Peter Graves, who are very much cast against type. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar makes a super fun cameo as himself apparently trying to live a double life as an airline pilot under an assumed name. The plot involves many of the passengers and nearly the entire crew, including the pilot and co-pilot, becoming ill because of food poisoning and a passenger who just happens to be a pilot with post traumatic stress disorder being called into action to fly and land the plane. But this is another rare case where the story takes a back seat. This time though the centerpiece of hilarity are sight gags and side-splitting word play. One has to watch Airplane! a few times to take in all the visual and verbal gags. There’s Barbara Billingsley, the mother on Leave It to Beaver, speaking ebonics. The emergency autopilot is a blowup doll. A guy who thinks he’s Ethel Merman (played, in her final appearance on film, by Ethel Merman). Co-pilots named Roger and Captain Oveur (think about it). And the great thing is, it never gets old. After over a quarter century those of us who love this movie still laugh when we watch.

64 Raging Bull

Robert Deniro is such a brilliant actor that he could take the worst story imaginable and make it halfway compelling. Fortunately as real life boxer Jake Lamotta, in a film directed by the legendary Martin Scorcese, Deniro has a good story with which to work. He also has capable support from Joe Pesci in what was his first major film. I’m not a big boxing fan, but the acting and Scorcese’s style make this a modern classic. Maybe if I’d have been born a few years earlier or if I loved boxing as much as I do other sports Raging Bull would rank higher, as it does on most lists of this ilk. However, I must remain true to my own tastes and preferences, and this is where it falls on my spectrum.

63 Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Readers of this series know by now of my affection for Jimmy Stewart. I’m also a bit of a political aficionado and an unabashed patriot, so Mr. Smith falls right into my wheelhouse. The story revolves around a small town yokel (a role Stewart showed many times he could play perfectly) who is handpicked to fill an open seat in the U.S. Senate. He is chosen by a corrupt political machine who believes he can be easily manipulated so they can achieve their selfish goals. The villain in this complex web of deceit is the elder senator from Stewart’s state, played by Claud Rains, who is probably better known for playing the corrupt police official in Casablanca. Rains played the role of conflicted slimeball several times and was apparently quite good at it. I’m not sure how a Frenchman snagged the role of a United States Senator, and the fact that he doesn’t really make much of an effort to hide the accent is somewhat distracting. Adding support as a caustic adminstrative aide is Jean Arthur. She is assigned the task of babysitting the doe-eyed new Senator and gradually falls for him. The plotline specifics, in which Stewart’s character wants to build a “national boys’ camp” on land that, unbeknownst to him, Rains’ character has more nefarious and profitable plans in store, are not necessarily all that crucial. The film is about political corruption, and in its time it was groundbreaking. We’ve become a much more cynical nation now. But 70 years ago a movie that took such a dark view of the inner workings of our government was quite controversial. Stewart’s performance show’s his range. Over the course of his career, from lighthearted comedies like Harvey and The Philadelphia Story through Hitchcockian fare such as Vertigo and Rear Window to hardscrabble westerns including Shenandoah and The Rare Breed Stewart did a bit of everything and proved himself to be a fine actor. With Mr. Smith he gives a small sampling of that range within one movie, goofy and fun in some scenes and dark and solemn in others. Because of the access the masses now have through things like CSPAN, the internet, and talk radio there’s not a whole lot that goes on in Washington DC that’s unknown or all that shocking. To some degree that hurts the legacy of Mr. Smith because we don’t see what the big deal is outside of Stewart’s winning charm. However, taken within the context of its time it’s quite a cinematic achievement.

62 Meet the Parents

DeNiro makes a second appearance in today’s group, so I guess I was wrong…there is a common thread after all. This time however, he’s doing comedy…and doing it surprisingly well. Meet the Parents stars Ben Stiller as a male nurse who goes home for the weekend with his girlfriend (who he is planning to make his fiancee) to…you guessed it…meet her parents. Unfortunately for Stiller, things get off on the wrong foot and get worse from there. Hilarity ensues. This is one of those movies that has more than its fair share of memorable scenes and lines, which is its main charm. Stiller has never been funnier in my opinion, and Owen Wilson has an hysterical cameo as the girlfriend’s former boyfriend. After watching this film water volleyball, Puff the Magic Dragon, airports, and cats can never be thought of like they were before…trust me. A sequel was made a few years later called Meet the Fockers. It was okay, but as with most sequels it failed to rise to the high level of the original.

61 Silence of the Lambs

Is it a horror film?? I suppose. I’m not necessarily sure how the experts categorize it. If it is officially a horror film it is most certainly on the high end…..sort of like how Dom Perrignon and Andre Extra Dry are both technically champagne but one is $150/bottle and the other is available at 7/11. Silence of the Lambs is based on a really great book about a young FBI agent who enlists the aid of a jailed, psychotic cannibal to track down a fellow serial killer. The psychotic cannibal is Hannibal “The Cannibal” Lechter and he is one of the creepiest yet most sublime creations in cinematic history as portrayed by Sir Anthony Hopkins. Unlike most maniacal killers in stereotypical gorefests (think Jason from Friday the 13^th, Leatherface from Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or Freddy Krueger from Nightmare on Elm Street), Hannibal doesn’t need knives or chainsaws, doesn’t wear a mask, and doesn’t have any kind of otherworldly nonsensical powers. He’s actually pretty realistic…almost like a normal person you or I may know, may work with, or who might live down the street…except for the fact that he likes to eat humans. Jodie Foster is fantastic as Clarice Starling, the agent who looks to be in way over her head. The whodunit part of the movie is secondary to the interactions involving Hannibal and Clarice, but it’s also what separates Silence of the Lambs from the rest of the cliched mass of blood-n-guts. Sure there is some violence, but there is also a compelling story and extraordinary performances. I won’t go so far as to say the movie is better than the book, but let’s call it a tie.

Sometimes “democracy’s finest show” sometimes “tyranny of the minority”, filibuster is used in many political systems across the world─including the U.K., Canada, Australia and France, but they require members to actually enact the filibuster (i.e., actually do the endless talking) so they are used very rarely. But in the U.S. Senate, however, the mere threat of it can stall the legislature, which somehow makes it the only legislative body that requires a three-fifths majority to bring bills to a vote. So how did it all began?

In 1806, Vice President Aaron Burr believed that a procedure for limiting/ending debates was improper. It was the long accepted practice of the gentlemanly Senate back then to allow each member sufficient time to speak before a vote. However, no one invoked a filibuster until 1841 over the issue of the firing of Senate printers. It lasted six days, but later that year Kentucky Senator Henry Clay’s banking bill was filibustered for 14 days. The procedure slowly got out of control and in 1917, President Wilson called for a cloture rule to cut off debate. It was first invoked two years later to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. [Originally, the cloture was by two-thirds, but in 1975, it was reduced to three-fifths, now the magic number 60.]

In 1939’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Jimmy Stewart’s one-man filibuster further popularized the practice. Four years earlier, Louisiana Senator Huey P. Long read the Constitution, plays of Shakespeare and even recipes for oyster dishes for 15 hours to prevent a New Deal employment bill. But the longest uninterrupted filibuster on record belongs to South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, who stopped a vote on a 1957 civil rights bill for 24 hours and 18 minutes–from 8:54 p.m. on August 28 and to 9:12 p.m. the next evening, he subjected the fellow senators to a long and hot summer night. “He read these monotonously, even listlessly from the lectern,” The New York Times reported, “so that the classic phrases might have been so many items from the telephone directory.” Above, Senator Thurmond holds up his speech, which contained the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, Washington’s Farewell Address, and other historical documents.

The previous record holder was Wayne Morse, an independent from Oregon who four years before had filibustered an offshore oil bill in 1953 for 22 hours and 26 minutes, without sitting down. Thurmond, on the other hand, did several times but his theatrical grandstand was approved by many Southerners, and empathized even by his political nemeses. Sen. Paul Douglas of Illinois, a staunch liberal and supporter of civil rights, poured Thurmond colleague a glass of cold orange juice. Yet, Thurmond’s filibuster never stood a chance of derailing the bill. Most of his Southern colleagues were reluctantly willing to swallow the ineffective bill (Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson watered it down to get it passed), but it passed two hours later in a 62-15 vote. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 proved ineffective and it would take a much stronger measure, the 1965 Voting Rights Act–this time Johnson lent his full support.

The most effective effort to end a filibuster was that of Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia who attempted to end a 1987–1988 Republican filibuster against a campaign finance reform bill through a procedure that had last been wielded in 1942: he directed the Senate sergeant-at-arms to arrest absent members and bring them to the floor.