A Point of Clarification

I have recently learned that there are plans to build a mosque on Ground Zero. Naturally, this is very contentious. I happened to have a few thoughts on the matter.

My first comment concerns those who believe the mosque would be an affront to the memories, dreams, and survivors of the holocaust (note the lack of capital letter; this does not refer to the inhuman tragedy of WWII, but to that of September 11). I would say that these people need to understand what they condemn. When humans and other animals are wounded-- when our communities are deliberately attacked in such a wanton, premeditated, brutal, and devastating fashion-- the desire for revenge often overrides reason and intellect. But after almost nine years, are we still at that stage? Still salivating for vengeance and not caring whether the vengeance is misdirected as long as it hits "them"?

What I mean is, the true religion of Islam is one that teaches good, decency, and love. So is Judaism. So is Christianity. These three radically different religions, all born in the same part of the world, are really not so "different" at all. There is a "they" responsible for 9/11. But if you have decided that "they" means "all Muslims," you are wrong. The attack was sanctioned by a minority group of extremists who believed they needed to destroy all their enemies in a whirlwind of fire and blood. That group of extremists is responsible for 9/11.

I am, however, rather curious about why it was decided to build a mosque at Ground Zero. My theory is that the entity/entities who conceived of the idea believed it would be a symbol of peace and understanding. That is a worthy goal, certainly, but it completely ignores the truth of human nature: many humans won't tolerate peace and understanding because they'll take them for signs of weakness. Or because they live in a world removed from the two concepts and would rather see anything different die because it's not the same.

The only alternative to that theory is as sick and twisted as can be imagined considering the circumstances-- that someone thought of the idea directly to cause conflict, knowing full well that the angry and resentful would see it as an insult and a desecration.

In light of these thoughts, I really don't know what to think about this mosque. But I would hate to see one more hateful word spewed, or (infinitely worse) one more life taken because we human beings aren't ready for peace and understanding.

Where Evil Lurks, Part 2: And the Losers Are....

Here we are, dear readers. After much skimming over of lists detailing horrid films it couldn't be narrowed down any more than this. A tie between two films in the same franchise. Appropriately, movies this bad, this devious, and this painful to watch could only be about one character: the Antichrist.

When The Omen (1976) was first conceived, it was a very different movie than it became: tasteless, obvious, and heinously irresponsible. Fortunately writer David Seltzer and director Richard Donner came to focus on the power of faith as a theme rather than the existence of evil, making the original Omen film a staggering story of a man forced to come to terms with the nature of God when confronted with the ultimate challenge to the survival of goodness: the birth of Satan's son. Many Christian groups (including the Vatican) praised the film for helping to bring wayward Christians back to their various churches. But it succeeded with more than just the message: it allowed Fox to recover from a serious financial drought, and some of the profits were used to make George Lucas' most popular film, Star Wars. A sequel was guaranteed.

Sadly, neither Donner nor Seltzer returned for Damien: Omen II (1978).

Set some six or seven years after the original, Damien focuses on the title Antichrist as a whiny pubescent brat played with supreme obnoxiousness by Jonathan Scott-Taylor. It depicts his discovery of his true identity and an attempt (very similar to that in the first film in terms of story structure) to destroy him spearheaded by his wary uncle (William Holden) and (perhaps unwittingly) thwarted by his suspiciously overprotective aunt (Lee Grant). It's formulaic, in other words. It's no spoiler to tell you that Holden's character dies at the end after failing to eliminate Damien. Nor to tell you that anyone who even tries to solve the mystery of his identity meets an untimely end.

But those untimely ends represent what is majorly, glaringly wrong with the film. The original used subtle, virtually bloodless means to dispatch its victims, and the audience never saw it coming. In the sequel, however, the writers ridiculously decided to vamp up the violence and gore. One character falls several stories in an elevator and is subsequently sliced in half by a live cable from the ceiling. Another has his/her eyes picked out by ravens and is subsequently bowled over by a conveniently located, nonchalant semi truck. It's absolutely sick. Sick and unintelligent.

Perhaps worse than the gruesome deaths is the acting. Laborious, budget-busting director Mike Hodges was replaced early on by schedule and budget-friendly Don Taylor, but Taylor was obviously so concerned with finishing the picture on time that he neglected to procure passable performances from his cast-- even the great Holden is listless, lifeless and bored. Even Jerry Goldsmith's music fails, though not as spectacularly. Without a doubt, Damien is the worst sequel of all time.

Remakes, however, are another matter.

The Omen franchise survived through one more theatrical movie (infinitely better than the second), a cheesy and preposterous TV "movie," and an inexplicable NBC pilot that had nothing to do with the real Omen. When 6/6/2006 rolled around (thirty years to the day since the release of the original), Fox once more trotted out one of its most puzzlingly uneven franchises with a remake of the original film, once more written solely by David Seltzer.

Seltzer uses exactly the same plot. Gone, however, are the cheesy 70s haircuts, the subtlety, the fantastic and effective music, and any hint of originality. The deaths are bloodier and one has been completely altered, all done to cater to the moviegoing crowd of the year 2006. Liev Schreiber (a capable enough thespian) stands in the role originated by Gregory Peck and is no substitute. Julia Stiles takes over from the late, incomparable Lee Remick in the role of the mother and wife-- she was in Save the Last Dance, which speaks for itself. Mia Farrow plays the evil nanny once played brilliantly by Billie Whitelaw, and even she is terrible, as are Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Gambon, and that irritating new kid playing five-year-old son-of-sin Damien. Instead of crafting an innovative or at least useful score, as Goldsmith did, Marco Beltrami uses what sounds like modern stock music. And instead of the subtle terror of the original, the "director" uses sudden appearances by mysterious masked figures (which look like they escaped from a bad M. Night Shyamalan flick) to keep the audience on edge.

The point is, how dare they remake a classic like that?! Fortunately, their marketing ploy (6/6/06) didn't work, and the loose excuse for a film will forever stand on its own. Fortunately, we have at least one great Omen movie to look back on and preserve as an American cultural milestone. Next thing you know, they'll be remaking Star Wars.

And that concludes XC's list of the 10 worst movies of all time. Okay, 11, my mistake. If you ever get curious, you can check them out (if you haven't seen them already), but now you've been warned. Heed the omens (hee hee hee) and escape while you still can!

Footnote: The world is a joke, in case you've been following the news, or in case you haven't.

Xander's Film Registry Continued: Where Evil Lurks

Hey, folks. It just occurred to me that this is the 75th post on Xander Candor. That's kind of like a milestone, or so it seems, so I want to do something special for it. On my last Film Registry post, I promised that when I went back to the Registry, I would create its opposite number-- a sort of "hall of shame" (forgive the cliche) in which would dwell the most insipid and poorly executed films of all time, movies to avoid at all costs. I managed to coalesce the overt hideousness in the annals of cinema into a list of eleven-- ten seemed just a tad inadequate, as there is a tie for the #1 spot, which is really no great honor. Let me begin by saying I salute filmmakers with the courage to make nothing out of something. But if you're not trying to make a piece of trash... where do you go wrong anyway? Previous Registry entries have been in chronological order; this list is presented as a countdown. Enjoy the list; avoid the movies.

10) Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1978)
I thought it would be one of those so-bad-it's-amazing cult wonders, like Howard the Duck and The Apple. But it's not. Every negative word against this "film" is correct and appropriate. Everyone herein renders Beatles tunes fairly capably (the soundtrack is pleasant to hear), but the imagery and personalities are so grating that the music means nothing. The characters live in a bland middle American town called Heartland, USA and lead their bland lives, except for the Lonely Hearts Club Band, who must rescue Heartland from the insidious FVB (Future Villain Band-- the writer was not very clever or subtle). There's a character named Strawberry Fields (guess what her big song is?) and a band called Lucy and the Diamonds. I have always liked Julie Taymor's Across the Universe. But seeing how bad a Beatles jukebox musical could be made me love it even more.

9) Forrest Gump (1994)
Sorry, folks, I don't see the attraction. Tom Hanks is not at fault for the mess that was made of this movie. Otherwise, it's just one big visual gimmick that tries to have heart but instead makes a pastime of awkwardness and discomfort. And at nearly 150 minutes, it somehow manages to feel longer than the three-hour disaster The Fall of the Roman Empire.

8) Somewhere in Time (1980)
I have nothing but respect for the late Christopher Reeve. He was a "Man of Steel" off-screen as well as on, and the best true-life hero Hollywood has ever provided. The biggest mistake of his career? Accepting the male lead in this low-key, visually disorienting adaptation of a talky, incoherent Richard Matheson story in which a man falls in love with a woman decades in the past. It's absolutely hokey and unbelievable, but sadly it more closely follows the pattern of a cheesy romance than a campy one.

7) Romeo + Juliet (1996)
My opinion of Shakespeare's most famous tragedy is negative at best. But while I've never seen a direct adaptation of it I even remotely liked, Baz Luhrmann's DiCaprio/Danes travesty is by far the worst ever. Set in "Verona Beach, California" in the nineties, it features guns called "Swords", Mercutio in high heels, and... Leonardo DiCaprio (enough said). There is also too much color, and the cast acts like they're reading "Dawson's Creek" rather than acting the Bard of Avon.

6) Cabaret (1972)
Occasionally you will see a movie that will make you ask, "Why in the wide, wide universe would I ever have sat through this?" Cabaret is such a movie. Joel Grey is pretty funny as the emcee, but that lead actress (we do not speak her name) seems not only a waste of celluloid, but at times even a waste of... everything. She plays a capricious, frivolous, irritating, frustratingly nonchalant and selfish songbird who demands the world's attention and claws at the spotlight like a feral cat. That's not acting.

5) Transformers (2007)
Or: What's Wrong With 21st-Century Filmmaking. Executive-produced by once-genius Steven Spielberg and directed by the bland Michael Bay, starring the uninspired Shia LeBeouf and the meaningless Megan Fox, it updates the 1980s toy franchise, bringing every element of it into the modern time period... except the ridiculous cartoon voice of Optimus Prime. It's obviously meant to distract us with shiny CGI creations and big explosions while it kills the industry that created such masterpieces as Lawrence of Arabia, Amadeus, East of Eden, and My Fair Lady.

4) Superman Returns (2006)
Everything bad about this movie-- and that's quite a long list-- boils down to one simple fact: Brandon Routh is in no way, shape, or form a suitable replacement for Christopher Reeve. Because there is none. As public as the film franchise's humiliation was at 1987's Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, it should have stopped then forever. While it still had the genius of Reeve at its epicenter. Overlong, mindless, too elaborate and too late.

3) Twilight (2008)
Whew, speaking of mindless. Stephenie Meyer is responsible for this horridly unwelcome pop culture cash cow. As if the books weren't bad enough, they had to be adapted into this cheap, colorless, spineless film series that somehow manages to interest millions upon millions of fans in the "plight" of a criminally underdeveloped character whose sole problem in life is, "I have love problems." There is no emotion in the acting, no intelligence in the plotting, nothing likeable in any of the characters, and that voice-over narration is probably the worst single cinematic misstep since.... I can't think of anything.

2) Titanic (1997)
Ah, Leo-- you've been very bad to us. Shame on you. And you, James Cameron-- I would have expected better of you, Mr. Aliens and The Abyss. The best part of this movie is Kathy Bates... have you any idea how much it pains me to say that? At the center is a laborious and predictable romance between a rich, engaged girl and a poor boy. The sinking of the Titanic is meant merely as a backdrop, but considering the cutting-edge nature of the effects used in the sequence, it's clearly the star of the show. This movie's enduring popularity is yet another insult to the industry.

As for that tie for #1... it's really too bad to sum up concisely. It'll have to have its own post. Tune in next time for a double bill so unspeakably bad, so painfully unlikeable, so gruesomely unentertaining, that it comes after Titanic on a list of bad movies.

The 3-Strip Process: Changing People's Idiotic Ways

At the beginning of the twentieth century, there was no such thing as color in cinematic films. The miracle of moving images was somewhat muted by the fact that the images were grainy, stringy, and in black-and-white. But, of course, the real world is made up of many colors, not just black and white. Eventually, through innovation and ingenuity, film scientists were able to invent color processes that turned films more realistic and visually complex than they could ever be before. The most lavish and well-maintained style of color-- used on such widely appreciated classics as The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, and more-- was a three-strip process that coalesced reds, yellows, and blues into the full color spectrum. It provided bright, vivid colors.

What is the point of this, you may ask?

Well, while Hollywood keeps pushing forward with visual innovation (mostly to naught, but they do keep trying), the rest of the world seems to be stuck in black and white.

I'm referring primarily, of course, to the dramatic events in the Middle East in recent weeks-- mainly the continued enforcement of Israel's naval blockade of Gaza... and the recent destruction of a ship allegedly transporting aid into the devastated territory.

People are so quick to jump to one side or the other. On the one hand, people blindly insist we should sternly condemn Israel for destroying what may have been a strictly peaceful mission. Equally alarmingly, on the other hand, people just as blindly say that Israel is our ally and we should stick by them no matter what.

Both of these mindsets show a bigger mentality of either skimming headlines to glean news or of stubbornly dividing the world into black and white, right and wrong, enemy and friend. Neither of these mentalities are correct. Complex news articles cannot be summed up in a single phrase; and since when are right and wrong absolutes? Shouldn't we be required to apply critical thinking to each specific situation?

Here's what I've discovered about the most recent flare-up in the sizzling Israeli/Palestinian conflict: nothing conclusive. I automatically discount the extreme-right-or-left news outlets. My primary information comes from two local newspapers. These, naturally, say different things every day. Then, of course, I also discount the pundits-- especially, once more, the extremists-- both on the Charles Krauthammer and Eugene Robinson sides of the spectrum. Their job is not to report; it is to state their opinions. Opinions, as is commonly known, are not facts. This seems to leave, aside from the World News sections of the papers, internet research. And guess what happens there? Find one item in favor of one side, and immediately you'll find another that favors the other.

This has gone on for some time.

What remains is for me to say this. I do not condone any sort of violence. War is reprehensible to the utmost. Were it significantly less bloody, it would be childish to the extreme. But we are a race of angry children, feuding over a sandbox we don't actually own. And I know this. To all the people-- that includes you, Helen Thomas!-- who say there's only room for one race in Palestine, read closely.

Thousands of years ago, before the foundation of the Muslim religion, both Arabs and Hebrews lived in Palestine. It was where the Hebrews lived before they were sold into slavery in Egypt. It was where they went when they obtained their freedom. But what's important to remember is that it is holy territory to three different faiths-- faiths that really aren't so different except by labels and minutiae. This is going to cause conflict. It's inevitable. But there is no answer to the question, "Which single group belongs in Palestine?" It's not up to us. As kids, we're told to get along and play nicely. Let's have a little grown-up behavior, shall we?

Until I know for sure Israel was in the wrong, I won't condemn them. Until I know for sure that Hamas wasn't running guns into Gaza, I won't say they did.

And until the situation in Gaza-- the debris and squalor and suffering-- is rectified, I'll stubbornly call, against all odds and all hope, for a little adult behavior and some three-strip dignity.