A few days ago I have rented an old movie, a classic from those I like to review. Somebody asked me then, almost in shock, why I was taking an old movie whether there were so many new and just released ones. I have answered that I prefer the best ones. And that the best movies are not always the new ones. Then that person got shocked.
There is a belief that everything new, or newer, is better. Why? For whom that sees only appearance new movies are more attractive because they show fancy places, things and people. And they show technology at its state of the art. Somebody may ask: but what about the content? It is easy to answer: in our consumption society, nobody cares about content.
I will show an example, remembering some films:
The Day the Earth Stood Still, from 1951, based in Edmund North’s screenplay, is the best movie from Robert Wise. The story criticizes the Cold War and the military and political misuse of science. No doubt, this is a sci-fi classic.
In 2008 December two movies were released, related to that screenplay:
The Day the Earth Stood Still, from Scott Derrickson, starring Keanu Reeves as the alien Klaatu, a bad film, and
The Day the Earth Stopped, from the average actor and bad director C. Thomas Howell, an extremely bad film.
Conclusion: the movie from 1951 is far better than these recent movies. And these new movies will get old, if they already are not.
2/03/2010
Court of Law
Yesterday, by chance, I attended for the first time a trial at jury court. From a long time I had such curiosity and eventually I could indulge it. So far I have seen trials only at movies. By the way, I have remembered the following movies about trials:
Anatomy of a Murder (Otto Preminger, 1959), based on John Voelker’s novel, starring James Stewart as the lawyer Paul Biegler;
Witness for the Prosecution (Billy Wilder, 1957), based on Agatha Christie’s play, starring Tyrone Power and Marlene Dietrich as the Vole;
To Kill a Mockingbird (Robert Mulligan, 1962), based on Harper Lee’s Pulitzer winner novel, where Gregory Peck is the lawyer Atticus Finch; and the masterpiece
12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet, 1957), Reginald Rose’s story and screenplay, starring Henry Fonda as the #8 juror.
I have found all the process very interesting, mainly the debate between prosecution and defense. And I have to mention the popular participation, considering that ordinary people decide about the future of the accused. Although obligatory, it is an exercise about citizenship, desirable by every democratic citizen, I suppose.
Bad news is that our judiciary, which has been reformed since 2000, still has several problems like, for instance, partiality and slowness. I don’t know very much about this issue, but I believe the main diseases of the judiciary are class corporatism and corruption. When there is corruption inside the legislative and executive powers, there is possibly a popular trial for corrupts and corruptors by means of our choices. In case of judiciary, I cannot see another solution but the external control.
Anyway, I believe that oversimplifications and easy solutions for topics as justice and democracy lead to unsuitable excess of optimism or pessimism. So it’s advisable, sometimes, try presumably reliable sources to see different viewpoints. I recommend a critical and meditative reading of the following reports:
International Amnesty,
Human Rights Watch, and
Freedom House.
Anatomy of a Murder (Otto Preminger, 1959), based on John Voelker’s novel, starring James Stewart as the lawyer Paul Biegler;
Witness for the Prosecution (Billy Wilder, 1957), based on Agatha Christie’s play, starring Tyrone Power and Marlene Dietrich as the Vole;
To Kill a Mockingbird (Robert Mulligan, 1962), based on Harper Lee’s Pulitzer winner novel, where Gregory Peck is the lawyer Atticus Finch; and the masterpiece
12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet, 1957), Reginald Rose’s story and screenplay, starring Henry Fonda as the #8 juror.
I have found all the process very interesting, mainly the debate between prosecution and defense. And I have to mention the popular participation, considering that ordinary people decide about the future of the accused. Although obligatory, it is an exercise about citizenship, desirable by every democratic citizen, I suppose.
Bad news is that our judiciary, which has been reformed since 2000, still has several problems like, for instance, partiality and slowness. I don’t know very much about this issue, but I believe the main diseases of the judiciary are class corporatism and corruption. When there is corruption inside the legislative and executive powers, there is possibly a popular trial for corrupts and corruptors by means of our choices. In case of judiciary, I cannot see another solution but the external control.
Anyway, I believe that oversimplifications and easy solutions for topics as justice and democracy lead to unsuitable excess of optimism or pessimism. So it’s advisable, sometimes, try presumably reliable sources to see different viewpoints. I recommend a critical and meditative reading of the following reports:
International Amnesty,
Human Rights Watch, and
Freedom House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)