Vampire Movies (and Television) Worth Seeing

by Editors

POP CULTURE / MOVIES

EDITORS’ CHOICE:
VAMPIRE MOVIES (AND TELEVISION) WORTH SEEING

By G. Arnold and Erin Dionne

With Halloween around the corner, it’s time to sit back and enjoy some of the viewing choices that the season has to offer. Among the many movie and television themes that are associated with this time of year is a perennial favorite: vampires.

Since two of our editors are fans of this genre, we decided to put together some viewing suggestions with a vampire theme. Here, in chronological order, are a few they suggest for the next time you want to spend some quality time with the undead.

________________

Nosferatu (1922)

Nosferatu is a very slightly reworked version of Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel Dracula. Unfortunately, the producers didn’t have the rights to the book. Not long after the movie opened, Stoker’s estate sued. The courts ordered the destruction of existing prints, but Nosferatu had already taken flight. Many copies already had been distributed around the world, making it impossible to round up and torch every print. So Nosferatu lived on.

Quickly paced and entertaining throughout, Nosferatu is bolstered by an original look and the innovative use of then-new special effects. The vampire is Count Orlok, a strange creature of the very undead type. Looking inhuman — with pointy ears, rodent-like eyes, and hands that resemble claws  — he is a far cry from the more elegant Draculas that appeared in later films. There’s little doubt about who the monster is in this film.

Nosferatu is an important piece of film history, but more than that, it’s still fun. Even if you seldom watch a silent-era movie, make an exception for Nosferatu. It’s a must-see viewing for fans of vampire movies.

_____

Dracula (1931)

Unlike Nosferatu, director Tod Browing’s Dracula is more directly (and legally) connected to Stoker’s novel. But the movies are very different in numerous ways. By 1931, the era of sound films had begun. And Dracula makes the most of this, capitalizing on the eery and menacing voice of lead actor Bela Lugosi. Indeed, much of the film’s staying power can be attributed to Lugosi, whose iconic and strangely mesmerizing performance was the epitome of the Dracula character for generations. A more subtle monster than Nosferatu, Lugosi’s vampire has a decidedly exotic and aristocratic air — he’s like a foreign ambassador who just happens to be undead.

Browning’s version of Dracula exerted an enormous influence on most of the Dracula films that followed. Its impact has been so widespread, in fact, that viewers may be familiar with its take on the Dracula story even if they have not seen the original. So it can be hard for audiences today to see Dracula with fresh eyes. But it’s worth a second look. Dracula is an impressive film on its own merits.

_____

Horror of Dracula (1958)

A generation after Browning’s version of Dracula, the British outfit Hammer Films issued director Terence Fisher’s new version of Stoker’s vampire story. Horror of Dracula (the movie’s title in the U.S.) is a stylish and engaging film, even if it is a rather low-budget affair. The movie’s energetic take on the classic story reinvigorated interest in the Dracula character, especially among enthusiasts of the horror genre. They appreciated the actors having fun with the roles. They also liked that there was more blood.

The film pits Count Dracula (portrayed by Christopher Lee, who went on to play the character several times) against the persistent Professor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing). The pairing of Lee and Cushing was a masterstroke and so popular that it was repeated several times. (A bit of trivia: Each actor appears in separate movies in the Star Wars series.)

There is little that is subtle about a typical Hammer film, and Horror of Dracula is no exception. But the brash directing and enthusiastic, twinkle-in-the-eye acting adds an undercurrent of fun to what would otherwise appear to be a rather grim story.

_____

Dark Shadows (TV series, 1966-1971; remake 1991)

In the late 1960s the vampire tradition got an unexpected jumpstart in the unlikely venue of an afternoon soap opera. The most popular storyline in ABC television’s Dark Shadows focused on Barnabas Collins (played by Jonathan Frid), whose sorrow and angst about being a vampire was an almost endearing character trait.

Not that the undead don’t also have issues in their love lives. Barnabas was a forlorn vampire and frequently at the center of love triangles. The whole series –which also delved into the world of werewolves, witches, ghosts, and all things supernatural — combined traditional soap-opera melodrama with a camp sensibility. The low-budget production values and limitations, brought on by the quick turnaround time demanded for the production of a show that needed five new episodes every week, add to its charm, if you’re in that frame of mind.

A popular and stylish remake of the series was produced in 1991. Released on DVD under the title Dark Shadows – The Revival, it stars Ben Cross as the vampire.

Dark Shadows has long maintained a cult following. Several sources indicate  a re-working of the franchise in movie form may appear sometime soon.

Many episodes from the original series have been released in various collections on DVD. A movie version of the Barnabas Collins story — featuring the original cast of the ABC series — was released to theaters in 1971 as House of Dark Shadows. (At the time of this writing it appears to be unavailable on DVD.)

_____

Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)

Although Tod Browning’s vision shaped how directors approached the Dracula story for decades, in the later 1970s director Werner Herzog went back to an earlier source. His Nosferatu the Vampyre pays homage to director F.W. Murnau’s 1922 classic, updating  the story and adding stunning visual design.

Nosferatu the Vampyre is much more than simply a remake, however. As a Village Voice reviewer said, it’s “a reconnection with German culture.” It’s also a reflective, moody film. In fact, critic Roger Ebert said the movie is “so slow it’s meditative at times.”

Hidden beneath layers of heavy make-up, Klaus Kinski offers a solid performance. Thankfully, he avoids the usual acting clichés for a vampire role. The performances of the rest of the cast — including Isabelle Adjani, Bruno Ganz, Roland Topor, and Walter Ladengast — are also commendable, but the movie is more about mood, atmosphere, and symbolism than character-focused narrative.

Herzog’s movie has a prominent personal vision. Taken on its own terms, it’s captivating viewing.

(Although the film is available with English sub-titles, the original German soundtrack offers a richer experience.)

_____

Salem’s Lot (1979 TV Miniseries)

Tobe Hooper directed this version of Stephen King’s chilling story about a Maine town that becomes overrun with nighttime blood suckers and the Prodigal Son writer who returns to kill them. Nominated for three prime time Emmys, watch this for the creepy-kitschy factor. Salem’s Lot stars David Soul, James Mason and others.

[Salem’s Lot was remade in 2004 for USA TV networks, with Rob Lowe, Donald Sutherland, and Andre Braugher. This one ups the gore and has more convincing effects.]

_____

The Lost Boys (1987)

In the 1980s, Director Joel Schumacher’s The Lost Boys brought contemporary sex appeal to things that go bump in the night. Even the tagline was hot: “Sleep all day. Party all night. Never grow old. Never die. It’s fun to be a vampire.”

The story involves the little town of Santa Clarita, which has one major problem: all the damn vampires. Watch new kids Corey Haim and Jason Patric as they get roped in to the local cult of the undead. It’s a fun and entertaining ride, despite the trade paper Variety’s wet-blanket assessment that it’s “a horrifically dreadful vampire teensploitation entry … that daringly advances the theory that all those missing children pictured on garbage bags and milk cartons are actually the victims of bloodsucking bikers.” (Variety‘s review is here.)

Starring Jason Patric, Kiefer Sutherland, Coreys Haim and Feldman. See the trailer for The Lost Boys at IMDb.com here.

_____

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)

With legendary director Francis Ford Coppola at the helm, Bram Stoker’s Dracula also boasts a stellar cast, including Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, and Keanu Reeves. Lush and stylized, this take on Bram Stoker’s tale focuses on the love story between Mina Harker and the Count. Keanu Reeves, as Jonathan Harker, is as wooden as the stakes used to kill the vampires, but Anthony Hopkins and the amazing visual palette of the movie more than makes up for it.

Indeed, this is a hard movie to pin down. A review in the Washington Post complained: “You can’t tell if this is a flawed masterpiece or an intricately designed bag of wind.” Still, there are more than enough elements in the movie to make it an essential part of anyone’s introduction to the genre.

____

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (television series 1997-2003)

After writing the script for director Fran Rubel Kuzui’s 1992 movie of the same name, Josh Whedon took his characters and their story to television and did what is seldom accomplished: He improved on the original. Indeed, television’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer — a more somber take on the same basic story — did more than follow the never-ending struggle of young vampire slayers against an army of the undead. It also spoke tellingly about the lives of American teenagers at the turn of the 21st century.

Whedon reportedly said the show was “high school as a horror movie.” But it’s engaging viewing no matter what you call it. Amassing a legion of fans, the series benefited from not only smart writing, but also a strong cast — especially Sarah Michele Gellar in the leading role.

____

I Am Legend (2007)

Director Francis Lawrence’s 2007 reimagining is about as far from the original Richard Matheson book as you can get. In his adaptation of I am Legend, a plague causes the world to succumb to vampiric, zombie-like illness, and Will Smith is apparently the lone New Yorker immune—good thing he has his dog for company!

The relationship between Smith and Marley, his canine companion, is as touching as the vampires are evil. Have a box of tissues handy for this one!

[For a different take on Matheson’s story, check out The Last Man on Earth, the 1964 movie starring Vincent Price.]

_____

Twilight (2008)

Ahh, first love…vampiric love. Much has been said about the sappy, silly aspects of this teen drama, but the film has some classic vampire moments: liberal gore, good special effects, and Lost Boys-esque sex appeal. No doubt this is part of the reason that Twilight, director Catherine Hardwicke’s film, is the most recent phenomenon in the vampire movie tradition.Think of Twilight as an appetizer to Coppola’s main course. With Kristen Stewart and Rob Pattinson.

 

 

 

________________

Don’t see you favorite vampire movie? No problem. Send along your favorite by posting a comment.

__________

G. Arnold & Erin Dionne are writers and editors of Bread and Circus Magazine.

Images (above): DVDs available from Amazon.com.

_________________________________

“Anatomy” of the Fray

by Editors

NEW VOICES
POP CULTURE REVIEW

“Anatomy” of the Fray

By Jessica Miles

We’ve all seen those romantic comedies where boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, girl sees boy as just a friend, and girl later realizes through a series of quirky events that she really does love the boy. And then there is the famous scene: boy is walking through the airport after returning from a business trip feeling hopeless and rejected. The beat of the background music kicks in; a slow drum beat that eagerly picks up as the crowded terminal parts and there she is, waiting for him from across the way. They run toward each other in slow motion and the music consumes the scene.

This way of using music in movies and television can be quite effective. The latest radio hits are constantly featured on primetime shows and this creates buzz among fans. Such attention has also acted as the “big break” for several artists and bands, as fans dash to iTunes to download the featured song.

Often these songs are much more than simply background, especially on television. They can play an intricate role in a show, setting an explicit tone and helping to guide the characters through each scene. Some series are very successful in bringing the music and the storyline together. Grey’s Anatomy, a series about the lives of five surgical interns and their superiors, is one such show that has been praised for its attention to detail regarding music.

Music is not just incidental to Grey’s Anatomy. In an article in Variety.com from 2009, Grey’s Anatomy creator Shonda Rhimes commented that the music is very important to the show and is a vital piece in the evolution of its stories. She noted, in fact, that music has been an essential aspect of Grey’s Anatomy since the pilot episode, igniting the emotions of the characters and the audience.

The decision by Grey’s Anatomy producers to prominently feature the Fray’s song “How to Save a Life” is one strong example of this. The song sets the mood for the series’ viewers as they intently follow the characters and plot.

“How to Save a Life” also has fundamental connections to elements of the show’s narrative. It especially relates to the story of the Meredith Grey character in the show.  The song’s lyrics are reflected in the downhearted storylines in which Meredith (played by Ellen Pompeo) faces several major conflicts, including her unstable relationship with her mother, abandonment by her father, and the ending of her relationship with Derek (played by Patrick Dempsey).

This connection is not surprising.  In a 2006 interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, the Fray’s lead singer, Isaac Slade, said that the narrative behind “How to Save a Life” is a tribute to a teen he mentored through a drug addiction and how there are no guarantees in such a struggle. This intricate combination of themes such as hope, risk, and cynicism, parallels the successes and failures of the interns on Grey’s Anatomy.

As important as the music may be for a series, the decision by Grey’s Anatomy producers to notably feature the Fray’s music has helped fuel the band’s success. They have risen to fame in tandem with the rising success of the series. The Denver-based band is now recognized internationally for sincere lyrics and infectious melodies in songs such as “Over My Head” and “You Found Me.”

The Fray came from humble beginnings, however.  Before their current success they were like countless other undiscovered musicians. Vocalist Isaac Slade, drummer Ben Wysocki, and guitarists Joe King and Dave Welsh sent their songs to local radio stations, hoping for a break. That finally came in 2004 on a Sunday night radio show featuring artists in the Denver area. “Over My Head” became a hit in the Denver music scene, and fans began flocking to their shows.

Then came exposure on Grey’s Anatomy. When the Fray’s song “How to Save a Life” became a staple on the hit show, it gave their career an additional boost. They have been in fast forward ever since.

The Fray will likely continue to have a presence on television shows such as Grey’s Anatomy. Meanwhile, the band has been busy making new music and is traveling throughout the country on a U.S. concert tour to promote their latest album, simply titled, “The Fray.”

___________

Jessica Miles is a Bread and Circus Magazine contributing writer.

Pictured above: Grey’s Anatomy — The Complete 3rd Season DVD (Buena Vista Home Entertainment / Touchstone); The Fray CD (Sony).

_________________________

NEW VOICES is a Bread and Circus Magazine feature in which emerging writers share their views on aspects of contemporary culture.

The Real Housewives and Guilty Pleasures

by Editors

TELEVISION REVIEW/OPINION

The Real Housewives and Guilty Pleasures

By Jessica Miles

Reality TV has become a guilty pleasure for so many, and no show has captivated me more than The Real Housewives series on Bravo TV. It is the perfect recipe for a reality television show: drama, catty middle-aged women, drama, greedy children, drama, stunning abodes, and did I mention drama?

I must admit my fascination with The Real Housewives goes beyond the premiere of the first season in Orange County. I am ashamed to confess that shows like MTV’s The Hills and The Real World have also lured me in, in the past, but The Real Housewives may have them beat. Set in such locales as Orange County, New York City, New Jersey, and Atlanta, each season comes equipped with more cattiness, and greed.

Although the women featured on The Real Housewives may not play the stereotypical housewife role, this is what makes the show so appealing. These “housewives” hire help to clean their houses, to cook their meals, and even to dress them in the latest fashions.

Yet, while the fashion statements are always fun to watch I cannot help but roll my eyes and laugh at the lavish lifestyles these women live and the horrendous attitudes they often display. It’s the combination of the “if it doesn’t make me money, I don’t do it” attitude and the constant gossip and bickering taking place between these so-called friends that draws me to the show and often leads to dramatic conflicts.

The fights between the women on The Real Housewives, whether physical or verbal, have a theatrical aspect to them. Eyebrows raise, lips are pursed, nails form claws, and hair flies – all as the most bizarre events unfold. It’s hard not to watch these women tarnish whatever reputation they may have had in the blink of an eye.

But these brawls are what keep viewers returning to the series because major conflicts never seem to be resolved in the same season they occur. No, we must wait until the next season to watch the housewives apologize to one another while sitting in a trendy restaurant sipping a green apple martini.

Whether it is an accurate portrayal or not, Bravo seems to consistently depict the housewives as selfish elitists who place more value on high society gatherings than on family. The hair and makeup chair is like a second home, as they constantly prepare for the next high profile event. And while there is something about that on-the-go lifestyle that I would love to experience, I would never want to live it. Affluence seems to be the cause of all evil on the show.

Yet, the women on The Real Housewives send a different message to society: Money is the root of a blissful existence. As the housewives bask in their upper class glory, the words that come out of their mouths are often comical. They seem to think that family is for show, that Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior are values, and that modest houses equipped with the essentials aren’t suitable when ten-bedroom mansions with their own salons and personal chefs are available.

It all reminds me that the pleasures we indulge in are no longer innocent and fruitful, and neither are the shows we watch. Years ago, series such as Full House and Family Matters told stories about morals and family. Those shows continue to live on, almost invisibly, in syndication. Meanwhile, reality television consumes our media-driven appetites today. These guilty pleasures are fun to watch, although they do little to enlighten us.

____________

Jessica Miles, Bread and Circus contributing writer, attends Bryant University, where she is a  Communication major.

Image (above): Cover of The Real Housewives of Orange County – Season 1 DVD (Bravo TV).

5 movies about politics worth seeing

by Editors

MOVIES

5 movies about politics worth seeing

As the 2008 presidential campaign season finally winds down, perhaps you aren’t ready to turn you attention to other matters just yet. Here, for your consideration, are five movies worth seeing that offer differing takes on the world of politics. Each is the product of its own era, of course, but these movies also comment on the political realm in ways that have lasting impact.

1. DUCK SOUP (1933)

In this classic Marx Brothers farce, the tiny nation of Freedonia is in a dire financial situation and forced to borrow money from a wealthy benefactor. In this case, the loan is from a certain Mrs. Teasdale (Margaret Dumont), not the People’s Republic of China. Enter Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx) as Freedonia’s new prime minister. His unorthodox ideas to solve the crisis may or may not seem more absurd to you than certain ideas put forth in the recent very real financial crisis, but the results are certainly much funnier. Filled with the usual Marx Brothers mayhem, the whole situation is complicated by the antics of spies from a rival nation, played by Harpo and Chico Marx. Directed to wonderful effect by Leo McCarey.

2. MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939)

An antidote to the cynicism that characterizes contemporary attitudes about politics, director Frank Capra’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is probably a movie that more people know about than have actually seen. Yet, regardless of what you already know about this movie, it is well worth seeing for a first, second, or even third time. Hollywood legend Jimmy Stewart is a standout in the lead role of Jefferson Smith, an idealistic man appointed to fill a vacant seat in the U.S. Senate. Few in the political establishment think that Smith will be up to the job. They wrongly assume that he will present little obstacle in their business-as-usual world of sleazy backroom politics. But Smith is a an idealist on a mission, and soon powerful forces aim to bring him down. One of Capra’s best.

3. ADVISE AND CONSENT (1962)

Talk about backroom politics. Director Otto Preminger rakes Washington over the coals in Advise and Consent, a film that deserves a more prominent place in the pantheon of movies from the 1960s than it has. The plot involves an unpopular president who makes a controversial cabinet appointment. The president’s political enemies pull out all the stops in efforts to derail it. Yet, the slimy political trickery is not restricted to the president’s enemies. Opportunists in the president’s own party use threats and blackmail as they try to sway the outcome. Starring Henry Fonda, Gene Tierney, Charles Laughton, Peter Lawford, and a host of other Hollywood luminaries.

4. WAG THE DOG (1997)

Does your candidate have skeletons in the closet that could make for disaster at the polls? Why not start a war to divert attention elsewhere. That’s the premise behind director Barry Levinson’s Wag the Dog, in which a president with a sex scandal to hide uses spin and manipulation in order to stay in office. The producers of the film used the tag line “A Hollywood producer. A Washington spin-doctor. When they get together, they can make you believe anything” when it was first marketed in the late 1990s. This is a funny and witty film, albeit it one with disturbing overtones. Starring Dustin Hoffman, Robert DeNiro, Andrea Martin, Denis Leary, Anne Heche, Kirsten Dunst, and others.

5. PRIMARY COLORS (1998)

Mike Nichols directed this entertaining treatment of Joe Klein’s thinly veiled version of the 1992 Clinton campaign. Here, the presidential candidate in question is a southern politician named Jack Stanton, a man with one eye on the pressing political problems of the day and the other on many of the women he encounters along the campaign trail. On the surface, the movie may seem rather limited in its aims, but film as critic Roger Ebert wrote, Primary Colors is“a superb film–funny, insightful and very wise about the realities of political life.” With John Travolta, Emma Thompson, and other notables.

—-

There are other titles worth seeing, of course, and this list merely represents one set of viewing options. (Among obvious possibilities are two Robert Redford films:The Candidate, from 1972; and All the President’s Men, the Watergate story released in 1976.) Don’t see your favorite? Let us know about it.

— G.A.

_______________

IMAGES (above): Duck Soup DVD; Mr. Smith Goes to Washington DVD; Advise and Consent DVD; Wag the Dog DVD; Primary Colors DVD — all available at Amazon.com

Impresaria or Imposter? Aren’t we all…

by Staff

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

Impresaria or Imposter?  Aren’t we all…

By Kimberlee A. Cloutier-Blazzard, Bread and Circus editor and senior writer

Staying on the topic of Sarah Palin—if I can realistically count my glasses post as an article—I’d like to comment on Judith Warner’s latest article on “Poor Sarah“ in the NY Times (9/25/08).

In reading her op-ed, Warner made me realize that my already confused stance on Feminism is actually more muddled than I thought.

Where to begin?

I am a child of the Seventies.  That puts me in the strange position of being a “second wave feminist”—one who has the luxury of reconsidering our “gains” in society and culture from a liberated foxhole (or “DFP” for you military buffs).

I have a product-of-the-late-Sixties mother who worked part-time as an executive secretary during my childhood.  It seems most period career choices for women back then consisted of housewife, teacher or secretary.  So, as a result, my mom was “mainstream”.  While she worked, I was cared-for by my grandmother who came of age in the Forties.  Unlike my mother she neither had a degree, nor could drive a car.

Even as I child I saw advantages and disadvantages to both of these lifestyles.  My mother was independent, mobile and able to spend her own money.  I might add that she was also seemingly forever stressed-out and/or suffering from headaches.  To the contrary, my grandmother was tied to her house and had little disposable income, but she made her own schedule and had lots of fun teaching me how to cook and keep house.  From that early age it seemed to me impossible that women could be both a successful careerist and available caretaker.  It took a village.  Or, at least two women.

And, here’s where Warner comes in.

What a provocative idea Warner has, that one could feel sorry for Sarah Palin as a well-kempt working mom who began to wilt under the glaring media- and international spotlights.  Warner perceives Palin as a sister-sufferer of imposter-syndrome.  (Is there anyone who hasn’t yet suffered from, or at least heard of that phenomenon?)  As evidence of Palin’s professional-woman’s strained survivalist-instincts, Warner notes Palin’s slumping posture, impossibly-perfect hair and nervous tics (the folded-hands-on-knees and deer-in-the-headlights look) during her visit with Henry Kissinger. Warner exudes compassion for this girlfriend out of her depth.

I suppose that we women could feel empathy for Palin.  We’ve all met smarter people, or been put on-the-spot in a high-pressure situation.  Might Sarah Palin be a hapless victim? A woman put in the precarious position of Veep candidate by the irresistible, synergistic forces of an enticing career move and her own hubris?

But, this scenario would assume that Palin was circumspect enough to realize that she’s out of her league.  After all, she could cry “Uncle!”  Or, “I want to be there for my kids while they’re small.” And we’d all understand.  But, we all know she won’t.  She won’t admit that she’s “just one woman”.  One woman without the credentials necessary for the job she’s applied for.

In a sense the problem is that Palin is just like any other person.  (As she loves to admit with her small-town, hard-working rhetoric.) In fact, like most people who are unqualified for something due to a lack of gifts or experience, she just don’t see it that way.  After all, it takes gumption to say you’re focused on education to Katie Couric’s face when—in actual word and deed—you despise intellectual pursuits.  (In this regard she sounds mightily like our intrepid former National Education Secretary, William Bennett, who spent the other morning on the Today Show bashing intellectuals.  Fine sport for a Ph.D. in philosophy.)

Fortunately, in the real world, when people without credentials apply for management positions their cv never gets past the door.  Unfortunately, in this election year, a desperate, eager-to-reinvent-its-image GOP was not beneath finding a pliable and perhaps gullible “hick chick” for its ticket.  Not kosher, no matter how classically good-looking she is.

At this point you might well ask what my life is like.  Do I work?  Yes.  Do I have kids?  Yes.  Am I, therefore, in taking Sarah Palin to task somewhere between deeply conflicted and suffering from split personality disorder?  Absolutely.   Every day I question whether or not I am doing either of my vocations (maternal and professional) well.  And, I have a sneaking suspicion that most women are in the same rickety boat.  Unfortunately, as a post-modern woman I remain compelled to do both.  And, that’s why I can fathom why Warner’s feeling sorry for Palin.  And, yet, my platonic intellect tells me that Palin is not up to the task of world leader.  (Never mind the our polar opposite political stances…)

Couldn’t we at least get someone who knows why being an “elite” is a good thing?  Even Martha Stewart understands that one…

______________

This item originally appeared in the blog Percyflage.

Kimberlee A. Cloutier-Blazzard, Ph.D., is a senior contributing writer & contributing editor of Bread and Circus Magazine and an Independent Scholar of Art History, Specializing in Northern Renaissance and Baroque. Click here to send her email.

Kaffeeclatch (Coffee Talk)

by Editors

LIFE & CULTURE

Kaffeeclatch (Coffee Talk)

by Kimberlee A. Cloutier-Blazzard

Has anyone noticed that televised ads for cheap coffee are multiplying?

Recently I’ve seen the resuscitation of Folgers and Maxwell House coffee ads on the networks, as well as pretty-darned-witty McDonald’s ads geared towards discerning coffee drinkers.  

In the McDonald’s ads, they spoof coffee house coffee as “elite” by associating its totalers with goatees, Palin-style metrosexual eyewear, speaking French and knowledge of global geography.

Is it just me, or is there a certain recession-savvy prescience among corporate America that the average consumer is about to revert to my grandparents’ favorite sport—finding the least-offensive, yet cheapest cup of coffee?

And–in a pandemic global recession–I’m afraid, over time, maybe least-offensive will even lose-out!  

Here’s a history lesson for you.  Did you ever wonder where the word “ersatz” comes from?  It means “substitute” in German and was first used in WWI to describe things like synthetic supply replacements.  

And again, in the hard economic pinch of WWII, it was regularly used to describe “replacement coffee”.   What the heck is replacement coffee?  (You’re fortunate not to know!)  Getreidekaffee or “grain coffee” was served to Allied POW’s by their German captors when real coffee supplies were scarce.  It meant coffee made from any roasted grain or bean except coffee.  Yum!  (NOT!)

Like those Allied POW’s who detested the stuff, I’m sure I’m not looking forward to “the best part of waking up”  if the global economy continues to sink.

Call me an “elitist” but you can ask me the same question in French, Dutch, or German, in Paris or Paraguay, and the answer won’t change.  A good cup of coffee is the sign of a great economy.  So, there goes “I’m lovin’ it.”  (Sigh.)

Kimberlee A. Cloutier-Blazzard, Ph.D., is a senior writer & editor of Bread and Circus Magazine and an Independent Scholar of Art History, Specializing in Northern Renaissance and Baroque. Click here to send her email.

Mr. Francoeur Was a Good Man

by Editors

LIFE & CULTURE

Mr. Francoeur Was a Good Man

by Kimberlee A. Cloutier-Blazzard

All the despairing talk of the financial markets has brought memories of my grandparents’ stories flooding back. As a child I spent many hours with my Mèmére and Pèpére, my paternal grandparents, who babysat for my sister and me.

My grandparents used to regale us with how difficult life was for them growing up during the Great Depression.

My Mèmére explained how her mother occasionally had to make extreme decisions in order to keep their home afloat. For example, because her husband was sickly, my Grandmèmére (great-grandmother) had to work long hours at the factory just to support herself and her husband. She couldn’t afford to feed her kids regularly, let alone hire daycare. This meant putting my Mèmére and her three siblings into an orphanage for extended periods until she could catch up.

My grandfather’s family was larger – they had ten kids – so, you can imagine how much scarcer money and food were in that house. My Pèpére told me about what his siblings did for fun, including taking old wood and boxes to make sleds in the winter. As he used to say, they had to “make their own fun”.

My Pèpére also used to like telling us about Mr. Francoeur. And, he always used the same line: “Mr. Francoeur was a good man.” (This is the same way he used to talk about FDR.) Though he was not a national figure, Mr. Francoeur was famous in his own corner of the world. He was the neighborhood baker in my grandparents’ French-Canadian neighborhood in New Hampshire. As my grandfather explained, Mr. Francoeur made special arrangements for folks who couldn’t pay their weekly bread bill. Mr. Francoeur would treat each customer as an individual; he would let them pay what they could each week, but always let them take home the bread they needed to get by. If the neighborhood families couldn’t pay at all, he started a running tally, looking ahead to better days to come. That bread was their lifeline. Literally.

These days, I’ve been wondering how folks in dire straits have been faring here in the US. Though we haven’t hit rock-bottom with the financial crises, many people are suffering. Childhood poverty, the use of food banks and soup kitchens are on the rise here in Massachusetts, as it is most other places around the country. This is a new phenomenon to the baby boom generation. By and large my parents’ peers, post WWII, grew up in an unprecedented time of economic growth and job security. Those I know never dealt with the penny-pinching and hard times that my grandparents grappled with. Though I sincerely hope that we don’t face another Great Depression in my lifetime, I’m starting to wonder if I’m going to have that in-common with my grandparents. All current indications seem to be pointing in that direction.

It does makes me wonder, too: Are there any Mr. Francoeurs in the world today? Though I never met him, I feel like I know him. And, I’m so thankful for his generosity to my family in hard times. I will be keeping his memory alive into the next generation, to my kids, as an example of common decency in a world blighted by blind greed. In a way, we’re only here because of him.

Mr. Francoeur was a good man. Indeed.

Kimberlee A. Cloutier-Blazzard, Ph.D., is a senior writer & editor of Bread and Circus Magazine and an Independent Scholar of Art History, Specializing in Northern Renaissance and Baroque. Click here to send her email.

Unleashing the Muses

by Editors

THE HUMANITIES

Unleashing the Muses: Or, How Angry Calypso Trumps Little Fish

By Kimberlee A. Cloutier-Blazzard

In a recent job interview I had the following question posed to me: “What would you change about the field [of Art History] if you could? Not just your area of specialty, mind you, but the entire discipline?”

The answer was not hard for me to find, as it is right at the tip of my tongue.

I answered: “Fifty years ago Art History (or, we might say the Humanities in general) was a part of mainstream consciousness. Books written by scholars were read by an educated public, and the tenets of culture were understood to be relevant to a full life, to membership in a shared human experience. Since the advent of Semiotics and the relativization of culture, the Humanities have been seen as “elitist,” “irrelevant,” or both. Nowadays most people live almost entirely in the moment, in their own construct of reality; the past is dead, and they ask what purpose would it serve to learn from it? In a shrinking world, I believe that as academics—or more broadly, humanists—we bear an increasingly urgent responsibility to express the common thread of the human experience: one poetically woven by the acknowledged masters of literature, art and music.”

All that on the tip of my tongue? Yep. Let’s just say that after explaining my choice of Art History as a profession to almost everyone I’ve met in the last seventeen years (including my practical-minded, incredulous Yankee parents), I’ve had many years to justify the necessity of the humanities to an ever-more skeptical audience. Perhaps this is why, in reading Stanley Fish’s regular column in the New York Times on January 6, I was blown away by a “colleague’s” utterly nihilistic approach to the Humanities.

It was the article’s title that immediately piqued my interest: Will the Humanities Save Us? “Of course!” I thought. Then, in his article Fish proceeded to show just how far from the course of civilization his mature mind has wandered. For example, he summarizes the article with the question, “What good are the humanities?” His “honest answer”: none whatsoever.

For Professor Fish, like many of his online commentators, because the humanities don’t bring esteem, create tangible objects, nor turn that all-important profit, he doesn’t believe that they can be justified to the mainstream. Though a career academic himself, Fish never explains what binds these fields together other than their lack of lucre and prestige. He writes: “Teachers of literature and philosophy are competent in a subject, not in a ministry. It is not the business of the humanities to save us, no more than it is their business to bring revenue to a state or a university. What then do they do? They don’t do anything, if by “do” is meant bring about effects in the world. And if they don’t bring about effects in the world they cannot be justified except in relation to the pleasure they give to those who enjoy them.”

They don’t bring about effects in the world? Other than selfish pleasure? Really?

As you might suspect by now—perhaps after reading some of my Bread and Circus posts—I heartily disagree. For the scant ten years that I’ve been teaching I can’t tell you how many students have thanked me at the end of a semester of Survey to let me know that Art History–with its robust combination of all the sister arts–served them as the key to unlocking the complicated visual and social culture that surrounds them everyday. Contrary to Fish’s contentions, most undergraduates are giddy to finally know why things look as they do, that there are orders of architecture and levels of rhetoric, that they have the power to unlock the cultural heritage in their midst—eventually even to understand how our Post-Modern world has occasionally inverted or rejected the past. Though they are neophytes, even undergraduates have the sense to acknowledge that such perspective requires the broad background in historical and visual knowledge that a Humanities education affords one.

Though admittedly I’m a bit eccentric, I found myself asking why in his populist writing Professor Fish never plumbed the reasons why the Japanese love Mozart, or why Americans cannot get enough of Egyptian mummies. Why is it, for example, that a young Japanese film director, Akira Kurosawa, could turn Macbeth into a samurai movie (Throne of Blood, 1957), and roughly a decade later Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood to turn his Yojimbo back into a spaghetti Western if not for a shared human experience?

More to the point, Fish could have explained for the layperson why the poetic voicing of universal human urges might give our tiny planet some common ground. What exactly are the humanities to Professor Fish? Nothing more than archaic General Education requirements? Perhaps his time in academic administration has eroded his sense of Campbellian bliss.

Maybe I watch too many movies, but after reading Fish (in my fired-up, fevered imagination) I envisioned gung-ho humanists like myself in the role of the band of pirates in the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie, At World’s End, releasing a changeable, ferocious goddess upon him and his ilk. Not the nereid Calypso (though she certainly knows how to control “fish”), but rather the sisterhood of nine Classical Muses: Calliope, the muse of epic poetry; Clio, muse of history; Erato, muse of erotic verse; Euterpe, muse of music and lyric poetry; Melpomene, muse of tragedy; Polyhymnia, muse of sacred verse; Terpsichore, muse of chorale and dance; Thalia, muse of comedy; and finally, Urania, muse of astronomy.

Is the scorn of nine jilted women overkill? Probably not. After all, while Disney’s Calypso only had to undo the abuses of moral corruption and greed caused by the East India Company, we humanists need to undo decades of similar corrosion at the hands of a whole generation of soured and bitter academics who’ve imploded the cultural capital bestowed upon them by the giants who preceded them.

In sum, while Professor Fish has been an academic for ten years longer than I’ve been on this planet, I am convinced that he and his generation of scholars have dropped the ball. In fact, I believe that the cycles of history will prove that they should be lumped in with the mouldering Scholastic scholars of the Fourteenth Century who woke up one day to find that they’d been replaced by the fresh-faced eager humanists of the Renaissance. Huzzah!

____________________
Bread and Circus contributing writer Kimberlee A. Cloutier-Blazzard, Ph.D., is an Independent Scholar of Art History, Specializing in Northern Renaissance and Baroque. Click here to send her email.

Stephen Colbert, Court Jester

by Editors

Stephen Colbert, Court Jester

By Kimberlee A. Cloutier-Blazzard

I have an admission to make: I’m in serious withdrawal. “Hi, my name is Kimberlee and I’m addicted to The Colbert Report.” Even though, as a fellow writer, I am completely in sorority (and fraternity) with the writers on strike, I must admit I am suffering without my daily infusion of Monsieur Colbert’s sardonic wit.

So, to pass the time until corporate America comes to its senses, I decided to write about my cult hero from my own perspective—that of an art historian entranced by the history of fools.

Fools you say? A resounding “Yes!” The “Fool” precisely describes the part that Stephen Colbert plays. And furthermore, he should wear that badge with pride. For, the Fool has engendered a long, illustrious tradition.

Whether tribe or nation, human society has always had a clown or fool figure in order to test its communal structures. The Fool served the indispensable role of inciting restorative laughter as well as puncturing any pretensions to rise above our human estate. In the evolving cultures of kingship, the Fool served as the monarch’s comic foil, and even his alter ego. The Court Jester had special dispensation to “tell it like it is”, even to the king—again, puncturing pretensions and serving as the royal check and balance. Such royal fools lasted in until Absolutism in Europe climbed towards its apogee, and imperious kings no longer suffered Fools or their probing questions. Here in America, since the Revolution, we’ve had to settle for a President and other Public Servants to serve as our comic scapegoats. However, unlike our contemporaries, our original American forefathers provided much less popular humor. One might argue that this is because they earnestly strove for equality with their peers and, in comedy, those who seek ultimate power are the funniest to watch fall. In our own times, as the current administration ceaselessly consolidates power, wresting it from constituents, the imbalance has become palpable. Predictably, here is where Stephen Colbert comes in.

If we could liken our current administration to an Absolutist Monarchy, Stephen Colbert is serving as its heady Court Jester. But, you may ask, how is it that Colbert is routinely dismissed by those in power as nothing more assailing than a comedian, a “Fool.” Luckily, they tragically underestimate the ritualistic power of laughter.

If he seems to fly just below the White House’s radar, it is for two reasons. One, Post-Enlightenment society believes in the primacy of the infallible intellect to the exclusion of comic modes. And, second, Colbert has reinvented the “Fool” paradigm for the twenty-first century in remarkable ways. Most noticeably, he has abandoned the traditional outward markers of the Fool: for example, he shuns motley (outlandish, colorful garb), replacing it with Brooks Brothers suits and rimless glasses. His “sveltiness” leaves behind the traditional extremes of either skeletal thinness or perverse rotundness that characterized court jesters, and his height inverts their typical diminutive scale. Moreover, the suave demeanor and superficially satirical mind of his on-screen character belie deeper intentionality. These paradigmatic shifts allow Colbert to blend into his intended pinstriped context with more camouflage, and definitely in a more roguish way. One may not see him coming, a tree within the (updated) power suit forest.

In fact, Colbert has “had” many of his intended targets on his show seemingly without their knowing that they’re being systematically parodied at every turn. Or, as some suggest, perhaps his guests are knowingly self-deprecating, or just anxious to get in that coveted face time with the elusive “Gen X-ers” and “Gen-nexters”. Perhaps the guests justify their Colbert Show appearances with a “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” sort of approach. But, it seems that those politicians and politicos sorely underestimate the facile intellect, cynicism and world-weariness of Colbert and those in the 20-40 year old age group. It is a truism that you just can’t say something and be taken at your word anymore. Or, for that matter, even attempt to play the self-aware patsy; in the end you’re still the butt of their perspicuous mockery of authority.

Herein lies Colbert’s genius. He dons Conservative mannerisms and paroxysms with such deftness that he can seamlessly caricature their own shamelessly pandering, populist caricatures-and those of their media outlets. When they call him on it, he laughs the laugh of invincible “Truth” in the face of “Truthiness.” He winks and shrugs his shoulders; he plays at playing.

Indeed, most illustrative of his Fool status Colbert uses his wit to cut both ways—placing him squarely in the overall indefinable position of Folly. As many of his Democratic guests have seen, he does not spare them scrutiny because of their party affiliation—it goes without saying that they are cogs in the same Beltway machine as the Republicans. And, so when Colbert ran for President of the United States, he approached both parties with equal fervor and disgust.

Judging him by his free spirit and entrepreneurialism, one might short-sightedly conclude that Colbert is, at heart, an Independent. But, in reality, he is not aligned with the political party of that name either. Rather, as history teaches us, his nuanced status as Fool means that his persona exists completely outside of the system. He can powerfully jibe and cajole because he has no position, he is at once everywhere and nowhere. Every-man and no-man.

As “Nemo” is Latin for “no-man,” it is a great epithet for Colbert. It follows that we might consider the Colbert Report as a popular culture journey through the depths of our Post-modern society with Colbert as our feisty, changeable captain.

I, for one, will be so glad when his Nautilus of a show next surfaces, registering on the TV radar, and beginning the next chapter of our great American novel.

 

“O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up-for you the flag is flung-for you the bugle trills,
For you bouquets and ribbon’d wreaths-for you the shores crowding,
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning…”

— Walt Whitman

____________________
Bread and Circus contributing writer Kimberlee A. Cloutier-Blazzard, Ph.D., is an Independent Scholar of Art History, Specializing in Northern Renaissance and Baroque. Click here to send her email.

Image (above): Cover of The Best of The Colbert Report (Paramount Home Video DVD), available from Amazon.com.

5 Movies About the Vietnam War Worth Seeing

by Editors

FILM NOTES

5 Movies about the Vietnam War worth seeing

By G. Arnold

With the arrival of Veterans Day, here are a few movies about the Vietnam War that are worth a look—or even a second or third look. This is not a list of “best” pictures. Instead, these five films are selected to offer a range of perspectives from different eras. No doubt, your list would be different. Let’s hear what you would add.

• Apocalypse Now. Francis Ford Coppola’s epic from 1979 was controversial when it first appeared in American movie theaters. The decision to combine a Vietnam War story with elements of the novella Heart of Darkness perplexed people. They were expecting a more literal exploration of the war from the popular director whose film The Godfather had catapulted him to public attention. Over time, however, audiences have been won over. Coppola’s movie still doesn’t answer many questions about the war, but it’s a bold statement about the madness and chaos that the war can bring. Apocalypse Now features stunning cinematography and production design and a strong performance from Martin Sheen in the lead role. Skip the Redux version and see the original cut.

• Platoon. In the 1980s, America’s taste in Vietnam War movies gravitated towards the likes of Rambo and Missing in Action. Director Oliver Stone, a Vietnam veteran himself, was unhappy with what such movies said about the divisive conflict that had ensnared his generation, and so he set out to make a very different kind of film about the war. Combining a morality play about good and evil with battle sequences that many Vietnam vets found very realistic, he created a movie that elicited a deeply emotional reaction. In an interesting casting decision, Charlie Sheen, whose father Martin starred in Apocalypse Now, appears in the lead role. The film also features superb performances from Willem Dafoe and Tom Berenger. Platoon won the Academy Award for Best Picture of 1986.

• The Deer Hunter. This 1978 movie was one of the first moves about the war to appear after it had finally come to an end. Focusing on a group of Vietnam veterans, it reinforced for the nation just how traumatic and scarring that war had been. The film is set after the war, but for this group of men, the war hasn’t really ended. The flashbacks, including tense scenes in which captive Americans are forced to play Russian roulette, are notable. Featuring Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken, and Meryl Streep, The Deer Hunter won an Academy Award for Best Picture.

• The Anderson Platoon. This 1967 documentary from director Pierre Schoendoerffer was released at the height of the war. Originally made for French television, it does little more than tag along with an American unit for several weeks. In doing so, however, it offers a sobering portrait. Not really expressing a view in favor or against the war, The Anderson Platoon shows the bitter reality of a war apart from its politics. Original title: La Section Anderson. [This one is a bit hard to find.]

• Rescue Dawn. The main character in this recent movie is a pilot shot down over Laos, Vietnam’s neighbor, but as we know, the Vietnam War spilled over national borders. Director Werner Herzog offers a complex movie, in which the characters come to center stage. The New York Times called this picture “a marvel: a satisfying genre picture that challenges the viewer’s expectations.”

More than thirty years after the end of the war, Hollywood still returns to the Vietnam War theme. Oliver Stone is working on Pinkville, a film about the investigation into My Lai Massacre [Business Week reports that the current writers strike has delayed work in this project]. In addition, Sylvester Stallone is resurrecting his iconic Vietnam vet hero in a new Rambo movie, set for a January 2008 release.

* * * * * * *

UPDATE! — Here are five more…

• Full Metal Jacket — features a great performance from Vincent D’Onofrio.

• Fog of War – an enlightening and controversial documentary with Vietnam War-era Secretary of State Robert McNamara.
• Rambo: First Blood, Part II – not exactly a favorite of critics, it’s worth seeing this Sylvester Stallone vehicle if only to see for yourself what it was that captured America’s attention in the mid-1980s.
• The Green Berets — Hollywood star John Wayne made this picture at the height of the war in order to shore up public attitudes in favor of American participation; this one is also worth seeing for its role as a historical artifact.
• We Were Soliders — based on the true story of America’s so-called first battle in Vietnam; starring Mel Gibson, Madeleine Stowe, and Greg Kinnear.

__________________

G. Arnold is co-editor of Bread and Circus and the author of The Afterlife of America’s War in Vietnam, [pictured right, McFarland & Company Publishers, 2006] and the forthcoming Conspiracy Theory in Film, Television, and Politics [Praeger 2008].

Photograph [above]: Department of Defense photograph, 1967. Courtesy National Archives & Records Administration.