Book Review: "Eisenhower, the White House Years" by Jim Newton

Eisenhower, The White House Years (2011)

3 Stars out of 5

Jim Newton

Growing up as I did in the sixties and being the child of a pair of ardent Democrats, I have long carried around the notion that Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34^th President of the United States was not an effective or engaged president. Whatever flaws there may be in Jim Newton’s “Eisenhower, the White House Years”, and if it has but a single value to the interested reader, it is that Jim Newton will over the course of 452 pages disabuse any reader of such opinions regarding Eisenhower as an indifferent president. That Eisenhower made mistakes and may well have over-relied on covert action, and was far too passive in moving forward the civil rights of Black Americans is made clear in Newton’s book; but inactive and inattentive as president; no, that Eisenhower was not.

Eisenhower was born in Texas, the third son of seven boys. He and his older brother Edgar were nicknamed Ike (Big and Little, respectively). Little Ike was raised with his brothers in Abilene Kansas (one passed away as a child). His father David was a failed storeowner that eventually supported his family as a mechanic. To say that David played only a small role in influencing Ike is only really to say what a large role Ike’s mother has played in shaping young boy’s personality. Her influence came primarily in the form of her Mennonite upbringing and the rigid manner in which she ran her household. She had hopes that all of her sons would be successful and share her pacifistic leanings. She endured his decision to go to West Point, but it was certainly not the direction in life she had hoped for him or any of her sons. That Ike had made his choice on the basis of the economy of getting a free college education was largely his only reason in choosing West Point; that it further shaped his nature by bringing him into contact with the other personalities that would create President Eisenhower cannot be doubted.

Of these other personalities, they all came from military: Generals George S. Patton, Fox Hunter, Douglas MacArthur, and George Marshall – all but Patton were officers that the aspiring Eisenhower reported to and learned from after leaving West Point. Patton on the other hand was initially a friend and colleague early in their military careers and later a difficult but talented underling. One last influence of surpassing importance to Eisenhower was Carl von Clausewitz, the early 19^th century Prussian military theorist that Fox Conner introduced Eisenhower to while helping Eisenhower learn the foundational aspects of military strategy. Newton describes via a brief discussion of how military theory at the time broke down into two camps: Napoleonic which sought to destroy an enemy’s ability to fight vs. Clausewitz’ strategy of eliminating his foes’ desire to fight. That Eisenhower was influenced by Clausewitz is clearly important, but having once introduced the concept, Newton does not really elaborate on in it during Eisenhower’s war or presidential years. This omission by Newton is the enduring criticism I have of the book: it is often a good, but overly succinct listing of the events surrounding Eisenhower; there is simply too little analysis by Newton of the broader implications of Eisenhower’s decisions.

Newton quickly moves through Eisenhower’s courting and marriage to Mamie Dowd in 1916 and much of his early military career. The loss of their first child to scarlet fever, a boy nicknamed Icky was devastating to both Mamie and Dwight; the pain stayed with Eisenhower throughout his life. They had a second child 18 months later, John. John might well be added to those who played a significant role in Eisenhower as he eventually grew to adulthood and became an important part of Eisenhower’s presidential advisory team. The Eisenhowers had several other tough patches in the marriage besides the loss of Icky, but following the birth of John, they generally were a tight and loving couple. Following WWI, Eisenhower held positions under General John J Pershing and later under General Douglas McArthur. His influence under the latter General was more of a negative effect in the sense that the maturing Eisenhower was able to see how an egotistical leader that failed to value his subordinates was doomed in the long run to failure. As WWII dawned, Eisenhower was assigned through the influence of Fox Conner to the general staff of General George Marshall. As the need for a supreme US commander in Europe became more apparent, Eisenhower was picked by FDR for that role. Newton does a good job of discussing how Eisenhower was positively influenced by Marshall and his own WWII experience as a commander; the key lesson being the importance of creating a good staff that a leader such as Marshall or Eisenhower could fully rely on.

The bulk of the book by Newton is as the title suggests on Eisenhower’s presidential years: 1953-1961. These years are so often looked back on by Americans as a period of stability, and if one is feeling critical towards the Eisenhower Administration, years of inactivity. The strength of Newton’s book is that he is able to demonstrate very clearly that in actual fact, the US faced extremely serious, potentially catastrophic problems abroad in the form of a series of aggressive patterns of behavior by the communists in charge of People’s Republic of China and the USSR, and in the form of anti-communist demagoguery in the US led by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Additionally, Eisenhower found himself constantly being pushed by his generals and various conservatives in the US government to be far more aggressive in responding to the communists abroad and to the growing clamor for legal recognition of the rights of Black Americans – an issue that Eisenhower had very mixed feelings about.

Eisenhower’s approach to the problems presented to the American people and their government by the Russians and communist Chinese was a strategy that he tried to use in almost all his problem solving: the Middle Way. This was essentially a path between the competing forces from the right that strove to push Eisenhower to use nuclear weapons in a tactical manner vs. those from the left that may well have chosen acquiescence to the various Russian and Chinese advances (this point of view is rarely given much attention in the book). For the most part Eisenhower found himself arguing for more subtle and covert approaches to preventing the spread of communism; this may have been successful in some cases for the short run, but sowed the seeds for future problems. Two good cases about future problems would have been the CIA’s coordination of events leading the ouster of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh and the coup d’etat of Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz. Both of these forays by the CIA had the effect of convincing the Eisenhower Administration of their ability (or so they believed) of being able to successfully change administrations in countries they had concerns over, but also led to the maturation of future opponents: Ayatollah Khomeini and Che Guevara. I think a good argument could be made that during the 1950’s, the CIA was almost out of control. At the very least they overvalued their effectiveness, and by their own records lied about their mistakes to Eisenhower.

 

However, Eisenhower’s refusal to employ nuclear weapons to end the Korean War, to discourage the Chinese from bombarding Quemoy and Matsu (two small islands contested by communists and their nationalists cousins on Taiwan), to force Russian Premier Nikita Khruschev from isolating West Berlin, or any number of other cases where Eisenhower’s generals urged him to consider if not actually use nuclear weapons to force his opposition into retreat, quite probably kept the world from entering Armageddon. The positive consequences of Ike’s middle way was that throughout this period only one American serviceman lost his life in combat, while the communists failed to substantially progress anywhere. This comparison is especially noteworthy when contrasted to Eisenhower’s successor John F Kennedy’s much more forceful approach. (Kennedy’s strategy was referred to by JFK as a “flexible approach”. It was an issue upon which he campaigned with great vigor when he ran against Richard Nixon and the Eisenhower legacy in 1960). That JFK’s approach led to the immediately disastrous Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba and the long running tragedy that was Viet Nam suggests strongly to Newton the correctness of Eisenhower’s foreign policy and defense strategies. Whether or not there were long term downsides to Ike’ Middle Way or not is not discussed in “Eisenhower”, and again is one of the flaws with Newton’s book. Like so many biographies, “Eisenhower” generally views the big picture of events surrounding Eisenhower with a very favorable point of view. To Newton’s credit he often looks critically at some of the “smaller” events during the Eisenhower years.

Of the “smaller” events examined by Newton two stand out: McCarthyism and Black Civil Rights. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin was a fellow Republican; a bully that used innuendo and unfounded implications of guilt to ruin anyone in his sights; anyone he could step on as he sought personal political power. Per Newton, Eisenhower’s most disgraceful episode during McCarthy’s reign of terror was when Eisenhower publically failed to support his primary mentor (and friend), General George Marshall when McCarthy sought to ruin Marshall. However, also according to Newton, Eisenhower employed a variation of his Middle Way in dealing with several Republican Party problems, and McCarthy was just one more. Eisenhower felt that ignoring McCarthy would starve McCarthy of the attention he so desperately needed. Eventually though, Eisenhower finally had enough of McCarthy and decided on active engagement of “Tail-gunner Joe”. Following two decisions by the Supreme Court (largely the result of Eisenhower appointee, Chief Justice Earl Warren’s influence), McCarthy’s power started to wane and was finally eliminated as a result of the Eisenhower’s back room pressure on other Republican senators to censure McCarthy. That McCarthy’s loss of influence may have come more as the direct result of Earl Warren and the other Eisenhower appointees to the Supreme Court was an interesting outcome of Eisenhower’s leadership philosophy of relying on this subordinates; in this case, his tremendous reliance on his attorney general, Herbert Brownell.

Whether Brownell stacked the court with liberal democrats and republicans (there were five Eisenhower appointees in all) under his own initiative or at the hidden behest of Eisenhower is not clear to history. One thing that is clear to history is that the influence of Warren was profound. Besides the decisions that started McCarthy’s downfall, there were multiple decisions regarding other civil rights, most notably Brown v. Board of Education. This decision and subsequent ones that essentially ruled segregation was inherently unconstitutional (thus overturning the 1896 Supreme Court decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, which permitted segregation based on the “equal but separate” concept and gave the Southern States free rein to practice segregation). In was in this backward way of approach just as with McCarthy that Eisenhower addressed such fratricidal party and civil rights issues. The most direct manner in which Eisenhower involved the government in the issues surrounding segregation was when Eisenhower and the Federal government were faced with opposition in 1957 by the governor of Arkansas with regards the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School. While Eisenhower often morally equated segregationists with those seeking equal protection under the law by fighting segregation, he would not abide active refusal by state governments in their attempts to “nullify” federal law. Quite likely this attitude hearkened to his military history as much as to any other any influence: when your commanding officer gives you a direct order, you obey.

Eisenhower’s role in history is a good example of the old argument about great leaders: are great leaders born or created by the times they find themselves in; and just as in most cases, nearly impossible to answer. Eisenhower had a very strong will and personality. He had been formed via the influence of several positive role models and mentors during his life. He had firmly held opinions that shaped his morality. And for the most part he acted in accordance with these influences. Unquestionably he failed as he certainly moved too slowly to defend the civil liberties of people with whom he disagreed (American communists and those accused of such party affiliations) and just as avidly wanted to not push the Southern States with regards to Black American constitutional rights. But his weaknesses were more than balanced by his strengths. He had a soldier’s ungrudging respect for the sacrifices made in war time, by civilian and military alike. And this point of view must surely have shaped his foreign policy views as he sought to hold off his generals and their far too quick desire to use the nuclear weapons at their disposal; no matter the ultimate risk to the world. In the final analysis, America was very lucky to have as her leader a man such as Eisenhower in the era following the invention of the atom and hydrogen bombs; weapons that for the first time were simultaneously essential for the defense of the country and were capable of destroying that same country as even as they were used to defend her. Only a powerful and insightful leader such as Eisenhower would have the will and political suasion to compel his country’s military to his view, while at the same time the intelligence and far seeing vision to deal with ruffians like McCarthy and Khrushev. It is a pity he did not bring this same intelligence and wisdom to civil rights, but America, indeed the world was very fortunate he was the man with his finger on the nuclear trigger during the “calm, peaceful and uneventful” 1950’s. So, yes, I think he was a great Man not formed by the events, but one well cast to respond to those events.

Were the 1950’s quiet and uneventful; was Eisenhower remote and disengaged? Clearly, after reading this book, it is inevitable the reader will answer “no” to both questions. However, is this biography a great one; sadly, I must confess to the same answer, “no”. This biographer has the all too common problem of over praising and under criticizing his subject on the big issues; though not too excessively. The primary problem with this book is that there is too little critical analysis, too little examination of the consequences of Eisenhower’s long range decisions. The one time Newton does it, near the end of the book’s end, the book shines. As Newton closes his recitation of the Eisenhower years, he discusses the events in early 21^st century America, the second Iraq war and how they relate to one of Eisenhower’s most famous quotes. It comes during the middle of his farewell address to America in 1960. His quote like the man is not as simple as it is usually referenced. Eisenhower did not simply warn America of the Military-Industrial complex. He commented on its essentialness, and then warned America about it. But the key here is to whom did he direct the responsibility to control and watch for this complex: the various branches of the government, the press; no, rather it was aimed at the people. At heart, Eisenhower remained the true conservative that he was; the action required to control the beast that might get out of control, were the people not their institutions.

This book is worth reading to better understand a president that many historians have placed in America’s top ten. Reading it will enlighten, but almost surely depress anyone considering the crop of non-leaders running for the US presidency in 2015. What America needs now, it needed in 1953, a leader. Fortunately, America had one to turn to in 1953; this is quite clearly not the case in 2015.

 

Movie Review: Dear White People

Dear White People (2014)

R

3.5 Stars out of 5

Writer/Director                 Justin Simien

Tyler James Williams       Lionel Higgins
Tessa Thompson              Sam White
Teyonah Parris                  Colandrea (Coco) Conners
Dennis Haysbert               Dean Fairbanks
Brandon Bell                      Troy Fairbanks
Peter Syvertsen                 President Fletcher
Kyle Gallner                        Kurt Fletcher

 

Race relations in America is an issue that changes but never really goes away. Spike Lee has held the crown for many years as the primary cinematic explorer of this fraught topic. New to this scene is Justin Simien. With his perspective as a gay Black man in America, he has written and directed his first film, “Dear White People”. That this title is provocative is surely his intent, but it comes from the name of a local college radio program in his movie. And the radio program’s use of the name is unquestionably intended to gain the attention of White people and do so in as provocative a manner as possible.

“Dear White People” is set in the fictional “Ivy League” college of Winchester. I find it a little ironic it was actually filmed in ultra-white Minnesota. The story has a racial tension major arc involving Sam White (Tessa Thompson), a bi-racial film major. She is also the primary force behind the aforementioned radio program, Dear White People; a program where she ostensibly gives advice to White people on how to interact with their Black colleagues. In reality of course, her program is a cry against the many ways (little and big) Blacks are deprecated and labeled as different in American society. Sam is also running for the position of Head of House in the Winchester dorm set aside for Black students. Her opponent for the position is her former boyfriend and son of the Dean, Troy Fairbanks (Brandon Bell). Sam’s unexpected election sets off a train of events that brings to the surface the only-barely suppressed tensions that exist between the Black and White students, as well as a series of personal evolutions that require some of the students to view themselves as well as their race in a new light.

Thompson delivers the best performance in the movie as the at times defiant and at other times sad and confused Sam. It is easy for almost anyone to put themselves in Sam’s shoes as she swings from taking an activist position for Black rights to worrying about her seriously ill White father and frustrated White boyfriend; that is to say, anyone can imagine her sensitivity as to public perception as to which racial group she cleaves to; it might seem obvious from her radio show that she identifies as Black, but it really is not that simple for her. Lionel (Tyler James Williams) as the sole gay person in the film has quite nearly the same problem; except his problem is that all groups actively marginalize him. Another pair of individuals seeking to find out just who they themselves are includes Troy the son of a very involved father/dean and Coco (Teyonah Parris), an aspiring reality TV actress. Troy is a pawn in his father’s (Dennis Haysbert) long running duel with the university president (Peter Syvertsen). Dean Fairbanks insists that Troy go all out at Winchester and achieve only the highest levels of performance. Troy on the other hand really just wants to write comedy. Troy’s generational nemesis is President’s Fletcher’s son, Kurt (Kyle Gallner); Kurt is of course the school elitist/bully.

Sam and Troy achieve some degree of success in their personal arcs, Coco finds some closure in her search for fame, the dean and the president don’t really get anywhere in their contest, and the bully Kurt creates a party of surpassing racial insensitivity that riles up absolutely everyone. But what is the point of this movie? Does Simien really want White people to listen and take note of the various advice dispensed by Sam? Does he want to establish that there is an established and sophisticated Black culture on America’s universities; that they employ a language and practice behaviors that might require an interpreter for the ignorant White person (I can attest this would have been useful for me on more than one occasion)? Or maybe, there is a simple extension of this last question. That is to say, perhaps Simien only wants all people (Black/White, male/female, gay/straight) to simply incorporate the idea that there are other groups out there and they merely demand the same level of respect that each of us accord to members of our own group. Perhaps it’s idealistic, but it is long past time for modern cultures such as America to abandon the caveman era concept of The Other. It is time to stop using this concept as an excuse to demean and restrict the rights of humans outside any given group.

This is not a movie for every film-goer. The language and many of the millennial concepts may be quite foreign to many. The anger and resentment of the Blacks against the unconscious, let alone the overt and covert bigotry they experience on a too frequent basis will not inspire, but will likely depress many viewers. That being said, it is a useful movie to watch for anyone wishing to take a peak over the fences each of us have erected around ourselves and our gender/race/ethnic/sexual orientation/etc. group. The movie is not an especially pleasant film to watch, but for some (at least for me), it can be enlightening to help one get a sense of what it is like to walk in the shoes of someone different.

 

Movie Review: American Sniper

American Sniper (2014)

R

3.5 Stars out of 5

Director                              Clint Eastwood
Writer                                 Jason Hall
Cinematography              Tom Stern

Editing                                 Joel Cox, Gary Roach
Bradley Cooper                 Chris Kyle
Sienna Miller                     Taya Kyle

 

Clint Eastwood has a style to his directing that condenses a movie and its themes down to the rock hard basics. In one of the best American movies made in the past 25 years, “Unforgiven” (1992), Eastwood developed this style to create an artistic vision of what life as a gunslinger in the Old West was really like. Eastwood and his writer, David Peoples described the metaphorical ending of the “Old West” even as they told the actual last days of Billy Munny’s career as a hired gun. By combining the cinematic genius of Jack Green with action sequences that had every unnecessary flourish squeezed out, Eastwood was able to create a lasting vision of a violent time that was coming to a close. With the less inspired “American Sniper”, Eastwood tells the story of US Navy Seal, Chris Kyle. Like “Unforgiven”, Eastwood again seeks to explore a violent world; this particular world was the war time scenes that the real Chris Kyle moved through during the second Iraq war, but also the war within for many returning vets. And again as in “Unforgiven”, Eastwood drills down to the essentials: should I shoot this target, this man, this woman, this child and save my buddies, risk Leavenworth prison if I am wrong, or should I let this man/woman/child go on living? Tough questions faced the real Chris Kyle and Eastwood does an excellent job of illustrating them in “American Sniper”.

We meet Chris in Iraq on his first tour; his first assignment in the field as a sniper. He lies upon a bed like surface and stares down into the street below. A small contingent of Marines is moving along the street; Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper) is there to provide cover. As he watches, a woman and a young boy come into the street, perhaps 200 meters away from the Marines. Through his scope, Chris can see the woman pass a grenade to the boy. Chris seeks direction by radio from his commander. He is given the okay to use his discretion. As he ponders the situation, his colleague sitting to Chris’ side warns Chris that should he err with regards to the intent of the boy and his presumed mother, Chris will go to prison for murder. This scene does not stand alone in “American Sniper”. There are other similar situations where Chris must make quick decisions; decisions where he may take a life to save a life, or decline to do so, but place the lives of his comrades in jeopardy. Eastwood’s decision to place this conundrum right at the beginning of the movie is brilliant. It sums up the entire movie; it provides Cooper with one of his best opportunities to act by showing the face of a man that must make such a decision. Eastwood does not let the audience know right away how Chris will act. Instead, he has the movie jump back to earlier points in Chris’ life: a hunt with his father, an argument with an unfaithful girl-friend, his decision to join and train with the SEALs. As we parse through Chris’ younger years, we are also introduced to the woman he will marry: Taya (Sienna Miller). Cooper and Miller both provide multiple examples of fine acting, though for the most part, the role of Chris is fairly mono-tonic. What variations in his expressed emotions there are, are generally confined to scenes like the one referred to above. Despite Chris evidently being a better shot when he shoots at something alive (according to Chris during his SEAL training), he still bears the weight of his actions. When he is asked this very question on at least two occasions in the movie, he always passes the effects off by saying he is devoted to saving his comrades and actually feels remorse only at not saving more of them. Based on Cooper’s portrayal, I would agree that he feels remorse at the loss of his teammates, but I would demur on whether taking another life, had no effect on him.

The movie’s dramatic tension does come from a familiar place. Chris becomes “infected” with his passion to save every Marine he is assigned to protect; that he cannot do so has a big impact on him. However, the biggest effect is on his stateside personality and his ability, his inability to re-adapt to a non-war time environment. When he returns home, he is distant and distracted. He pays too little attention to his wife or children. He jumps at any sudden sound and comes close to beating his dog for its rough behavior with Chris’s son. Chris makes four trips to Iraq. He takes the lives of 160 combatants and he saves the lives of many of the Marines he is there to provide cover for; but he does not save them all. After losing one teammate and attending his funeral, he is repulsed by statements read by the dead SEAL’s mother but accorded to the deceased SEAL about whether or not their efforts in the war had value. Chris states that such feelings were ultimately what led to his friend’s death, but it is clear in Chris’ eyes that he too and despite his continual statements to the contrary, is beginning to wonder about whether the American lives lost should have been lost in such a war.

The movie is constructed of many quick cut edited scenes. I did not measure them exactly, but you get the sense that each scene almost never takes more than about 30 seconds. The movie is made of these scenes, some from each of Chris’ four tours in Iraq (adding up to about 1000 days total), plus the scenes at home where he struggles to disconnect from the war and to reconnect to Taya. Much of the acting by Miller consists of her valiantly trying to help Chris; shortly after the conclusion and with the help of a psychiatrist, Taya does help Chris to finally find a place at home. The real life irony of how he did so, by helping other vets with PTSD, and how one such very troubled vet eventually takes Chris’ life is an individual tragedy that in many ways sums up the deep downside of this ultimately pointless war. That Chris was able to help many of his comrades is poignantly shown by their turnout along the roadway, upon which a hearse carried his body to its final resting place. These scenes along the roadway to the cemetery are played during the closing credits and were for me easily the most heartbreaking.

Eastwood has created a very good movie that examines the complexities of war but has done so in his characteristic minimalist manner. He examines on several occasions the extremely tough choices that must be made in split seconds by soldiers and Marines in a war zone. He shows the lasting corrosive effects on the minds and souls of those warriors when they return home. What I found lacking in the movie is in relation to the Eastwood style of condensed scenes. I found them too spare, too focused on the dissociation that so many of those warriors must adopt to get through the hell of war. From my point of view, I struggled much more with this movie than with “Unforgiven” to feel as I assumed the protagonist in this movie must have felt. I understand the sense that such a man must at times take on the role of a robot, and while it may have been the true depiction of Chris the man; it took some of the heart out of the movie based on that very same man. “American Sniper” is very good movie, but unlike “Unforgiven” it is not a great movie.

 

TV Series Review: "Mr. Robot"

Mr Robot, Season One (2015)

TV-14

4.5 Stars out of 5

Series Creator                   Sam Esmail
Director (Pilot)                  Niels Arden Oplev
Writer (Pilot)                      Sam Esmail

Rami Malek                        Eliot Alderson
Carly Chaikin                      Darlene
Portia Doubleday             Angela Moss
Martin Wallström             Tyrell Wellick
Christian Slater                  Mr. Robot
Frankie Shaw                     Shayla

Note: I give complete credit with regards to learning about “Mr. Robot” to my brilliant niece Samantha Sofka and her clever recap/reviews at Nerdist.com. See the following for the first of such recaps: http://nerdist.com/mr-robot-pilot-review-usa-network/

Since the turn of the century, American television has been undergoing a new golden age; this time the gold is in the form of quality writing. From the days of “The Sopranos” (1999) to “The Wire” (2002) to “Breaking Bad” (2008), to “The Walking Dead” (2010), a very strong argument could be made (and has been made by some critics) that the best drama written and produced in America, is now made for television and not for the cinema. Up until the spring of 2015, most of these high quality programs could only be found on HBO or AMC. There has been at least one that I favor on Showtime, “Dexter” (2006). Now the USA Network can be added to the list with Sam Esmail’s “Mr Robot”; a show he has created, written and functions as the show runner since March of 2015. “Mr. Robot” is a devious thriller that borrows themes from previous movies like “Fight Club” and TV series like “Dexter”. That being said, Esmail has created with his star Rami Malek (in the lead role of Eliot Alderson) an important message to America and the world: corporations may have a legal status as a person (it’s complicated), but they certainly don’t act or have the limitations of actual people. Mr. Robot as a series sets out to demonstrate both sides of this statement about corporations, the good and the bad.

“Mr. Robot’s” first season consists of 10 episodes; the pilot or episode 1 is far and away the best. So, if you watch one and one only, watch this episode. Within the pilot, Esmail establishes the nature of Elliot Alderson. Elliot is played to physical and theatrical perfection by Rami Malek. In fact, the writing aside, it is pure joy to watch Malek (most especially in episode 1) play the evidently socially anxious, pop-eyed, hoody-wearing Elliot. The program’s advertising describes Elliot as socially anxious, and he certainly displays a marked aversion to speaking directly to people or being touched. But Elliot’s problems are deeper and more disturbing. He has a psychiatrist but frankly her character is one of the weaker parts of the story; she seems quite incapable of helping herself let alone someone like Elliot. And as the series progress through episode 10, it becomes increasing clear that Elliot is really much closer to being described as schizophrenic than merely socially anxious. However, like Dexter with his combination of skills as a forensic scientist/mass murderer and his personal demons, Elliot too has demons and a useful skill set: hacker. Also, like Dexter, Elliot has a personal goal to help society. While Dexter eliminated criminals wrongly freed by an incompetent legal system, Elliott helps those incapable (by Elliot’s definition anyway) of helping themselves.

But the real vision that Esmail is bringing to “Mr. Robot” goes beyond the clever “Fight Club-like” manner in which Elliot is portrayed or the way in which he talks to the audience as if they were yet one more part of his splintering mind. The subtext of “Mr. Robot” is where its true value as a work of art lies. And that subtext is as devious as the manner as Elliot’s mind is displayed for the audience. Esmail has created a show where he has set up his flawed hero Elliot in an apparently doomed quest to fight the largest corporation in the world, Evil Corp. Not very subtle in its name, but determined in its inhuman pursuit of profits at the expense of anyone, including many of its top executives, and certainly at the expense of any minor employee or customer. Elliot has decided to push his role as a modern Don Quixote past the point of helping innocents like his psychiatrist and start helping everyone that has been hurt by Evil Corp – such innocents would include his now deceased father and the deceased mother of this childhood friend, Angela (Portia Doubleday). Angela and Elliot work together (courtesy of Angela’s influence) at Allsafe, the anti-hacker company hired by Evil Corp to protect Evil Corp.’s IT infrastructure and data.

Elliot does not appear to come directly into his wind-mill tilting exercise aimed at Evil Corp. He is recruited by Mr. Robot (Christian Slater). Mr. Robot has assembled a team that includes the remarkably anarchic Darlene (Carly Chaikin). Angela with her demure, soft voice and sweet personality is in a sense a literary foil to the acerbic Darlene. These two women orbit Elliot and bring out the details of how he stands outside society in terms of manner and appearance. However, they are not the only feminine influence on Elliot – he also as a beautiful, drug pushing neighbor, Shayla (Frankie Shaw). In the pilot, it is far from clear which of these unattached women will play the leading lady role (or indeed if any of them will) in Elliot’s life. By season’s end, the viewer will learn that each of them will and has played critical roles in Elliot’s development from a young boy to the tortured adult he has become by the time of the “Mr. Robot” story.

One last character exists in the “Mr. Robot” story line: Tyrell Wellick (Martin Wallström). Tyrell is one of the senior VPs at Evil Corp, and seems very determined to not only replace his boss as CTO, but to truly live up to his company’s name. Tyrell plays at times a role that must surely be inspired by satanic influences. He is the personification of the role Evil Corp plays in Esmail’s argument against corporations in general. We will watch Tyrell through the course of season 1 commit one heinous act after another – from little things (surely little to Tyrell) like marital infidelity, passively permitting the false planting of evidence against the boss he hopes to replace, to actual murder. Tyrell’s story arc quite frankly follows a familiar path; it will come as no surprise that he does not get what he seeks. The irony in “Mr. Robot” does not lie with the Tyrell character, but rather with the corporation concept itself. Because as evil as Evil Corp is, it still plays a role in facilitating modern society. As Evil Corp starts to stumble near the end of season 1, we see that innocent people like those basically decent souls working at Allsafe will stumble right along with Evil Corp. Everyday people will lose their jobs, their IRAs, both their concept and place in a functioning society. If we all (mostly all of us) really want to live in a modern, technological society, do we, have we made a Faustian deal with the demons amongst us, the Tyrells and the companies they run? Must we tolerate concepts like “too big to fail”, or permit Evil Corp to run roughshod over us, in order to live our modern lives?

Esmail uses season one to set the stage for season two. The revelations that concern Elliot’s nature are revealed midway in the season, and the denouement of his plan with respect to Evil Corp takes place near the end of the season, but not at the end. The end is instead a preview of the effects of losing Evil Corp and its contemporaries. The initial images of their passing are not sanguine. These are worthy questions that Esmail is asking. Using the splintered mind of Elliot as his unreliable narrator adds some cleverness to his tale, and Elliot’s fractured mind, his confusion about the correctness of what he has done provides a good metaphor for the big question. Even though corporations have been established legally as persons, that they rarely seem to work for the public good in any direct manner seems abundantly clear. But is there a real, painfully needed social function that we must obtain from them in order to live in a technologically advanced society? Do we really have only the soulless, nearly enslaved life we now live in thrall to such corporation as Evil Corp as our only alternative to some grim life in a cave? It will be interesting to see how Esmail tries to answer these questions in season two.

Movie Review: "A Most Violent Year"

A Most Violent Year (2014)

R

4.5 Stars out of 5

Writer/Director                 J.C. Chandor

Cinematography              Bradford Young

Music                                  Alex Ebert

Oscar Isaac                         Abel Morales

Jessica Chastain                Anna Morales

Albert Brooks                    Andrew Walsh

Elyes Gabel                        Julian

David Oyelowo                 District Atty. Lawrence

 

Since the 1970’s through the 90’s, movies like “The Godfather”, “Scarface”, and “Goodfellas” (amongst others) have set the tone in American filmdom for a kind of cinematic cult. Certainly it is genre, but the almost slavish adherence to the cinematography used with respect to framing, lighting and color plus the use of a central character as anti-hero, must make one wonder whether there is a school of thought and technique that many directors feel must not be violated. That just like the mafia life they depict in the movies, Coppola, De Palma and Scorcese (and others) make their movies to a code as strict as the code of omerta that guides the Mafia itself. In 2014, J.C. Chandor took on this code with his movie, “A Most Violent Year”. He took it on, adopted it, challenged it, and with a few minor missteps, improved on it.

Chandor has written and directed the story of Abel Morales (Oscar Isaac), the owner of a heating oil distributor in 1980’s New York. He is married to the daughter of the previous owner; an owner that practiced a much harsher and more illegal brand of corporate vision. Abel had worked himself up from driver and appears to be an immigrant. He hires others with a similar background; one of whom is Julian (Elwes Gabel). We first meet Julian on one of his runs to deliver heating oil to the company’s clients. On the way to make his delivery, he is stopped on the expressway and assaulted, his truck hijacked. We learn this has been going on for months and Abel’s business is suffering. His wife Anna (Jessica Chastain) in a Lady Macbeth-like manner that is true to her mafia father’s upbringing urges Abel to arm his drivers and to make a vigorous (read violent) response to his enemies. Abel, however, true to his nature and to the story’s premise, refuses to do so. He argues then and throughout the movie, that responding with violence will worsen the situation, not improve it.

When Abel seeks legal redress from the law,  District Attorney Lawrence (David Oyelowo) gives him a very frosty response. As Abel is soon to learn Lawrence is about to bring 14 counts of price fixing, tax evasion and various misdemeanors against Abel. Lawrence has been tasked to clean up the heating oil business and decided to focus on Abel, at least in part because of the legacy left to him by his decidedly not-by-the-book father-in-law. However, Abel remains polite, acknowledges the hard work Lawrence must do and leaves. To be sure, Lawrence thinks that Abel is being disingenuous and thinks Abel’s behavior is only an act. But this is in fact the real Abel. He does everything according to the law and with deep and true respect to everyone he meets; he may look like a gangster based on his clothing but he has the heart of good man. Whether Abel is polite and law-abiding or not, he is nevertheless ambitious and wants to grow his company. He does this by outplaying his competition on their home turf, likely creating the enemies he fears is hijacking his trucks. However to truly grow, he needs a new facility for his operations. As such, with the assistance of his attorney Andrew Walsh (Albert Brooks) he has entered into a 30 day escrow with a neighboring company that wants to exit the business. They are a Hasidic family-owned company with a heating oil tank farm that has many unused tanks and water access – two features Abel desperately needs. The problems mount for Abel as he tries manfully to meet the 30 day deadline on his escrow. If he fails to come up with the balance for the purchase of the property, he loses his down payment and ultimately his business. The attacks on Abel’s business by unknown parties continue, Julian makes several fatal mistakes, and his enemies seem to have Abel in a corner from which there is no escape.

The movie is filmed in browns, ochre, and with many of the interior scenes, in deep shadows. Abel is always dressed impeccably and always with a coat to match the cinematic color palettes used in the older mafia movies.  While these techniques alone might well do justice in honoring the older films, there is a scene where Julian is first attacked just past an expressway toll booth that seems to directly link this movie to the “Godfather” and Sonny’s departing scene. However, unlike Sonny’s exit, no one is shot. Later when Julian is attacked again, and despite having armed himself, again no one is shot. Chandor has the characters in this movie get so close to violence, but just not quite there. This appears at times to almost be a tease to the audience: will Abel or Anna or Julian actually defend themselves with a gun or not. It is an unusual kind of dramatic tension – certainly not one normally practiced in the iconic mafia films of the late 20^th century.

Another notable technique Chandor uses in multiple scenes is a very sedate pacing; often slowing the action down to a normal, non-cinematic pace. People talk in reasonable dialogs, rarely is there a sense of menace in their actions or voices. Even when Abel finally comes close to losing his temper in a meeting with his business rivals, he barely does so, and none of his rivals do much more than blandly stare back at him. No, the violence in this film is not really in the central story being told, but rather in the surrounding atmosphere. That atmosphere is highlighted by Greek Chorus-like voice-over radio descriptions of unrelated violence in the city. In fact, the title refers to the fact that 1981, the year the movie depicts, it was the most violent year in New York’s history (sadly, since eclipsed). The ironic contrast between the violence elsewhere in the city and the only near-violence surrounding Abel, or the contrast between this movie and its cinematic antecedents is striking.

Chandor has created a different kind of dramatic tension, one that more closely mirrors normal everyday life: will Abel get the loan and save his business or won’t he? There is also the artificial Hollywood tension: will Abel finally lose his patience and use the pistol he took from his wife. This is not to say that Chandor does not use some Hollywood tricks. Consider the scene where a car driven by Abel is raced at high speed through a dark, dust-choked tunnel. It is exciting and nerve-wracking as you wonder how it will end. But in this movie, it is far more likely a metaphor for Abel’s groping attempts to discover who his enemies are. It would be a major spoiler to reveal them here; suffice to say, their identity remains true to this movie’s core meaning: life is not a Hollywood movie. There are good people with some bad tendencies; tendencies that are sometimes acted on directly, but more typically, are simply allowed to happen with a wink and a nod. “A Most Violent Year” does honor the earlier mafia movies, but it is more importantly homage to normal life. A life filled with people who may well break the law, who certainly display a very poor understanding of right and wrong, but quite frankly simply don’t go around shooting people like Scarface with large caliber machine guns in their own living room.

This movie is beautifully made, intelligently inspired, and wonderfully acted. Indeed, the acting by Oscar Isaac continues to impress me (see also the recent HBO mini-series, “Show Me a Hero” for a poignant performance by Isaac that will leave you seriously moved). There are few points that I found wanting: an underused Jessica Chastain and a completely unbelievable exit scene by Julian. But otherwise, sit back and enjoy the life like pacing, the Autumnal color palette, the breathtaking cityscapes, and admire the real people that inhabit this movie, just as they inhabit the world we live in.

Book Review: "I Am Legend" by Richard Matheson

I Am Legend (1954)

3 Stars out of 5

Richard Matheson

(This short novel has a clever and ironic twist at the end. Even setting the stage as I do in the following paragraphs there are nevertheless a few spoilers.)

There is something to being the first to write in a particular fantasy genre as Richard Matheson did in 1954 with “I Am Legend”. With this book he was able to take the vampire motif introduced by Bram Stoker with Dracula in 1897 and combine it into an apocalyptic vision of a world gone to ruin courtesy of disease. Whether or not Matheson invented the Diseased World Apocalypse genre or not may not be the point, as he is certainly given the credit by many critics as the one who popularized it. Again, being first with a popular novel on the topic has its advantages; one being that it helps gloss over the structural flaws in the book. Perhaps, a better genre classification for “I Am Legend” is simple pulp fiction with a twist at the end.

Matheson’s book describes the life of Robert Neville as he tries to live out his life in the remains of  Los Angeles following some kind of nuclear exchange. While the effects of such a war were horrible in their short term effects, their long term effects were for Neville and the other survivors far worse. It would seem in this alternate world, one of the lasting effects of the war is the creation of vast dust storms. Bad in and of themselves the dust storms bring a hidden danger: contagion. This disease as deciphered later in the book by self-taught scientist Neville is a bacterium within the dust clouds that induces a form of vampirism. Though Matheson struggles at times to describe the condition brought on by the disease, it evidently kills some and then re-animates them as corpses with a taste for human blood. Oddly, it leaves others alive but with a similar diet; some of these are sane, some not. Matheson and Neville puzzle over the various symptoms (aversion to sunlight, garlic, mirrors, etc.) and conclude some could be psychological and others physiological. Sorting which is which consumes some small, early parts from this rather short novel (160 pp, more a novella than novel), but it does give our protagonist Neville a reason to go on.

The novel opens with Neville hovering between acute alcoholism and psychosis. When he is roughly functioning, he spends a considerable amount of time thinking about the female vampires that lurk outside his door. Yes, poor Robert has issues. To his credit, Matheson has tried to create a picture of a man left alone, bereft of his wife and daughter, who must fight a daily battle against hordes that quite literally wish to consume him. Perhaps, it would drive just about anyone up against the wall that separates sanity from insanity. Neville’s burden of survivor’s guilt is not his only burden. He had to watch civilization crumble before his eyes; had to watch the authorities take his daughter’s corpse to be burnt in a vain effort to prevent further contamination; and most painfully, he had to find a solution for his beloved wife Virginia’s body that did not include burning, but did include something quite nearly as shocking to endure, let alone perform. So, Robert drinks whiskey and screams, sleeps and ponders the wailing vampires behind his locked front door. He lacks a vision or even a reason to go on.

Neville spends many of his sober days finding parts to repair his vehicle and home. When he is up for it, he enters the houses near his home and dispatches the sleeping neighbors-now-vampires. Some are the undead and die their final death in a puff of dust, but others lay breathing in a coma-like state. Robert drives a wooden stake through the heart of each regardless of their dead or undead state. This is a mistake that will come to haunt him. But in the early parts of the book, he writes off his actions as defensive. In time, he finds such activities to be inadequate motivation to go on. He drives to the central library near his home and begins a multi-year study of Biology, Bacteriology, Psychology and likely a few other disciplines. These studies not only provide Robert with a new hobby, they give author Matheson an opportunity to create a quasi-scientific explanation for vampirism. Robert is content, he has found an explanation for the world he lives in. (A little weird, that a self-taught junior scientist could figure this out, while the rest of the scientific establishment could not? Oh well, it is a fantasy.)

Robert has largely stopped drinking, but he is alone. He has a chance with a dog that survived the first two years without getting sick, but within a few weeks of meeting Robert, the dog sickens and dies. Alone again, Robert sights a young woman out in the daylight. Seemingly not a vampire, Robert runs after her and fairly roughly captures her despite her quite evident fear. He treats her harshly; she is frightened and not aggressive. These early phases of their relationship give good clues to the book’s title and to who Robert really is. The book closes with a clever metaphorical and literal twist. By the book’s end Robert slowly comes to more accurately see the world he lives in. And he finally understands that it is he, not the vampire of old, which is the new legend. In the final paragraphs, Matheson redeems himself and the book. He has written a tale with a lesson on viewpoint and The Other. That he has done so with such a weird and fantastic use of pseudo-science seems quite odd to me. Nevertheless, the final lesson is a good one, and with such a short book as this one, it took a slightly long walk to reach the conclusion.

This book does have a message and in the early parts of the novel does a good job of creating a modern version of Dafoe’s Robinson Crusoe. The last “civilized” man on Earth theme is done fairly well and does engender in the reader some thoughts as to just how one might do in such a situation. But unlike the contemporary TV drama “The Walking Dead”, Matheson’s story-telling does little to invoke an emotional response in the reader. His prose might well be as disconnected from human feeling as a newspaper article. He has a message, and his imagination is artful, but his style is inadequate to tell a human tale, only to tell a human lesson. The lesson he writes of is an ironic one of viewpoint and in the final analysis makes reading this book worth the effort.

Book Review: "Master and Commander" by Patrick O'Brian

Master and Commander (1969)

4 Stars out of 5

Patrick O’Brian

When aficionados of naval warfare fiction, especially of the sailing variety discuss their genre, they usually think back to the 12 volume series involving the Horatio Hornblower character; first introduced by C.S. Forester’s 1936 novel “The Happy Return”. Forester’s credentials as a master of naval fiction are hard to emulate, but starting in 1969, Patrick O’Brian with his 20 volume series from the similar time of the Napoleonic Wars is most definitely on a par. While Forester’s stories were based on real events that had been colored in fiction, they always and intentionally stayed away from the main action of the war. O’Brian in stark contrast has his heroes Captain Jack Aubrey and Naval Surgeon Stephen Maturin either right in the action or close enough to be able to witness such major historical battles as the 1801 sea battle between the French/Spanish coalition and the English at Algeciras. However, the biggest difference between the two sets of stories is a more nuanced study of human nature in the O’Brian stories as he follows the sometimes reckless (on shore) but brilliant (at sea) Aubrey versus the reflective and inward-looking Maturin.

When we first meet Lieutenant Aubrey, he is attending a concert featuring the love of his life, Molly Keith; unfortunately she is also the married Mrs. Lord Keith. As Jack enthusiastically beats out the rhythm to Molly’s playing, he comes into conflict with a man seated to Jack’s left, Stephen Maturin. Even in this pending juvenile altercation, the reader is pretty clearly allowed to see much of the two personalities: Jack’s boisterous enthusiasm and Stephen’s intellectual and far more sedate observance of all things around him. After Jack receives an unexpected promotion to Master and Commander (through the intervention of another well placed married woman), he is so overjoyed that he reconciles with Maturin. In fact, he offers Maturin a position on his new sloop, the Sophie. Maturin being penniless at the time and seeing an opportunity to observe far beyond the shores of provincial Port Mahon, Minorca where these first scenes take place, readily agrees to the offer. Thus begins their collaborative efforts into English naval life. More to the point thus begins their dual interpretations of life during wartime, life on the sea, and indeed through a series of adventures a life that helps define the human condition.

Because of the compromised life that Jack leads ashore on Minorca with Mrs. Keith as well as the various alcoholic jaunts he makes through Port Mahon, the reader is justified in wondering what kind of naval commander Aubrey will be. We soon learn that Jack is not only lucky in finding opportunities at sea, he is also able to display his competency as both a tactician and as a leader of men. At the same time, Maturin is quickly learning the ways and means of naval life and warfare, and in doing so, the reader learns, too. The early chapters follow the Sophie as she provides military escort duty to a series of English merchantmen. In time, the less exciting assignment of convoy duty is replaced with cruises along the southern Spanish coast. These cruises are designed to be the inverse of the previous convoy duty; that is to say, the Sophie’s new charter is to attack and take possession of the various Spanish or French merchantmen plying the coast. The manner in which O’Brian tells these tales (all based on actual events by a real English sloop and her Master and Commander, Lord Cochran and the HMS Speedy) is never in the manner of the Sophie being able to simply overpower her foes. Rather, Aubrey relies at sea primarily on his keen observation of his ship’s sails and those of his opponent. He uses this information to deduce the intentions of his foes and then through a combination of bravery and thinking outside of the box, he is able to surprise and almost always overwhelm his enemies.

Besides his own individual resources, the primary ancillary force Aubrey has at his command is his surgeon Stephen Maturin. Maturin is the master of several languages and a lifetime study of many aspects of science. Maturin’s knowledge of the language and customs of the land in the vicinity of Barcelona comes in very handy on many occasions; he often provides a source of intelligence as in Intel, and also intelligence in the form of his thoughtful reasoning. In this manner, O’Brian gives the reader two world views into the nature of war and of humanity. Aubrey might well be the icon for primitive man with his passions, vigor and informed cleverness at combat, while Maturin is the icon for the educated, cultured and pacific man. Neither can stand by himself in the swirling chaos of the many sea battles they enter into, but together, their odd form of yin and yang creates a synergy, a whole bigger than the sum of their parts. Their discussions and different viewpoints help explain how man can conquer an environment so alien to human survival as the open sea, even as he is busy doing his best to kill his fellow man.

“Master and Commander” is not for every reader. O’Brian spends a considerable amount of time using words that might as well be from a foreign language when he describes the various sails, hawsers, pulleys, stays and ship types that were to be found in the early 19^th century Mediterranean Sea. On occasions his prose includes jarring segues. However, if you have the patience to work your way through the long discussions of sailing ships, their accoutrements and the manner in which they are used in naval warfare (warfare where at any moment the winds can fail or save you), then you may well enjoy and learn from this book. It does require some determination to just flow with the language and not get too encumbered trying to understand all the terms and tactics. If you can read this book in this manner, you will be entertained by the battles, the sly and not so sly sailor humor, and you will find it interesting to see the world of land and sea through two very different kinds of human understanding.