FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN, THE

(January 1985, U.S.)

I have to say that it's a shame, like Paul Newman and Robert Redford, that Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn only made two films together (the other one was TAPS) because I always thought they had quite a good chemistry with each other. Looking back at the early 1980s, I'd have guessed that it would've been Hutton who might have turned out to be the bigger cinematic star. Not so, huh?

Like LESS THAN ZERO (1987), this film centers on two young boys who are both from wealthy, upscale California families and who have, nonethless, both turned to a lifestyle of crime. Christopher Boyce (played by Hutton) and Daulton Lee (played by Penn) were both real life men who sold U.S. security secrets to the Soviet Union in the 1970s. Dalton, I might add, is also a drug dealter. I might also add, and it's difficult to tell if he was really like this in real life or if Penn is simply playing him this way, that Daulton was a major incompetent fuck up! So much so, that you can't help but wonder why someone as intelligent as Chris would put his trust and confidence is someone like Daulton in the first place. I suppose boyhood friendship can go a long way in these matters. As a young civil defense contractor, Chris works inside a secure communication facility through which flows much information on some of the most classified U.S. operations in the world. Chris has becomed disillusioned with the U.S. government through his new position, especially after reading a misrouted communiqué dealing with the CIA's plan to depose the Prime Minister of Australia. Frustrated by this apparent duplicity, Chris decides to repay his own government by passing classified secrets to the Soviets. Daulton agrees to actually contact and deal with the KGB on Chris' behalf, motivated not by any idealism, but by what he perceives as an great opportunity to make a lot of money and eventually settle in his idea of paradise of Costa Rica. And as one would predict, these sort of illegal activities don't last too long and the twisted dreams of these boys, no matter how they've been motivated, come crashing down around them.

Although I consider this one of Timothy Hutton's best roles after ORDINARY PEOPLE (1980), THE FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN was not a particularly popular film during it's theatrical run. It did obtain some interesting notoriety as a broadcast of the film on HBO in 1986 was jammed by a satellite broadcast operator calling himself "Captain Midnight". I wish I'd seen that.

Some interesting facts about Christopher Boyce himself. In 1980, he escaped from prison and while a fugitive, committed seventeen bank robberies in Idaho and Washington State, eventually being captured in 1981. Boyce was just finally paroled in 2002, as was Daulton Lee before him 1998. Boyce later justified his actions by claiming that he was selling this information in the hopes of fostering peace between the Soviet Union and the United States. But when you consider the fact that he began his crimes during the 1970s when the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War were at their height, why would an intelligent young man be so shocked and disillusioned to learn that his own govenment was so corrupt? Come on, everybody knows THAT!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Christopher Boyce: "I know a thing or two about predatory behavior, and what once was a legitimate intelligence agency is now being used on weaker governments."

FAIL-SAFE

(October 1964, U.S.)

Without going into too much unnecessary details regarding comparisons between Sidney Lumet's FAIL-SAFE and Stanley Kubrick's DR. STRANGLOVE, both fictional tales of a Cold War nuclear crisis, let me just simply state that Kubrick's film is a film that is outright funny. FAIL-SAFE is anything but. The suspense can have you sitting there full of tension because you know in your bones that this is all going to end on an apocalyptic level.

Despite the similarities, controversies and legal battles between FAIL-SAFE and DR. STRANGELOVE, the heart of it's dark tale could not have been more timely, considering it was 1964 and tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union were already at their height. This film expresses the discomfort with how much of the U.S. defense system is automated without any direct human responsibility. So when an unidentified object is detected approaching North America from Europe, the incident is regarded as a common occurrence and standard procedure is invoked, deploying American fighter aircraft to meet the potential threat. According to routine, American strategic bombers are directed to fly to various predetermined "fail-safe" points outside the borders of the Soviet Union, where they are to remain until receiving either orders to return to base or a special attack code transmitted through an electronic "fail-safe" box in each group commander's bomber.

(Are you all following this so far?)

So the Strategic Air Comman (SAC) computer system experiences a technical failure which causes a valid attack code to be electronically transmitted to one of the bomber groups. The commander of the bomber group, attempts to contact SAC to confirm the order, but is unable to do so, as the group's radio transmissions are being jammed by the Soviets. Having received a valid attack code, and with no known contrary orders, he proceeds with the group's designated attack mission: to drop thermonuclear bombs on Moscow (Uh-oh!). Now the commander will ignore all radio transmissions and orders from not only the President of the United States (played brilliantly by Henry Fonda), but even the voice of his own beloved wife.

What follows is not only interesting, but very frightening, as well. Knowing that Moscow is going to be unavoidably destroyed due to human error, the President is now in the horrifying position to save face and somehow "even the score". To do that, he must knowingly and deliberately order an equivalent nuclear strike on New York City, even with his own wife visiting the city. The entire premise is scary, to say the least, even when we are living in a time when the threat of nuclear arms does not hold a great fear with us. Can you possibly imagine what it must have been like to watch this tragic story unfold on screen during the height of the Cold War?

Getting back to Henry Fonda's performance for a moment - anyone who's seen enough movies has seen actors play fictional versions of the President of the United States. Michael Douglas in THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT (1995), Bill Pullman in INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996) and Harrison Ford in AIR FORCE ONE (1997) are just a few that come to mind. Fonda's intense attention to detail during a time of horrible crisis and gut-wrenching decisions make his portrayel as the President the best I've ever seen on film. Watch his face and listen to his voice and you'll see what I'm talking about and will also likely agree with my opinion. And check out a very young Larry Hagman as the president's Russian translator who must not only repeat the Soviet Chairman is saying, but also convincingly convey his feelings and emotions.

There are two elements I find particularly chilling in FAIL-SAFE. The first is the high-piched shrill sound of the telephone melting at the other end of the line when the nuclear explosions have destroyed the city of Moscow. The second are those final camera shots of typical New York City moments just before the missles are about to strike ground zero at the Empire State Building. Watching that, I can never help but wonder why it's always New York City that is the butt of all movie attacks. I think that September 11, 2001 was more life imitating art than one could possibly imagine!

Favorite line or dialogue:

President of the United States: "Yes, Mr. Chairman."
Soviet Chairman (via American translator): "Mr. President...I have ordered our long range missles to stand down from their alert. Only that part of our defense that has a chance of shooting down your bomber is still active. We do not think we have much of a chance."
President: "I know."
Chairman: "And yet this was nobody's fault."
President: "I don't agree."
Chairman: "No human being did wrong. No one is to be blamed."
President: "We're to blame. Both of us. We let our machines get out of hand."
Chairman: "Still, it WAS an accident."
President: "Two great cities may be destroyed. Millions of innocent people killed! What do we say to them, Mr. Chairman? Accidents will happen? I won't accept that!"
Chairman: "All I know is that as long as we have weapons..."
President: "All I know is that men are responsible! WE'RE responsible for what happens to us! Today we had a taste of the future! Do we learn from it or do we go on the way we have? What do we do, Mr. Chairman? What do we say to the dead?"
Chairman: "I think if we are men, we must say this will not happen again. But do you think it possible? With all that stand between us?"
President: "We put it there, Mr. Chairman, and we're not helpless! What we put between us we can remove!"

FAHRENHEIT 9/11

(June 2004, U.S.)

The opening lines of director and narrator Michael Moore's documentary FAHRENHEIT 9/11 go something like this...

"Was it all just a dream? Did the last four years not really happen?"

Well, to put it simply, that's how I've more or less felt about most of the first decade of the 20th Century. I didn't always, though. From the moment the ball started to drop at Times Square on January 1, 2000 and we had gotten past our paranoia of Y2K, I was filled with a great (and rare!) sense of optimism for the future. Why wouldn't I be? I was young (younger), I was healthy, I was loving my job, I already knew that I wanted to marry my girlfriend someday (I did!) and I saw no reason whatsoever why Al Gore wouldn't be our next president of the United States.

(OOPS! Looks like the state of Florida managed to fuck that up for us!)

Even if we put aside the events of September 11, 2001 and our useless invasion of Iraq, take a brief tally of all we've had to endure in the first decade of the 20th Century and you'll likely be sickened by all that you come up with - anthrax in the U.S. mail, Richard Reid the shoe bomber, the D.C. sniper, lies about weapons of mass destruction, the Enron scandal, pedifile priests, Hurricane Katrina, our economic meltdown, Lady Gaga...I could go on forever...and it seems that in dark shadows of it all was the man I can only hope history will conclude as being the worst U.S. president in history, GEORGE W. BUSH! Damn, no wonder Time magazine called the 00's the "worst decade ever"! They were right!

So, for the benefit of those of you who haven't spent too much of their cinematic viewing time on documentaries, Michael Moore takes a very critical look at the presidency of George W. Bush, the War on Terror, and its coverage in the news media. Moore contends that American corporate media were "cheerleaders" for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and didn't provide an accurate or objective analysis of the rationale for the war or the resulting casualties there. The film generated intense controversy, including some disputes over its accuracy. Moore responds by documenting his many sources. Still, even with all these sources and the proof he attempts to provide on film, his allogations ultimately come down to the simple fact of whether or not the viewer believes it all or not. Do I believe it ALL? Not likely. To believe EVERY word of it would be to likely believe that our lame govenment not only ignored the warnings of the impending attack on U.S. soil, but also had a hand in ALLOWING it to happen, as well. For me, to accept that sort of horror would just be too, well, unacceptable. The rest of it, though, I can totally accept. Govenment, in my opinion, has always been rotten to the bone. Under Bush's command, though, the traditional brand of vile corruption just seem to take on a whole new incomprehensible horror.

Now as much as I despise George W. Bush, would you believe that there was a very brief period of time when I absolutely loved the man? I'm not kidding! In the weeks following 9-11, I had convinced myself that in the spirit of Ronald Reagan, Bush was going to kick the living shit out of our enemies who had attacked us. And when he showed up at Yankee Stadium to throw out the first pitch at one of the games during the World Series, that did it for me! I thought to myself, "This is it! This is going to be one of the greatest presidents of all time!" Instead of that, we decided to go to war with the wrong enemy - a people who had never attacked the United States before, nor had they ever threatened to attack the United States before.

Michael Moore is not a filmmaker that I would say I'm willing to cling to every word and allogation that comes out of his mouth. His look at the Bush administration and the powers that tore our country to Hell serve, if nothing more, than a tool to inflame your rage and hatred for a presidnet you may or may not have already come to hate. For myself, after I saw FAHRENHEIT 9/11 during the Summer of 2004, I was actually deluded enough to think that the film was powerful enough to possibly swing the coming November 2004 elections toward the Democratic party. Geez, look how wrong I was! EIGHT LONG YEARS WITH GEORGE W. BUSH!!! Uughh!!!

Well, that's all over now. We made history by electing our first African-American president, we finally killed Osama Bin Laden, and most importantly, we may have finally figured out that the first African-American (and Democrat) president is as capable of being just as good, bad, intelligent, clueless, effective or useless as any other U.S. president we've had in our history.

Favorite line or dialogue: (being that today is Veteran's Day, I can think of nothing more appropriate from the film)

Michael Moore narrating: "I've always been amazed that the very people forced to live in the worst parts of town, go to the worst schools, and who have it the hardest are always the first to step up, to defend that very system. They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is remarkably their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it's absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?"

"Keep on rockin' in the free world!" (Neil Young, 1989)

FABULOUS BAKER BOYS, THE

(October 1989, U.S.)

THE FABULOUS BAKER BOYS is a rather quiet, simple movie released by 20th Century Fox. There's no special effects, no 3D, no super heroes, and no roman numeral number attached to the title. In other words, it's a film that would NEVER be released today under Fox's main studio...under Fox Searchlight, perhaps. It's main appeal at the time of its release was the opportunity to see real life brothers Jeff and Beau Bridges star together as on-screen brothers. That prospect is very alluring to someone (like me) who'd like to watch two performers who can actually act. And speaking frankly, Michelle Pheiffer never looked hotter in her entire career!

Jack (Jeff) and Frank (Beau), are brothers making a living playing piano in lounges and music bars, their gimmick being that they play intricate jazz-and pop-flavored duets on matching grand pianos. Professionally and personally, Jack's life is a series of empty one-night stands. Now and again, he plays the challenging music he really cares about at a local jazz club, but it's become pretty clear that his life has become a mundane routine that has sickened him deep inside. Frank also shows signs of having just as much contempt for what they do together, as well, but clings to the fact that what he does pays the bills and supports him family, which in itself is enough for him to live the life he does.

So, for 31 years, its just been the Baker boys and things have moved along the same course without change...until they hire the beautiful but eccentric Susie Diamond (Pfeiffer), a former escort with unusual charisma, a sultry singing voice, and emotional baggage she keeps well hidden most of the time. After a rocky start, the new act becomes unexpectedly successful, leading to bigger gigs and better money, but Frank is worried that Jack will ruin it by letting his dick to the talking with Susie, having noticed the growing attraction between the two, and being all too well aware of his little brother's effect on women. He's not wrong about them having sex (twice), nor about that action eventually tearing the act apart. In the end, their professional relationship is over, but the brothers finally let each other know how much they care about each other, now that they don't have to work together. It seems that their connection is unbreakable, no matter what happens.

As mentioned above, THE FABULOUS BAKER BOYS is a quiet film, but also one of the moodiest films I've ever watched. Jack's cynicism and coldness to the world and events around him is hard to ignore, and frankly, sometimes reminds me of how I can feel sometimes about the world around ME. The cynicism I often feel in life leaves me walking away from this film with two inescapable conclusions. The first is that many of us spend our lives functioning through a daily, mundane existence that creates a deep, sickening hole in our system. That existence is usually classified as our job or career. The second is that regardless of any unconditional love, their is often no one in this world who is capable of pissing you off more than your own brother.

Is all that cynical enough for you?

Favorite line or dialogue:

Jack Baker: "Listen to me, princess. We fucked twice. That's it. Once the sweat dries, you still don't know shit about me! Got it?"

EYES WIDE SHUT

(July 1999, U.S.)

When the final year of the 20th century began, I had only two films on my mind. The first was (just like the rest of the world), the first STAR WARS film in sixteen years. The second was the first Stanley Kubrick film in twelve years. However, in March of that year, Stanley died at the age of 70, and the next Kubrick film would become the last...his swan song. As it turned out, both films left a bit to be desired with fans.

Was EYES WIDE SHUT a misfire or a masterpiece? Was EYES WIDE SHUTa film only a true fan of Stanley Kubrick could love? Would it have been a better film had Kubrick lived long enough to oversee the editing process? Would it have been a better film if its stars had not been the same team that made DAYS OF THUNDER (1990) and FAR AND AWAY (1992) such bad films? Is having the opportunity to stare at Nicole Kidman's perfectly-sculpted ass enough reason to maintain the patience and open-mindedness to watch all two and a half hours of EYES WIDE SHUT? Well, to Nicole's defense, it IS a great ass...

The story of EYES WIDE SHUT is based upon Arthur Schnitzler's 1926 novella Traumnovelle (Dream Story). Set in and around New York City (filmed in London to LOOK like New York City, actually), the film follows the sexually-charged adventures of Dr. Bill Harford (played by Tom Cruise), who is shocked when his wife, Alice (played by Nicole Kidman), reveals that she had contemplated an affair a year earlier when she set her sights on a naval officer when she was in Cape Cod with her family. Provoked by his fears and jealousies, Bill embarks on a night-long adventure, during which he encounters more than several sexual situations that can put his life in danger, including a massive masked ritual orgy of an underground quasi-religious cult located in Glen Cove, Long Island, no less.

Kubrick's pacing of this film is considerably slow (but then so was 2001). This may be intended to convey the film's concept of a dream state (with an ongoing Christmas background) throughout the lives of both Bill and Alice, as well as the people they encounter. As the viewer, we're never given a clear definition of what is their reality and what is their dream. Is it only within a dream that we as human beings have the potential (or the stupidity) to seek out sexual pleasures and deviances that will very likely get us into trouble? Most of us are just that stupid in our everyday realities. And yet it should be noticed that just about every time Bill is on the brink of some new form of sexual discovery, he's inconveniently (or miraculously) interrupted before anything can really happen. This can perhaps be interpreted as a sign that we should all keep our "feet on the ground" when it comes to commitment issues of intimacy and marriage because the concept of sexual misguidance outside the bonds of marriage is very clear and so are its regrets and consequences. In the end, though, and in an almost cliche-like tone, it appears that the marriage of Bill and Alice will survive now that they are both "awake". And apparently, a good fuck won't hurt them, either.

Having ended my last paragraph on that note, I have to say that it really burns me up that the very last line spoken in what would turn out to be the final film of Stanley Kubrick's long and distinguished career is Nicole Kidman standing in FAO Schwartz saying, "Fuck." The other thing that has infuriated me about watching this film is the fact that the characters (particularly Cruise's) have this intolerable nasty habit of constantly repeating the last thing that was previously said to them. I find it hard to believe that Kubrick would write a screenplay with such a persistent annoyance. So that being the case, is that sort of dialogue an intentional element to somehow further convey the dream state that we may be involved in? Truth is, I still haven't figured that one out yet.

Stanley, EYES WIDE SHUT may not have been a perfect film, but I want you to know that your films meant so much to my life. I miss you and I'll never forget you.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Alice Harford: "Millions of years of evolution, right? Right? Men have to stick it in every place they can, but for women...women it is just about security and commitment and whatever the fuck else!"
Bill Harford: "A little oversimplified, Alice, but yes, something like that."
Alice: "If you men only KNEW..."

THE EXORCIST

(December 1973, U.S.)

Those of you who may have been paying closer attention to my blog than others may have noticed that over the last several weeks I've been posting my films rather sparingly. I must confess that I've been doing that intentionally so that I may write about and discuss one of the scariest films of all time on the day of Halloween. Yes, that's extremely corny, but admitedly effective, nonetheless. So, here it is...the one...the only...the classic...the original 1973 version of THE EXORCIST!

To actually spend time discussing the basic plot of THE EXORCIST would likley be as productive as disussing the plot of JAWS or STAR WARS. It's just one of those films that everyone who's ever been to or watched movies has heard of and already knows what it's about. So, what I'd like to do instead is spend some time focussing on some elements, sequences and themes that make THE EXORCIST the truly powerful and effective film that it is. You see, what I've hoped to achieve with my blog is to not only inspire my readers, based on my writings, to see films they've never seen before, but to perhaps also watch films they HAVE seen before with a more critical eye to the specific. I hope.

What is it that truly scares us about THE EXORCIST? Yes, the idea of demonic possession is in itself a very scary thing (and also an overused theme in films during the 1970s), but let's consider some of the surrounding elements that go with it. The film's demonic possession scares us because it is truly an incomprehensible thing while being based on the very ideas of good and evil in the New Testament. The film scares us because this sort of incomprehensible evil is happening to an innocent little girl. The film scares us because we watch a team of medical physicians put this poor little girl through a series of painful procedures to uncover the secret of her personality changes when we, as the audience, know the truth. The film scares us with it's visual effects, and I'm not necessarily speaking of Regan's (played by Linda Blair) hideous physical transformation or her pea soup projectile vomit, though that is in itself unnerving. I'm speaking more of sequences like Father Damien Karras' (played by Jason Miller) frightening dream sequence when for just a flash moment we see the image of that evil white face with the red eyes. Take a look...



(Shit, if THAT image doesn't keep you up at night in bed with the shivers, I don't know what will!)

The film scares us because the tension, the fear and the drama build up to what will ultimately become a battle between two good men of God and the evil spirit of the Devil. The film scares us because during this battle we watch two seemingly gentle priests reach their point of absolute fury and rage as they repeatedly shout, "The power of Christ compells you!" to save the soul of the innocent girl.

Beyond the fear of THE EXORCIST also lies the incomprehensible ideas of real life that we've likely never seen before. I'm specifically referring to a pair of priest hanging out together in a college bar, drinking beer, smoking cigarettes and listening to The Allman Brothers Band on the jukebox. Priests molesting children I can believe (because that happens!). Priests being hip and cool in the 1970s, not really. Also, have you ever wondered why all of Chris MacNeil's (played by Ellen Burstyn) servants did not get the hell out of that house when the evil possession took over? I mean, loyalty is one thing, but geez!

Now let me move onto a point that may border on the philosophical. And please remember that this theory is coming from a lover of film and NOT a man with any religious beliefs or practices or even one who believes in God (because I don't!). There is a specific line spoken in the film that I've never been able to get out of my head. During a scene when a doctor is trying to explain what exorcism is to Chris MacNeil, he says, "Well, it's a stylized ritual in which the rabbi or the priest try to drive out the so-called invading spirit." Did you catch the word RABBI? So, that got me thinking about a thing or two and it was almost exactly one year ago that I decided to discuss this point with my cousin Danny, who is lot more Jewish and religious than I'll ever want to be. My theory is this...somewhere in the New Testament is a section called "The Rite of Exorcism" which, to me, says that the Book is equipped with some sort of practical weapon of defense against evil, should a reality like that ever come to pass. So it occurs to me - what if a JEW were to become possessed by some evil spirit? What practical weapon against evil does the Old Testament hold? Well, as I suspected my cousin Danny would tell me - nothing, nada, zip! This is because (apparently) Jews do not believe in evil possession or Hell, for that matter. Okay, but if evil truly existed and could take the form of a human being, would it really discriminate between a Jew or a Gentile? Does one's non-belief in evil or Hell really mean that it may not exist? And if it does, how would we combat it? Again, I'm not a theologist or even a religious thinker. This is all coming from someone who just loves great films and spends some of his time developing his silly thoughts for discussion. But just take a moment to picture two angry Hasidic rabbis shouting in thick accents, "Ze power of Moses compells you!" over and over again to save the soul of a "nice Jewish girl". Sounds like something Mel Brooks would have done if he'd thought of it first.

So, my friends, the next time you decide to watch THE EXORCIST, watch it with an eye for some of the details I've pointed out. And if you happen to be Jewish, consider the other points I made, as well - just for the fun of it anyway. And by the way, Happy Halloween everyone!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Father Damien Karras: "Look, I'm only against the possibility of doing your daughter more harm than good."
Chris MacNeal: "Nothing you could do could make it any worse."
Damien: "I can't do it. I need evidence that the church would accept as signs of possession."
Chris: "Like what?"
Damien: "Like her speaking in a language she's never known or studied."
Chris: "What else?"
Damien: "I don't know. I'd have to look it up."
Chris: "I thought you were supposed to be an expert."
Damien: "There are no experts. You probably know as much about possession than most priests. Look, your daughter doesn't say she's a demon. She says she's the Devil himself. Now if you've seen as many psychotics as I have, you'd know it's like saying you're Napoleon Bonaparte. You asked me what I think is best for your daughter. Six months under observation in the best hospital you can find."
Chris: "You show me Regan's double, same face, same voice, everything. And I'd know it wasn't Regan. I'd know in my gut. And I'm telling you that thing upstairs isn't my daughter. Now, I want you to tell me that you know for a fact that there's nothing wrong with my daughter, except in her mind! You tell me for a fact that an exorcism wouldn't do any good! You tell me that!"

EXODUS

(December 1960, U.S.)

This post for Otto Preminger's film of EXODUS should probably have been ghost-written by my cousin Danny. He's a thousand times more the Jew than I'll ever want to be, he's half Isreali and he surely knows a lot more about the factual history behind the events that happened on the ship "Exodus" in 1947 and dealing with the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 than I'll ever be aware of. Still, it's my blog so I'll give it a go...

To begin with, I have to say that when considering the decade of the 1960s before about 1967, it's confusing to really know how the tide was turning in Hollywood. Film historians tell us that the entire major studio system was on the verge of total collapse. Yet despite that claim, we still had an array of incredible films like LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, SPARTACUS, THE GUNS OF NAVARONE, GRAND PRIX, THE GREAT ESCAPE and of course, EXODUS.

For this historical epic, we have the great stars Paul Newman as Ari Ben Canaan, a Haganah (look that up) rebel who previously was a captain in the Jewish Brigade of the British Army in World War II and Eva Marie Saint as Nurse Katherine "Kitty" Fremont, an American volunteer at the Karaolos Internment camp on Cyprus, where thousands of Jews - Holocaust survivors - are being held, as the British won't let them go on to Palestine. They're anxiously awaiting the day they will be liberated. Ari has obtained a cargo ship to smuggle 611 Jewish inmates out of the camp for an illegal voyage to Mandate Palestine before being discovered by military authorities. When the British find out that the refugees are in a ship in the harbor of Famagusta, they blockade the harbor. The refugees stage a hunger strike and Ari threatens to blow up the ship and the refugees. The British eventually relent and allow the "Exodus" safe passage to Palestine.

During this time, opposition to the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states is heating up. Young Dov Landau (played by Sal Mineo) proclaims his desire to join the Irgun, a radical Zionist underground network who devise a series of terrorist explosions in a crowded hotel. Terrorism is key here in that it not only represents the evil behind the murder of many hotel residents, but also the plot to free the captured terrorists. And yet even among this political turmoil and tragedy, there is still time in the film for two kids (Dov and a young Jewish girl named Karen) to fall in love. This love is ultimately doomed, though, during a time of war, destruction and death. For even as an independent Israel is now in plain view, it's the inevitable death of Karen and Taha (played by John Derek), an Arab village leader that will ultimately bring people together in the end with a message to the world. Karen and Taha (Jew and Arab) are buried together in one grave and at the Jewish burial ceremony, Ari swears on their bodies that someday, Jews and Arabs will live together and share the land in peace. I'm afraid that true history has taught us differently, though, hasn't it?

Widely characterized as a "Zionist epic", EXODUS was identified by many commentators as having been enormously influential in stimulating Zionism and support for Israel in the United States. Although this film softens the anti-British and anti-Arab sentiment of the original Leon Uris novel, the film remains controversial for its depiction of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and for what some scholars have perceived to be its lasting impact on American conceptions (or MISconceptions) of what regional turmoil really is.

Cousin Danny, if you're reading this now, let me just say that you probably could've written this up just a little better than I. Oh, well.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Katherine "Kitty" Fremont: "Can't you understand that you make me feel like a Presbyterian when you can't, just for a minute or two, forget that you're a Jew?"