fkerr

`The Blue and The Gray' is not a story about the Civil War. It is a long drama about a family set at the time of that war. Running more than six hours, it is indeed long. Yet, anyone interested in human relationships will find that the time is well spent and that no dead points exist. The snippets of the Civil War form a focus for the story and explain some of the relationship issues. They also remind the viewer what a truly difficult time it was for families and for our nation.

All of the well-made stories of persecution of Jews and others by the Hitler regime before and during World War II bring forth emotional responses. This film is unique in that it combines that reality with totally believable characters. The film is well written, well directed, and well acted. The viewer must ask: 'Could you imagine going through something like that?'

Jacqueline Bisset plays the part of a young German with liberal views very well. Jürgen Prochnow comes across quite well as young man of Jewish heritage who wants very much to be totally German. It is also interesting how the Swedish church plays a key role in protecting the Jews who have escaped deportation. Many questions are stimulated by the film about various parts of German society, but those are questions raised by all coverage of those terrible events.

Sometimes, films exist outside the formulas. Sometimes, they can make the viewer uncomfortable. The Maldonado Miracle fits both categories. It deals with United States/Mexico border issues with frankness, and that makes many very uncomfortable. Then, it moves into religion and raises questions like: What is a miracle? How different people react is extremely interesting. The viewer must consider some basic issues in his or her own faith, something else that most are not comfortable with. Yet, these issues are what makes this film well worth viewing.

`Broken Arrow' is a good film for the reasons other positive comments indicate. The historic accuracy claimed at the opening was not the whole story, for the peace was temporary, and Geronimo emerged later than portrayed. My main

problem with the film is that Delmer Daves, like so many other western

filmmakers insisted on shooting dramatic fairytale backgrounds, not the real

places. My home, north of Tucson, is about 50 miles west of Mt. Graham, the

historic site of much of the action. Daves shot it in the Sedona area, some 200 miles to the north, so that he would have beautiful big red rocks in the

background. They are beautiful, but it tends to destroy the sense of place.

This is a fine film and one that is historically accurate. At the same time, the viewer must appreciate that it is from the Southern perspective. The South saw itself as defending its homeland. Of course, the Northern view was defense of the Union. Slavery was an issue behind both perspectives. For example, the film leaves the impression that Lincoln started the war by calling for volunteers to form an Army. The attack on Fort Sumter really started the military conflict, and Lincoln's call was in response to that. At least, that was the Union view.

A second factor explaining the negative reaction, I believe, is the emphasis on the religious faith of the generals. People today fail to appreciate that such faith, constant reference to God, and frequent prayer were accepted behavior at that time.

A plot SPOILER follows. Of course, it is based on historic fact.

As Florence Nightingale is portrayed in this film, she achieved through confrontation with her family, her friends, the medical profession, and the British military authorities. Whether such conflicts were at the root of her success I cannot say. It is clear, however, that she is responsible for several very important revolutions in health care. First, she introduced cleanliness as of primary importance. Then, she raised the duties and the perception of nurses to the level of a profession. Lastly, she established formal education for nurses.

The British television production clearly shows conditions as they were when Florence arrived at adulthood. She was of the gentry, but her heart was with the sick and injured of whatever class. Rejecting a worthy suitor, she set off to Kaiserswerth in Germany to get nursing training, such as it was at the time.

Upon her return, she shocked her family by entering and then working in a hospital, the type of institution where ladies just didn't set foot. Hospitals were filthy, like prisons, where the attendants treated patients with utter distain and where the environment was vile indeed.

Miss Nightingale came into her own during 1854, in the Crimean War. This film does an excellent job of portraying that. She took a group of nurses to a military hospital and revolutionized it over the constant objections of the military commanders and the doctors. She did gain some support as word of her changes began to be reported back home in Britain.

Anyone with a background or interest in health care, especially in nursing or hospital administration will enjoy this film for its subject matter. The filmmaking is a bit uneven and episodic, which you might expect from a television series.

Jaclyn Smith portrays Florence with sensitivity, thereby creating a believable and engaging character.

Other comments cover the filmmaking and acting well. Yes, this is a good film. Others have said that it is not historically accurate, and that is correct. One more thing bothers me. John Ford selected the spectacular setting of Monument

Valley as the location. Tombstone is about 340 miles south as the crow flies. Then, he stuck fake saguaro all around the set. Those plants are not native to either Monument Valley or to the Tombstone area. I guess if historical fact can go, so can geography.

For American tastes, this documentary is much too long for the subject matter. Yet, it is worth watching for several reasons. Considerable insight into the early appeal of Hitler to the German people shows through Frau Riefenstahl's comments. More than that, though, is the detailed presentation of a master documentary filmmaker and her secrets. As evidenced through her later work in Africa and under the sea, she is an amazing woman. Her comments and her work are presented in such a way that both can be appreciated.

Sure, there is little story here, and the technical quality of the VHS

tape is rather bad. That has nothing to do with why this is a great

film.

The point is the music and the peek into history it permits. In

addition to the overview of patriotic feelings at a time of war, there

are three specific reasons why the film is unique and of great

value: (1) A young Ronald Reagan playing a key role; (2) Kate

Smith introducing Irving Berlin's new number, "God Bless

America;" and a solo by Irving Berlin himself of "Oh, How I Hate To

Get Up In The Morning."

Although I scored this film as a "6" because it suffered some from lack of character development and pedestrian acting, it is a powerful viewing experience. A skilled United Airlines crew and unprecedented community organization saved many. In fact, the emergency workers in the Sioux City area achieved, on a smaller scale, what those in New York did in 2001. Charlton Heston was ideal in the role of Captain Al Haynes.

I worked in the city government at Sioux City and then at St. Luke's Regional Medical Center years before these events. I participated in some of the very early planning that paid off in 1998. What I saw in the film rings true.

Some TV productions of late have been fantastic, and many are duds. `¡Fidel!' is interesting for content but disappointing in production. Huggo Martin has good moments in the title role, but mostly he walks through the lines without imparting believability to them. Other cast members do the same. Of course, Fidel Castro is a fascinating character. Viewing this film does flesh out a Yankee's knowledge of his life. Yet, so much remains unanswered. The first segment portrays him as an idealistic leader of the justified overthrow of General Batista. His failures seem somehow related to lack of realistic planning, but he triumphs in the end at least in part by his reliance on subordinates. Then, the second segment takes us to the Castro government in power. Here, we see a megalomaniac who makes his own decisions regardless of reality or the opinions of others. He sells out his revolution out to the Soviets for no apparent reason other than his hate for the U. S. The regime becomes a disaster for the Cuban people. The film makes no effort to explain the abrupt change. Is it just the taste of power, or is there an illness within Castro's mind? Were we deceived at first? Castro and the Che Guevara character often throw allegations toward the CIA, but all of that is also left vague. A viewer interested in the subject here can only come away terribly unsatisfied.

All In The Family is the best television series ever broadcast, bar

none! When I saw many of the episodes at a younger age, I

laughed, but I really didn't appreciate them. Now, I can watch

retrospectively and enjoy all the wisdom and humor to the fullest.

The series tackled every controversial topic of its day, and most

are still quite relevant albeit evolved. Carroll O'Connor and Jean

Stapleton gave superb acting performances each week. Rob

Reiner and Sally Struthers were also excellent. The dialogue was

often predictable, but always emotional and filled with comedy.

Although some see a political agenda behind the scripts, both

sides of every issue are driven home by virtue of absurdity. Archie

and Edith are surely ridiculous characters, but they also reflect

deep reality within American marriage. Through their stupidity, they

are lovable worthy of our sympathetic listening. As foils, Mike and

Gloria seem reasonable youths, but their support for modern

thinking shows weakness as often as not.

The abiding lesson is that everything is more complicated than it

seems, but that there is joy in laughter.

If IMDb took numerical ratings on TV shows from 1 to 10, All In

The Family would get an `11' from me.

What may be seen by some viewers as just another Western horse chase is really a profound comment on management, military leadership, and courage as well as a very interesting historical antic dote. It dramatically portrays how differently things can look from different points in the chain of command. Gen. MacArthur has seen the threats to the U.S. from Europe and Asia, and he aims to modernize the Army. With an engineering background and the perspective of high command, he simply orders the excess cavalry horses destroyed.

Down on the Mexican border, this order seems absurd by soldiers who have grown to love horses. A courageous bunch led by an honor focused lieutenant and combat wise sergeant seizes the momentary opportunity to save most of the animals. Their superior, who is purely obedience focused, takes after this mutiny, which then becomes an international incident. Retired colonel Hardesty, who is smart enough to have retired to Tucson, and his journalist daughter feed take up the cause with ultimate success.

The story is apparently real, portrayal of the conflict is believable, the characters show their doubts and resolve, and the story is fascinating.

When a serious war diary is brought to the screen, the adaptation requires serious attention to character development through dialogue and acting. The plot is, for the most part, given. In "In Love and War," John Mortimer does the adapting. He is a genius at comedy writing, especially through his "Rumpole of the Bailey" stories. In this latest work, the story is very entertaining, but it misses through unrealistic dialogue and inadequate character development through the acting.

"The Counterfeit Traitor" is a film to be appreciated on many levels, for war is not a simple thing. The events span nations. The characters struggle with duty and morality. The events are real, and the actors make that believable.

For me, one of the most interesting portrayals is occupied Denmark and how the Danes effectively resisted the Nazi troops and saved so many Jews.

TV may be mostly a wasteland these days, but every once in a while, a fine original film shows up on the tube. `Dinner With Friends' is certainly in that category. It takes the viewer deeply into the relationship between two couples and within each. They were best friends until one of the marriages hits the rocks. We see each side of that split and how it affects the other couple. Initially, sides seem to be taken along gender lines, but that reverses as each member of the separating couple finds new relationships. Is it fatal to the other marriage? Watch and see.

When I first saw this film, I thought it was brilliant and powerful. It captured something of the chaos of the Mexican border and punched home the truth that demand for drugs is the problem. Then, I saw the original British TV series, `Traffik.' Now, that is a film! Its length, more than five hours, permitted a deeper understanding. Although it's locales were Pakistan, Afghanistan, Germany, and England, the story was clearer and the characters more understanding than in the American remake. After watching `Traffic' again, I still say it is a very well made and powerful film, but it ain't `Traffik.'

"The Last Hurrah" is about the end of a political career and also the end of an era in American local government. I first saw the film when I was ready to launch a career in public administration, and I didn't like the sympathy Spencer Tracy gave the role of big city boss. Over the subsequent years, I have enjoyed the film more each time. Now, I thoroughly enjoy and am amused by the way Frank Skeffington manipulates the powerful to champion the underdog.

The film is more drama and comedy than history. Yet, men like James Michael Curley, Richard J. Daley, and David L. Lawrence combined ambition for power with a desire to achieve municipal progress as they saw it. They used their understanding of human nature and the ignorance of the body politic effectively. Skeffington shows how. Today, their successors use other methods for similar purpose.