Watched "Two Men Went to War" last night. We had four dvds from Netflix - a virtual plethora of possibilities - but two were dreadful, basically unwatchable. Kings in Grass Castles proves that angry Irish farmers emigrating to Australia are annoying, uninteresting and not entertaining, even if they might have been historically interesting. Peep Show was billed as terrific by viewers who'd liked The Office and Black Adder but we found it entirely unfunny and, worst of all, mean-spirited.

Two Men, on the other hand, was a surprise. (Spoiler alert : if you want no details, read no further....) This is the true story of two British army dentists who decide, in 1942, to take the war (World War II) into their own hands. They sail a very small boat to France armed with some grenades and wire cutters and, most importantly, a lot of gumption. They manage to make two German transport trains crash into each other (although they don't know it) and then they knock over part of a radar station before they hightail it back to England. They're almost court-martialled as deserters but Winston Churchill himself is so pleased with them that, instead, they are awarded the Military Cross along with a brief absent-without-leave sentence. Definitely an intriguing pair and a nice film for a Saturday evening.

The older of the stars of Two Men is Kenneth Cranham. He was married to Diana Quick (who was subsequently and for a long time has been Bill Nighy's partner and mother of their child) and was Helen Mirren's companion for many years (and father of their child). If his onscreen personna conveyed a sort of rugged sex appeal, I guess I must say it's borne out by his biography. The other star, Leo Bill, a mere 28 years old, played his part with a bit of goofiness that I could have done without, but he held his own well. The real character went on to become mayor of Newcastle-on-Tyne, interestingly enough.

Labels: modern culture, movies, warfare

Reprinted from 9/11/06 and 9/11/07. My very small part in bloggers' tribute to the 2996 is posting Joshua Vitale's profile originally published in the NYTimes on 10/28/01.

---

Joshua Vitale and Ina Weintraub had been best friends since they were seventh graders in Syosset, on Long Island. Two years ago, when they were 26, Mr. Vitale made a confession as they left the movies. " He said he'd been in love with me for many years and that if he didn't tell me this now he would always regret it," Ms. Weintraub said. "I was so blown away I didn't talk to him for three months. "When the dust settled, the couple's life together quickly fell into place. They got engaged and moved into an apartment in Great Neck, N.Y. Mr. Vitale, who had been a wanderer, a party animal and something of a lost soul for much of his 20's, got a job at Cantor Fitzgerald's trading desk."Once we got together it was like we were shooting for the stars," Ms. Weintraub said. "We were so happy."

Two days before Sept. 11, [2001,] the couple tried to get tickets to the United States Open tennis tournament, without success. Josh said: 'Forget the Open. Why don't we go to the zoo?'" Ms. Weintraub said. The couple communed with the gorillas at the Bronx Zoo, and then Mr. Vitale, his wandering instincts intact, found a path where they had a picnic together. "There was nothing left unsaid between us," Ms. Weintraub said. " He knew how much I loved him and I will always know how much he loved me."

Labels: anniversaries, warfare, world war 4

I'm puzzled about everyone's reaction to the Russian / Georgian crisis. Not because of whatever the sovereignty issues are - those are serious and interesting but not the point for the moment - but because I don't understand the general tone of expectations about what the U.S. should do about it. I hear and read the U.S. government being chastised for not sending troops nor being publicly tough or loud about reprimanding Russia.

Is the real point simply that George Bush is always wrong? Betsy, with whom I often agree, wrote about Bush's "initially weak response to the Russian invasion of Georgia." He did criticize Russia's actions immediately in both a news conference and several interviews (I heard him). Can you imagine the outcry if Bush had sent troops immediately? And there wouldn't have been any point in sending humanitarian aid (which we are now sending) before knowing what's needed.

Betsy and others criticized also Bush for "enjoying some Olympics fun while Russian tanks rolled through Georgia" which seems awfully unfair. Everyone was yelling and screaming that he must go to the Olympics and support U.S. athletes. So I have to believe that if he'd run right out and scold the Russians with threats of troops or with actual troops, he'd have created a very distracting-from-the-Olympics incident which would have detracted very much from the athletes. Plus, it was entirely apparent he was doing diplomacy with both the Chinese and Putin, in person, since they were all there too. I'm quite sure we have no way of knowing or assessing what he was really doing or saying and to whom.

Back in the day Bush determined that Al Quaeda was being supported in Iraq and that therefore it would be possible to undermine the terrorists by sending troops and attacking them in Iraq. Only history will be able to judge that thought process and its correctness or incorrectness but many deemed it very wrong. This week Bush determined that the U.S. has no legal or moral standing to get militarily involved in a dispute between Russia and George and therefore that we had to exercise restraint and not send troops to Georgia and not even get involved immediately so they could sort it out themselves but many deemed that very wrong.

Involved then - bad . . . involved now - good. Why? It's not as if Saddam Hussein was a good guy to Putin's and Medvedev's bad guys; they're all varying degrees of totalitarians leaders of sovereign states and who the heck are we to intervene unless authoritatively requested or unless our own sovereignty is in jeopardy?

Our involvement in Iraq had at least a small - albeit very small - claim to justification by way of the explicit U.N. sanctions which Hussein flagrantly ignored. There is no such factual reason for us to become physically involved in Georgia. Wouldn't it simply be evangelism in the extreme?

Labels: places, reflections, warfare

Some friends and I watched Charlie Wilson's War over the weekend. It was terrific and I'm not at all sure why it only rates 7.5 (out of 10) at imdb. There are some slightly scary circuitous and diatribe-esque discussion threads there but unless you like to read various levels of lunacy and bad spelling, just ignore them. Anyway, the movie is better than most of the current movies I've seen but, then again, I'm mainly a fan of movies driven by plots and characters that make logical and emotional sense so my judgment may be impaired according to some points of view.

I read the book about six months ago so I was curious as to how all the thousands of personalities, passions, points of view, events and mere thoughts could be culled from 500+ pages into a movie that wouldn't run ten hours and put everyone to sleep. What's amazing is that they got the important people, facts and stories in, and managed to convey what I believe is at the story's heart: the conviction that a few passionate people can get big things done as long as they are determined and willing enough to play the "games" of politics and inner-circle dealing. Realizing that an awful lot of things happen that way, one wonders why inner circle politicians don't get more done, after seeing this movie.

And I do not think, by the way, that Charlie and Gust caused the events of 9-11-2001. To me that's like saying that rapist attack women because they wear miniskirts, or that husbands burtalize wives when they defend their self-respect. Those who carried out 9-11 had been memorizing their lines and running tech rehearsals for quite a while, long before all this, and it might just have happened sooner but for Charlie and Gust but it certainly wasn't retaliation or a logical outcome.

Anyway, this is absorbing and provocative. Read and/or watch and let's talk.....

Labels: movies, people, politics, warfare