SOMETHING ROTTEN IN DENMARK?

At my little office in Fairfax, Virginia, I take care to have some food available for emergency events such as “stomach wall collapse syndrome.” I mean by this a suddenly empty feeling that grabs the attention like no other. I miss eat!

In my mini-pantry I usually have a can of  ”Bumble Bee” Red Salmon. It is comforting to know it is there. When I pick up the can, I note approvingly the words “Premium Quality.”  There is the additional information that it contains “wild Alaska sockeye” fish–nothing tame here!

Well, my appetite is roaring, so I fetch a fresh lemon and squeeze the juice into a bowl, sprinkle a little dried, diced garlic, and go to my can opener. As I grasp the can, I notice approvingly the words “QUALITY YOU CAN SEE.” Oh, boy!

Applying the can opener, I slowly, carefully open my Red Salmon can. Peeling the top back (I usually don’t entirely remove the lid), I then “poured” the salmon into the bowl. I got closer. Even as I got closer, I had the hastening sense that something was wrong–bad wrong.

The Red Salmon had a sickly brownish color. Using my fork, I toppled it to its side. The whole cylinder of salmon appeared a ghastly shade of brown. Opening the cylinder, I saw that it was ghastly through and through. I sniffed the fish. Enough! I said: “I’m not going to eat this fish!” I slid the whole disgusting can-full into a plastic bag and tossed it into another plastic bag, and finally tossing it into a trash can. Subsequently, even the plastic was not enough to protect me from the scent. So, I took it outside to some dumpster cans and tossed it.

Besides the disappointment in losing my meal, I was annoyed at having en passant to see my fresh lemon wasted.

If one takes the time to read the label, he will also notice the assuring words: …We select only the finest salmon caught in the pristine, icy Alaskan waters. No preservatives or flavors are added to our products, only a touch of salt is included to enhance the natural Salmon taste.

I will only comment that it isn’t enough to catch them fresh, a vendor has to keep them fresh until they are vacuum-sealed. Somewhere along the way there was a “foul-up.”

I’ve eaten Bumble Bee brand red salmon for years with good results. No one is perfect. To show that I haven’t given up on canned salmon, I will open up another can of Bumble Bee Red Salmon, as soon as I finish this sentence and will report to you my findings, as that bad can, opened several days ago, may have been part of a bad lot.

I must give a passing score to that can of Red Salmon. It looked for the most part reddish-orange. There were the usual inclusions of unwelcome skin and spinal “bone.” The odor was normally fishy. The texture of fish was slightly dry.

Both this can and the offending can bore the notice that the contents should be eaten before July, 2011.

I believe that the bottom line is that my relationship with canned salmon has been impaired, and I am not sure that it will go into my shopping cart again.

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN: A REVIEW

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007)

As with Dracula, the Coen brothers must have blood. This film is no exception to their gorey rule.

Ethan and Joel Coen have made a series of interesting films that widely exploit regional eccentricities. This is in keeping with their filmwork to date.

The film stars Josh Brolin, Tommy Lee Jones, and Javier Bardem. Woody Harrelson is also featured. I thought that Josh Brolin stood out in this film. I’ve never seen Javier Bardem before. His look and personality seem to most closely resonate with Abe Vigoda’s in The Godfather mixed with Andy Kaufman.

Storyline: Vietnamese War veteran, now married and living in a trailer in Southwest Texas, while hunting, comes upon a handful of pick-up trucks in a dry wash area and sees no one alive but plenty dead. Warily, he advances. He discovers an attache case filled with loot. He grabs it and a few odds and ends, includiing a handgun, and is about to depart, when he sees a truck that seems to have a living man inside. He checks it out. Sure enough, a badly wounded Latino is slumped at the driverside window (or what’s left of it). The man indicates he wanted water. Brolin’s character, “Llewelyn,” can’t help him and goes off with the case. Later, feeling guilty, he goes back at night to the scene of the carnage to give the Latino a jug of water. Another truck arrives, parking next to Llewelyn’s. Trouble. He is seen and pursued  because–because–someone wants their money back. It’s a lot. A camera cut has brought the Javier Bardem character into the picture. He is, shall we say, a little creepy. Lethal too. He is a “psychotic” but clever and relentless, hired killer. Soon, a chase flick begins and it is made interesting by the cat-and-mouse relationship between Bardem and Brolin. Llewelyn’s clever, tough, resourceful and determined to keep the loot. The chase spills into Mexico and back. Woody Harrelson, as a Colonel, trained in special operations,  enters the chase. So does Tommy Lee Jones whose character is a sheriff, or other similar lawman. “The best laid plans of mice and men oft go aglay,” twas said. For Llewelyn his mother-in-law proved the fatal messenger to his plans. As for Bardem, he may take a “break” in the action. 

The Coens’ strength in imbuing their regional flicks with authentic elements keeps interest alive. There are the usual Coen brothers satiric thrusts. Good soundtrack. Spiced with a bit of cynicism, the struggle for “blood money” takes on a sort of tamale-gothic, picardesque quality.

By means of the Tommy Lee Jones character, the moviegoer gets a sense of alienation that has taken a grip upon the older generation, trying to maintain the old ways without much faith. They struggle with symptoms, not being capable of healing anything for lack of understanding. They use moral and ethical slogans, as if they were staffs. “What’s it all about?” they ask one another, brows furrowing and eyes squinting. “What’s happened?”

Indeed!

Once again, I leave a Coen brothers film feeling that these two men are rather misanthropic, disguised though it be by filmwork noted for regional colorations and satiric humor.

I don’t think I like this film.

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.

CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR: A REVIEW

CHARLEY WILSON'S WAR (2007)

This is a film that seems to blend genres. It has the declared attributes of a loosely-based biography. It seems to be closely akin to romantic comedy with more than a dash of adventure tossed in. The primary locale is Washington, D.C., but the film has a lot of “Pakistan”/”Afghanistan” filmtime. Other locales taking a bow are: “Las Vegas,” “Houston,” “Jerusalem,” and “Egypt.”

The film is directed by Mr. Mike Nichols. It stars Tom Hanks as “Representative Charlie Wilson.” Julia Roberts plays “Joann King Herren” (?), sixth richest woman in Texas. Philip Seymour Hoffman also stars as “Gust Avacostos” (?), the C.I.A. top man at the “Afghanistan desk” at its Langley, VA, headquarters. They are helped by a cast of many, and includes Ned Beatty, as a key Congressman..

This is a well-directed and well-edited film that includes some striking transition shots.

 The three primary characters are very credibly portrayed. I thought that the actor portraying the Pakistani president, Zia, was good. There was, on the other hand, an actor, playing a top C.I.A. man ( named something like “Gravely”), with whom the Hoffman character “butted heads,” who appears to be wearing facial cosmetics of the “base,” powder and rouge sort. I don’t think that it was intended to be so visible. It hit a false note.

The film has an excellent opening sequence where the moviegoer sees a silhouette of an Islamic male. It is near night, as a crescent moon and stars are shining. The man appears to be on a ridge. The moviegoeer sees the man kneel and bend into the characteristic prayer position of a devout Muslim. Then, he is seen to rise, pick up a portable missile launcher, and fire directly at the viewer. The screen explodes into a fiery yellow which consumes the whole of it. Then, there is a fine “cut” to a large American flag that frames a podium in front of which are three or four rank & file of chairs that are perhaps thirty deep per line. On the podium the moviegoer sees Tom Hanks, whose character identity is still unknown. In the audience are several faces that the moviegoew understands must be significant but at this point don’t know why. Among the faces seen are those of the Julia Roberts character and the Philip Seymour Hoffman character.

As the viewer becomes soon aware, the gathering is an award ceremony, organized by the “Combined Clandestine Services,” to present to Representative Charlie Wilson their highest award. Never had such an honor gone to an “outsider.” Tom Hanks’ “Wilson” appears to suitably pleased (but what the hell–he’s a politician!). From this point the film launches into a sort of “flashback,” although there is no certainty who–other than Nichols–is “flashing back.”

This opening does not take much filmtime to transpire. It is a fine lead-in to the tale. I say “tale” because as the movie progresses, it seems to have much about that is hard to believe. In short, “Representative Charlie Wilson” seems to be as much a fictional character as an actual man.

The storyline: A Texas Congressman (Hanks), living a life that is a mix of satisfying constituents, listening to various “pitchmen,” and satisfying his hedonistic needs (they may not be “needs” precisely but rather “opportunities”), is summoned to Houston, Texas, by Joann (Roberts) for a fundraiser (which includes more than a dash of fun). Joann, the sixth richest woman in Texas, is the sort of friend a politician needs, but one who can be a “pain” because of her demands. In this case she has a commitment to defeating the Soviet Communists in Afghanistan, protecting the Levant from godlessness, and ultimately causing the U.S.S.R. to crumble. The moviegoer understands soon enough that this woman not only has an agenda, she is smart and tough. Rep. Wilson, if not a pawn in the game, is a sort of “off-white” knight, hopping about the chess board to serve his “Queen.” To the surprise of all but his patron, he does a good job. Along the way he picks up a C.I.A. “expert” (Hoffman) on Afghanistan (and quite a few other places, as it turns out), who provides Rep. Wilson valuable assistance and, in time, grudging respect. To accomplish this mission, Tom Hanks’ character must wheedle and deal on the “Hill” and in the Levant. It is interesting to watch our politicians in action. It is also interesting to see the difference that equality of “fire-power” makes in a wartime struggle. This film carries through to the ultimate retreat of the Soviet troops back into the U.S.S.R. Then there is a return to the present, and the moviegoer sees the Hanks’ character once again on the podium before the same crowd in present time. The film concludes shortly thereafter. 

Parenthetically, no nation in recent times, going back to the Royal British Raj in India, has conquered Afghanistan. From a historical perspective one would not expect the U.S.S.R. to succeed (or the U.S.A.). If the U.S.A. provided weapons to thwart the Soviets, there is no reason to suppose that the U.S.S.R. can’t do the same thing to thwart the plans of the U.S.A. in Afghanistan. I saw a bumper sticker on a car that read: “The Power of Pride” (American flag background). With the wholesale destruction of bona fide Christianity in America, there are hardly any voices left to say: “Pride Goeth Before A Fall.” Tikun Olam over all.

Relating the storyline does not do justice to the style by which the scriptwriter(s) and Nichols infuse the tale. There are mixes of ribald comedy not so different from the old Albert Finney flick, Tom Jones, comedic adventures of James Bond, satiric social commentary of Robert Altman’s  Nashville, juxtaposed with grainy tv footage and quasi-documentary scenes.

Further, the script has a smart, even “crackling,” interplay at times. I thought Julia Roberts, as “Joann,” was masterfully droll at times. Philip Seymour Hoffman presented a curiously iconoclastic C.I.A. man. His commentary was more akin to a sort of drawling, rasping Don Rickles talking “street” mixed with the “deadpan” wit of Steven Wright. I felt he was a little too much the “stand-up” comedian to secure this role properly.

On the other hand, Tom Hanks seems to have perfectly “nailed” his East Texas politician, according to style. However, the milieu of Rep. Wilson’s “at work” scenes make him appear to be a convert to Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy philosophy.” Whether or not this film is a “distorted” image of Congress at work, I cannot say. Recent revelations via books, newspapers, and television make almost anything seem credible.

My view of this film is that it is well-done but by no means a great film.

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.