Movie Review - Phantom of the Opera

I enjoyed this movie, considerably more than the Broadway and theater versions. Somehow, from the movie, I understood in a deeper sense the plot of the play.

I could emphasize with the Phantom, the poor disfigured creature and his hopeless love for the young Christine Daae. I could say, "Poor Phantom", while still not wanting him to get the girl.

Emmy Rossum, actually about 18 years old herself, played the 16 year old Christine beautifully, both in terms of acting and operatic voice.

The climax of the film was touching indeed. Her terminally ill husband lays flowers on her grave. He is struck by the flowers and ring, obviously deposited by the Phantom, still alive and still grieving himself for his lost love, Christine.

Although Phantom has been acclaimed for its music, I found the score so-so. It was the depth of the plot that got me. In another film, Billy Crystal expressed his disdain for the Phantom's live theater musical version, paraphrasing as follows: "This guy has a mask, covering his pizza for a face. The main melody of the play is a copycat version of 'School Days, School Days.'" Maybe it was plagiarized, but in the film version, I didn't mind one bit.

Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills

"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists

Movie Review - Brothers - War--Literaly Kill or Be Killed

This was a grim movie, but I'm glad we went to see it. The plot covers an all-too common problem with US military endeavors after WWII. We've let ourselves be bound by Geneva Convention rules, while fighting undeclared wars against savages and thugs who only value death, not life. In particular, American prisoners of war are routinely tortured into making taped denunciations of their country. The plot of Brothers carried these atrocities one step further, showing one Marine forced to kill another Marine, when the choice was clearly, kill or be killed.

To add to the complexity of the plot, when the primary character is rescued from his Taliban prison, a flaming video camera is shown in one shot. If this video camera had been preserved, the full force of US military rules would have been brought against the surviving Captain and also the Marine he killed. The Captain would have been prosecuted for murder, although he killed only under duress and an either-or lifeboat type situation. His dead companion had previously made a statement, also under duress, denouncing the US. He would have been prosecuted, perhaps for violating the longstanding military rule that prisoners can only give name, rank, and serial number.

I've always held that the US should state as policy that it rejects in advance any statements or activities of US prisoners of war that were clearly made under enemy duress and torture.

Related portions of the plot involved the returning Captain (Toby McGuire), as he is torn by normal stress of captivity, but even more by what he did to save his own life. Although he has a breakdown and is confined in a mental hospital, the plot still ends hopefully. He apparently tells his wife what really happened during his captivity. Together, the two of them can work together for his healing. It dawned on me that, if any punishment for the Captain is considered proper, he must go through life providing moral support for the widow and young son of the Marine he killed. They regard him as a hero and he must live up to their expectations.

Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills

"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists

Invictus - Sports and National Reconciliation

Rugby has never been well publicized in the US. Soccer, although not a ranking sport, receives far more publicity. Therefore, it was knowledge-expanding and stirring to observe the underdog South Africa team’s road to a 1995 Rugby cup victory.

The accompanying plot, of course, was the work of Nelson Mandela in using this victory and its team preparation to try to unify South Africa. From our own trip in 1994, when the country was just opening up, we had an idea that there was much unrest and volatility. The nation was still racially divided, although the Apartheid enforced by a distinct white minority had just ended.

Mandela has never received credit for the job he did in keeping South Africa’s peace, while trying to encourage foreign investment. He saw that merely seizing white-owned businesses and infrastructure would only be looting of a fixed amount of wealth. No growth could result from the types of activities that were occurring in Zimbabwe and Mozambique, where white minorities had been ousted from power.

As the new President of South Africa, representing an overwhelming black majority, Mandela took a long term view of what was needed. He alienated a considerable portion of his own party to implement his program of racial reconciliation.

The movie provides an exceptional, well integrated blend of sports and far-seeing political strategy.

Some critics have heaped praise on Invictus, claiming that this represents director Clint Eastwood’s work “at the top of his game.” Other critics have carped about what they see as “trite” dialog. Perhaps if Mandela had been ranting against his racist predecessors and, even more, against the US, they would have enjoyed the dialog more. One critic claimed that too much artistic license was taken in portraying actual events of Mandela’s interaction with the rugby team and its captain. These objections seem trivial.

Others have predicted that Morgan Freeman, in his role of Mandela, is a strong Oscar candidate. I hope that Invictus receives a potful of other rewards as well.

With all the negative, tragic outcomes of recent history and, of course, today’s events, it was refreshing and stirring to see the rugby success of the South Africa team. More to the point, it represented a hopeful outcome for the nation as a whole.

Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills

"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists

Obama and Iran

Obama's problem is his moral equivalency, previously announced to the world and muslim countries in particular.

Iran is not a moral equivalent. Its government is the sworn enemy of the U.S. and is committed to our destruction and that of Western civilization. Therefore, it is our moral right and obligation to try to overthrow this govenment. If meddling in the Iranian election helps achieve this goal, that is a plus.

Remember that the original invasion of Iraq was a mistake when the real enemy and sponsor of terrorism was the Iranian government.

Also remember that some Iranian citizens may like the U.S. or at least not hate us. However, citizens of any country cannot escape the consequences of their government's actions. That was true of Germans and Japanese in WWII and is equally true today.

Norm Hill
www.booksbyhills.com