Movie Review - "Defiance"

Many have asked, how could the Jews of Europe have been so seemingly passive about and resigned to Hitler's annihilation campaign? Right before and during World War II, they seemed to exhibit a sort of fatalism about the Holocaust, even though Hitler had announced his intentions to exterminate Jewry, both in writing and in frequent speeches? Some have said that this was philosophy at work, a philosophy of passivity against aggression in the hope that at least some of the tribes of Israel could survive in a hostile world. Only the brief Warsaw Ghetto uprising in 1943 seemed an exception, and this was known to be doomed from the outset.

Well, there was one Jewish group that did fight back against the Nazis, and at least in terms of their own escape from death, emerged victorious against them. The movie Defiance shows for the world the little known story of the Bielski Brothers in White Russia. These 3 brothers, farmers at the War's outset, not only avenged the death of their parents, but recruited a sizable group of ghetto refugees who fought back against the Wehrmacht from the White Russian forests.

The Bielski Brothers were farmers, not philosophers. However, their implicit philosophy was surely a strong commitment to justice, combining a passionate desire to live and, to the extent possible, to bring retribution to the Nazis who had slaughtered their loved ones.

Initially, the Brothers had a short term goal, to avenge their parents' murder against the White Russian police who collaborated with the Nazis. However, they wanted a longer term view, which temporarily led to a sharp difference of opinion. Should they join with Soviet Partisans, even though they were not Communist sympathizers, or should they stay and try to recruit more Jews? The second brother, Zus, decided to join the partisans, which caused a short term rift.

The oldest brother, Tuvia, on the other hand, chose the latter approach. He snuck into a near by ghetto and tried to convince its prisoners to join his small band. Here, he had to exhibit his own philosophy and powers of persuasion against the fatalism of the rabbinical leader. The latter preached that the Nazis needed Jewish prisoners as sources of labor. Also, escape would bring immediate retaliation and murder against those who did not choose to leave. Tuvia’s urging won out and a sizable minority did escape to join him in the forest.

His new band underwent the terrible hardships of Russian winters. Men who had been scholars had to join in backbreaking physical labor. Life-saving drugs had to be stolen from German campsites. Once, Tuvia, when recovering from near-death, was forced to shoot a would-be challenger to his leadership role.

After several years of movement throughout the forests and near defeat, the Bielski Brothers were re-united. By then, German reverses in other parts of Russia, such as Stalingrad, meant their campaign in White Russia had to end. This enabled the Bielskis and their band to escape. Many of them, including Tuvia and Zus, made their way to Western lines. Eventually, the two of them, along with their new wives, emigrated to the United States. Their triumph was virtually unknown until a novel and this movie brought it to a wide audience.

The movie is excellently integrated, filmed, and the script fits in perfectly with the action and conflict. Acting of Daniel Craig as Tuvia and Liev Schreiber as Zus are first rate.

Defiance deserves a full five star rating.

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 - "Taken"

Liam Neeson gives an absolutely memorable performance as an uncompromising moral avenger. He acts in the tradition of the earlier James Bond series and earlier Mickey Spillane novels. He is confronted by evil and he sets out to overcome the evil with all force, skill, and wits necessary. His revenge on evil is appropriate for the extent and depth of the evil.

No doubt, some admirers of the movie would class it as adventure, cops and robbers or who done it, and think no more about it. But the underlying theme of Taken is far deeper than that. Neeson is placed in a life and death situation that demands quick, REASONED, action. He uses force, even torture, to the extent necessary to get lifesaving information. But all his actions are aimed at an ultimate goal—his daughter's rescue from a life of slavery, prostitution, and, in short order, death.

When my wife and I saw the movie, we both said, We wish young people, especially young women, would see the movie and have the living hell scared out of them. This sentiment was not to be mean or petty. Rather, it expressed our concern that many, especially young people, believe they are immortal and are thus far too oblivious of the evil in the world. The proper reaction is not to be shocked speechless or rendered comatose by the realization of the evil of the movie. Instead, the realization should be that proper actions, reasonable precautions, can usually negate the power of evil.

When people underestimate the potential power of evil, they make the often fatal mistake of not leaving evil to its own devices. This mistake seems more prominent among Americans than other people in the world.

Examples of Neeson's use of a reasoned, logical approach in his quest to save his daughter include:

1. At her apartment in Paris, he retrieves her cell phone. From a phone picture of the daughter and her friend, he sees the reflection of the young scoundrel who took her picture and serves as a shill. He obviously is the one who lets his associates know of residences of intended victims.
2. Even though Neeson apprehends the young man, he escapes and is killed by traffic. Next, from former CIA contacts who have reviewed voices on the daughter's cell phone, they give him clues about the kidnappers. They are from a new, ruthless Albanian gang that has gone big into white slavery.
3. When Neeson finds the gang's headquarters, he initially poses as a corrupt cop, wanting an additional payoff. This ruse confirms that his ex-friend, now on the Paris police force, is on the take with the gang. Next, he fools the gang by asking all of them to help him translate an Albanian phrase. He hears all of them say, Good luck, and realizes which one of the gang taunted him earlier, when the kidnapper spoke into his daughter's cell phone.
4. When Neeson confronts the corrupt cop, he has already removed bullets from the gun in his home.

Neeson kills quite a few of the Albanian gang and the senior gang who auction off the kidnapped victims. Neeson follows through, all the way to the (likely) Saudi arch scoundrel who has purchased the short term sexual services of his virginal daughter. The final scoundrel, the owner of the yacht who won the sexual auction, reacts appropriately like a trapped rat. His cry, while holding Neeson's daughter at knife point, is We can negotiate. For Neeson, the answer is No, we can't, and the would-be slavemaster receives his richly deserved award of death.

If I would have added any section to the script of Taken, I would have had Neeson describe graphically to his daughter the death of her even more foolish friend. I didn't see this inclusion. Again, this would have been for the purpose of stating forcefully the consequences of foolish actions and lack of thought.

To me, the movie Taken richly deserves a 5 star rating.

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 - "Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day"

Is it possible that one day's encounter can fundamentally and favorably influence the lives of two quite dissimilar women? The answer from this movie is a laugh-inducing and heartwarming "yes."

The setting is London in September, 1938, where the atmosphere is very tense over Britain's confrontation with Hitler and Czechoslovakia. Miss Pettigrew, a 40ish spinster, is down on her luck. She has lost her nanny's position, apparently not the first time with a similar dismissal. Her employment agency tells her bluntly that they have absolutely no other position for her. By chance, she spots an open position as social secretary to a high-sounding Delysia Lafosse. She goes to the address and says the agency has sent her. Her references will be sent shortly.

Miss Pettigrew is amazed at the chaos in the apartment and life of Miss LaFosse. She is an aspiring singer and actress. Her luxurious digs are really the property of the nightclub owner where she works. Her bed is currently occupied by a hungover would-be show producer whom LaFosse hopes to seduce into starring her in his next production. To complicate things further, Delysia is really in love with a passionate piano player and singer, also employed at the same nightclub.

Thanks to Delysia's urging, and the credit account of the nightclub owner that Delysia is using, Miss Pettigrew also gets a bit of makeover. This makes her look at least more like a social secretary.

In the meantime, before teaming with LaFosse, Miss Pettigrew had stopped at a soup kitchen. In the alley, she had spotted a well dressed woman passionately kissing a man. Now, in Delysia's employ, she attends a function and sees the same woman. She meets the man whom the woman is engaged to. He does not know of the woman's affair, and she threatens Miss Pettigrew with exposure as a soup kitchen vagrant. At the same time, Miss Pettigrew and the man, a wealthy businessman, are taken with each other.

When Delysia goes to her night club, she finds out that the producer has doublecrossed her and has another lead. Her boss, the nightclub owner, is watching her with a jealous eye. Her passionate boyfriend changes the musical sequence so the next song for her is "If I Didn’t Care." Even if the Inkspots didn't popularize this until the 40s, the words fit in beautifully with the plot. Delysia sings it passionately so that her love for her piano player is obvious. Then, the boyfriend and the nightclub owner slug it out and the boyfriend wins.

In the midst of this brawl, a test air raid siren begins and the nightclub empties. Delysia has taken refuge under the piano, with Miss Pettigrew close by. When the young woman cries for advice, she confesses that she is not an aristocrat, but the daughter of a Pittsburgh steelworker. Miss Pettigrew opens her heart as well. Her one true love was killed in World War I, before they could be married. She urges Delysia (actually Sarah) that, even if stage roles and nightclub fame are glamorous, she shouldn't let true love (with the piano player) slip by.

Miss Pettigrew takes her own advice when she has the chance to sit and talk with the businessman. Their affection for each other is obvious. Then, the other woman breaks in and says she is going to expose Miss Pettigrew as a tramp, as revenge for her own affair being exposed. Miss Pettigrew runs off in despair. However, the businessman tells the woman that Pettigrew had said nothing of the affair (tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot).

The next morning, Pettigrew finds that Delysia has taken her advice and is going off with her true love, the piano player. He has secured employment for them on a transatlantic ocean liner as a combined act. The young man calls her, "Hurry up, Grub" (her real name), but it's an obvious call of affection.

Now, Miss Pettigrew is sitting in a railroad station. Presumably, she got a little money from Delysia. Where she'll go now and what she'll do are up in the air. But then the businessman finds her and says he has looked all night for her. He asks her to please stay in London and join him now for breakfast. Although Miss Pettigrew hasn't eaten in over 24 hours, it is obvious that her elation is from much more than mere dietary satisfaction.

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 - 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