Spielberg's The Terminal Pushes All the Right Buttons

This week I watched The Terminal again for the first time in perhaps 10 or 12 years. Funny thing is, although I remembered the story line I could not recall the reason our hapless hero Viktor Navorski came to the U.S. in the first place. Nor did I recall that this was a Steven Spielberg film, one of several that the masterful director has made with Tom Hanks.

The storyline is this. Viktor Navorski (Hanks) has flown into the United States from his homeland Krakozhia, a small country in Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, there has been a coup during his flight and the new regime has not yet been recognized by our State Department so that his temporary visa is rejected. On the other hand, he is not able to fly home because his return is similarly blocked. In short, he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. He has nowhere to go. 

Adding to his problems is Frank Dixon (Stanley Tucci, The Devil Wears Prada) who refuses to bend any rules to help resolve Navorski's complicated tangled mess. A bureaucrat gatekeeper more concerned with appearances than realities. 

The film has all the elements of good entertainment. Conflict, comedy, characters with definite aims, all thrown into a series of stalemate situations. 

Hanks began his career with a number of humorous roles, and after films like Castaway, Apollo 13, Captain Philips, Saving Private Ryan, Sully and Philadelphia one could forget that he's pretty good as a comic. The film opens with Navorski being unable to communicate effectively with Dixon who is clearly clueless about the degree of their communication gap. Hanks plays it a little over-the-top, which is probably just the right touch, letting us know up front it's not a serious drama. 

Audiences may not realize how familiar Hanks is with the heavy accent he struggles to express himself with. In real life, Hanks' father-in-law is Bulgarian, and in one scene late in the film he's talking Bulgatian and not just babbling,

I remember wondering if this were based on a true story and was both surprised and not surprised to learn that an incident like this has happened in real life. The film was purportedly inspired by the story of an Iranian refugee who arrived at Charles De Gaulle Airport near Paris but was unable to gain entry to France after his papers were stolen. What's a fellow to do?

So Navorski makes the airport his home. (I was curious if the name Viktor Navorski was inspired by Bronko Nagurski, the football star, a name that always struck me a cool.)

I remember bringing my dad to JFK Airport when I was younger. What I remember most was being struck by how tall those international passenger jets were.  

For the film, Spielberg & company built an entire airport set, including all the restaurants in the food court. The Hudson Books would be recognizable to any frequent business flyer over the past 30 years.  I'm curious what they do with these massive sets after they're filmed? One would imagine they're recycled somehow. Any ideas?

Some of the humor is subtle. Navorski is unable to leave the airport, but in one scene he's in the Borders Book Store reading Dr. Seuss' Oh the Places You'll Go.

Right from the opening scene there's that unusual attention to detail in the camera angles, titles and method of conveying information. It's part of the Spielberg DNA.  

One of the features of the story is how many character storylines are developed. Each is well defined, each has more to his or her story than what we see initially. Like Hanks, each has a personal quest.

Another feature of the film which I either hadn't picked up on before or forgot was this notion of waiting. Everyone is waiting for something. I think of the Kinks' "So tired, tired of waiting..." Patience is a virtue, and waiting is the test that tries our patience more than anything.

The romance elements bring another layer into the film. Catherine Zeta-Jones is a stewardess who flies all over the world, and at first she doesn't realize that Hanks actually "lives" at the airport. You know how it is when you run into people you know at airports. If you travel a lot it happens and they are always on their way to somewhere else. And yes, it is another kind of waiting that Hanks must do, ever waiting to see her again.

There were some mixed reviews of the film on imdb.com. Because it was Spielberg and Hanks, one reviewer said, "I've come to expect more." Well, it worked for me. Even Graham Greene wrote some novels that called "entertainments." Not everything has to strive to change the world. If you haven't see it, it's fun.

Spielberg's Lincoln Delivers

I'd been following the development of this film for a couple years now, anticipating something as big as its theme. Spielberg's Lincoln, finally released after twelve years in development, is stellar, laden with stars who undoubtedly anticipated this film would deliver as potently as imagined. And it does.

The knockout punch is not just the fine acting, but the cinematography. When we went a few weeks back, the theater was packed, and our seats were near the front off to the side. No problem though. I'm sure that from any angle I would have had this same experience of wishing I could stop the film and breathe in through my eyes every image from every minute of the film. I'm serious. Every shot was a work of art, bar none. The painstaking beauty of creating the sets, re-creating every detail of the times, was so hyped ahead of time that I did not expect to be so moved by it. But it's a moving film, in every respect.

The story, which you no doubt know by now, is about Lincoln's efforts to pass the 13th Amendment that would ban slavery forever in this country. He had the foresight to recognize that once the Southern states were returned to the union, the passage of such an amendment would become impossible. As this movie demonstrates, the passage was nigh impossible even with the absence of the South.

Daniel Day-Lewis deserves the praise he's received from the critics. The film is a masterpiece in every sense of the word and casting has to be atop that list. Having read numerous books on Lincoln and listened to the speeches of Lincoln as delivered by Raymond Massey who a generation ago "became" Lincoln for a spell, it's quite a task to capture all the nuances of Lincoln's character in such a brief time frame as this 150 minute film permits. But the screenwriters worked deftly and Day-Lewis assumes the persona of the self-taught backwoodsman who became a president during one of our most critical historical periods.

Frequently when reviewing films I like to cite a few comments from imdb.com. Not everyone shares the same point of view on even the most cherished classics, whether film or literature and imdb.com is usually reliable to serve up some spicy contrarians.

One criticism is that the film is not about the Civil War or slavery or even Lincoln. To this I would say that in the field of cartography, a map is not necessarily made more accurate and useful by being increased in size to the point of being an identical reproduction of the city, state or country. All storytellers, as well as memoir writers, but wrestle with the problem of what to leave in and what to leave out. In this instance, Spielberg has given us a magnified close-up of a singular event in Lincoln's life, the passage an amendment through congress. Like any good story, the chosen event is revealing about the character and motivations of the man. The event takes place in a context, and the story has significant reverberations for all who see or hear of it.

Another criticism of the film was the film score by John Williams. I suppose the purpose of this film was more to tell the story rather than sell CDs afterwards. I do not recall it being offensive or intrusive, and recall noting early in the film that it seemed suitable at the time.

A third criticism leveled at Lincoln has to do with the manner in which the screenplay has been sponged through and through with political correctness. The film, they claim, is devoted to the greatness of Lincoln and is unrestrained in making him out to be heroic. Well, it took about 125 years for critics of Robert E. Lee to have their voices heard without being hounded and howled out. Lee was a great man, but still just a man. Lincoln's critics were vocal much sooner. He was hated in his lifetime and certainly the grounds for that have never dissipated in some places where he has been regarded as the primary cause of the immense loss of life during the Civil War.

When I saw the film I myself was (perhaps foolishly) blind to the PC observations some critics have made, absorbed as I was in the cinematic depictions of the times. Yes, I noticed that the White House was not called the White House till years later but it didn't bother me.

In an age where action films about terrorists and terminators and superheroes abound, a straight up historical drama is not going to grab its audiences in quite the same manner. But then again, this film is a work of art and art appreciation varies with different audiences. People who gravitate to the Bourne Identity just might find Henry Fonda a tad boring in Twelve Angry Men. And I promise you, there are no chase scenes trying to compete with Daniel Craig for the best chase scene ever in a motion picture.

Bottom line, I thought the film quite powerful and worth seeing. I also had something of a epiphany at the end. Lincoln, after he was shot at Ford Theater, died the day on April 15. If you know your history, you'll also recall that he was born on February 12. These two dates are the birthdays of two of the four most significant women in my life: my mom and my daughter.

Three or four years ago I became friends with a passionate Lincoln buff who was living in Springfield, Illinois at the time. You might enjoy that blog entry titled Ten Minutes with an Ardent Lincoln Buff from Illinois.

If you see the film, tell me what you think. In the meantime, have a very special day.

Turkey Talk

I try to minimize the number of subscriptions I receive from various daily email newsletters, but I do sign up for things now and then. Even if I don't read them every day there are sometimes interesting subject lines and if not in a hurry I open and read it. Most also link to a website or blog for increased engagement. And if you find yourself never opening them, eventually you can choose to unsubscribe and reduce the inbox clutter that can oft be so time consuming to deal with.

One email that I still get every day is called wiseGEEK. It's essentially a daily bit of "Oh, that's interesting" or "Gee, I didn't know that" types of information. Today it was about turkeys. The subject line in the email stated, Only male turkeys gobble.

Although turkeys of all types share many characteristics, gobbling is not something every turkey does. Only male turkeys make the sound that is referred to as a gobble. Along with being known as tom turkeys, male turkeys are often referred to as gobblers. Female turkeys, generally known as hens, make a sound that is somewhat like a clicking noise.

If you clicked on a link for more info, you would go to their website and learn still more about turkeys, the first item below being one that I had written about in the past when writing about turkeys.

~ During the early years of the United States, Benjamin Franklin supported the wild turkey as the national bird. Instead of the wild turkey, however, the bald eagle was selected.

~ Wild turkeys tend to follow a similar pattern when it comes to eating times. Feeding in the mid-morning, followed by a second feeding in the mid-afternoon is most common. Many turkeys feed by using their beaks to cut through or rip vegetation. Their feet are used to scratch through snow or leaves to find other food sources.

~ The Turkey Trot was a popular dance move in the early 1960s, but the term also is used to describe the mating efforts of male turkeys. In the spring, male turkeys often spread their tail feathers while puffing out their chests and strutting around in the presence of hens. It is during this season that the male turkey is particularly prolific with gobbling, using the sounds to attract as many females as possible.*

What I find especially interesting about all this turkey talk is that our images of Thanksgiving as a holiday are so frequently filled with pilgrims and pumpkin pie and a horn 'o plenty that we forget that its origin was none other than Abe Lincoln, who in the midst of a great civil war set aside the last Thursday of November as a national day for giving thanks to God for His bounty.

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.

You can read the proclamation in its entirety here.

Speaking of Lincoln, the new Spielberg film is exceptional and worth seeing. I'll be writing a review soon.

As for the original topic, if you'd like to hear a couple turkey gobbles up close, my YouTube clip might fit the bill to make your Thanksgiving day that more complete. Enjoy.


* Source:  wiseGEEK

Private Ryan

They say the book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible. Whatever your take on this piece of literature, whether divinely inspired or one man's remarkable effort to make sense of the universe, this book about the sufferings of Job is an incredible achievement.

The first chapter sets it up. Picture a theater with a lower stage and an upper stage. Job, his family and friends live in the lower stage. Theater goers see that God resides in the upper stage, but Job is unaware of what is going on there, a transaction between God and Satan. 

The story moves to the lower stage and we see Job smitten, but he remains faithful to God.

The next scene is back at the upper stage and we see Satan asking for permission to cause yet more suffering. Satan says, in essence, to God, "Job loves you because everything is going his way. God, you turn off the faucet of blessing and you will see Job turn his back on you because the core of this man is like all men. People are fair weather friends. People are basically selfish."

Once again even greater tragedy and suffering befall this man, with the result that he is destitute, covered with sores, sitting on a dung heap. All this occurs at the very beginning of this remarkable story. In literary lingo it would be called the setup.

There is a sense in which Steven Spielberg's potent war drama Saving Private Ryan becomes art by becoming metaphorical in the arc of its storyline. My poem Private Ryan will have no meaning without seeing the film or having a basic understanding of the story, so I will attempt to briefly summarize.

SPOILER ALERT

The context for the film is D-Day, the Normandy beachhead, and its aftermath. Tom Hanks is Captain John Miller, a soldier who leads his platoon into the bloodbath chaos that is war. Rated R for "intense prolonged realistically graphic sequences of war violence" is an understatement. One difference between the realistically graphic landing and real life is that in twenty minutes the film version of the Normandy landing was completed. 

Meanwhile back in Washington another scene is taking place. It is learned that a mother with four sons in the service has lost three of her boys. The fourth is somewhere in France. After the beachhead has been secured, and long before the war is over, Capt. John H. Miller is handed a new mission. He must find Private James Francis Ryan and bring him home. Like the story of Job, this is the setup. The rest of the film is about the challenges of completing the mission.

It's a costly mission, and in the end Capt. Miller is forced to sacrifice his life to save the young private. He knew what he had to do, and he did it, but he also wanted Private Ryan to understand the importance of his actions. His last words to Pvt. James F. Ryan were these: "Earn this."
 

Private Ryan

He understood the burden for
He carried it all his life.
A man had died to save him,
And for what?
He was nothing but a man.

One day he returned to France
To thank the man who died;
He wept, wept deep and deeper still,
His family by his side.
“Did I live a life that was worthy
Of what you did for me?”

As the wind swept through the gravestones,
No voice was ever heard;
The universe was silent…
It never said a word
And the bones where Ryan knelt that day
Were silent ‘neath the sod.

But Ryan knew what happened
On the day his life was spared.
A man had given his life for him
And he knew to make it count
He’d have to sacrifice his own,
Give back the same amount.

e. 
July 2012