Recently in HIstorical pg.2 Category

Directed by Mary Pat Kelley. Starring Ossie Davis, Albert  Jones, Jeffrey Nash, Denise Nicholas, Eric Laray Harvey. Synopsis:A historical drama about some of the real life sailors on the USS Mason, the first and only all African American crew warship to engage the Germans in World War II.

This is a feel good, relatively low budget historical film that portrays some of the actual sailors from the USS Mason, an all African American crew warship that saw action and performed well in World War II, but were not official recognized for their actions until a half century later.

The film is told in flashback, with the late, venerable, and wonderful Ossie Davis (an actual World War II vet himself, but not on the Mason) , being a grandfather who is at his wits end with his grandson's habit of listening to loud hip-hop music (which Ossie's character refers to as "noise", a scene that any of us who have been on both sides of the generation gap will appreciate) with his college buddies late at night when Ossie is trying to get some sleep. He tries to culturally upgrade the youngsters in the form of Billie Holliday records, and soon the talk turns to his service in World War II, something he had not spoken of  much to his grandson before, and soon we are in a flashback to 1944 with, in a neat little twist, the actors portraying Ossie's grandson and buddies are the same actors portraying a young Ossie and his buddies on the Mason.

The story touches on the racism encountered by the men, both covert and subtle, but it does not portray to the depth or length of a movie like the Tuskeegee Airmen or Glory, the focus here is more on the young men involved and their thoughts, hopes, and pride in serving their country, as well as the dreams for the postwar.

The ship and battle sequences are o.k., part of that is the fact that, of the three types of warfare to film, naval is by far the hardest, especially without a huge budget. Real footage of WWII naval battles is used, although I am not sure it is footage of the actual Mason. The acting is decent, most of the faces will be new to most viewers, with the exception of Ossie Davis, of course, and the still striking Denise Nicholas from Room 222 and In the Heat of the Night fame.

What I liked is that the director gave some screen time to the modern day part of the story, the struggle by the members and their descendants to get long overdue recognition in the form of a unit commendation, including some actual footage of actual Mason sailors receiving their recognition from then President Clinton.

Directed by Martin Scorsese.  Starring  Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz, Liam Neeson, John C. Reilly. Drama/Historical. Synopsis: An epic drama of the real life gangs that inhabited the Five Points area of New York City in the middle of the 19th century, focusing on the corruption in thew local political machine, the emergence of the Irish as a powerful group in the city, and the ultimate chaos and tragedy of the draft riots in 1863, still one of the deadliest civil disturbances in  U.S. history. Oscar for Best Picture. 

Took me a few years to get around to watching this one on DVD. Sorry I waited. Gangs of New York is not only a great film, but a film about a very important and relatively forgotten part of United States history. The large influx of immigrants in the 19th century made the City a hodge podge of neighborhoods, with the recently arrived-and arriving-large number of Irish immigrants living along side newly freed slaves and disapproving  "natives" (American born Protestant Anglos) in the most destitute, over crowded and filthy part of the City, called the Five Points.

And who runs the Five Points in this era of rampant corruption and before things we take for granted today (local government providing police protection, fireman, etc.) were regulated? Well, that is the big question and it was usually settled-at least on a temporary basis-by violence between the gangs. We see from the film that the gangs were not necessarily what we think of when we hear the word today, but a vital social unit that, in its own way, provided services unavailable elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, Scorsese (The Departed) pulls no punches in showing the brutal, corrupt, and criminal nature of these groups. (You've got to love a gang named "The Plug Uglies" for example)

The main character of the film is Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio The Basketball Diaries, The Aviator) a young Irishman who sees his father (Liam Neeson Kinsey) slain on the battlefield by the leader of the natives, Bill Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis). Raised in an orphanage, Amesterdam returns to the Five Points as a young man to find things much as they were before...only worse as the Civil war is raging and its unpopularity is rising with the institution of the draft, disproportionately affecting poor immigrants. His identity unknown to Cutting, Amesterdam looks to make his mark in the Five Points and become what his father was.

Opportunity is there, with the corrupt Tamany Hall machine looking at the huge block of potential Irish votes as a way of permanently securing its power and patronage, much to the chagrin of the natives.

Thus, we have the fictional plot based on real life events, though Day-Lewis' character is loosely based on a real life individual, as is Jenny (Cameron Diaz Something About Mary, Any Given Sunday) . Some of the scenes depicted are simply awesome, such as New York itself, and the lines of immigrants pouring into the City, some of whom were drafted into the Union Army right off the boat.

Likewise, the scenes involving the riots, which lasted for days until put down by the Army, were incredible, with good use of a voice over with the background sound of a contemporary telegraph. I don't know for certain how many Oscar nominations this film got, but it was a lot and well deserved. You can see from this film alone why many people felt that Scorsese's subsequent Oscar win for best director should not have been his first. And, I will be brief on this point: Daniel Day-Lewis is a phenomenal actor when the mood strikes him, as it evidently did in this flick.

The special features are extensive and informative, telling you everything about the making of the film itself along with deep background on the real story of the draft riots, gangs of this time, Tamany Hall, and characters depicted in the film. Its worth the full price itself apart from the film.

I guess you could say I kinda liked it. 

Directed by Steven Spielberg. Starring Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, Ciaran Hinds, Lynn Cohen. Drama/Historical. Synopsis:The story of the still unsubtantiated revenge taken by the Israeli goverment against the Arab terrorists involved with the abduction and murder of 12 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic games in Munich, Germany.

As usual, Steven Spielberg has chosen to tackle a tough and sensitive real life historical topic in his film about the aftermath of the massacre at Munich in 1972. The film itself, although not one of Speilberg's great ones, in my opinion, is nevertheless a very good film rendition of what may have happened to the Arab terrorists after they slaughtered the Israeli athletes in 1972.

Although I am old enough to have been alive during this time, I was too young to remember or have contemporary impressions of what happened in Munich, the first Olympics that I can remember are '76 in Montreal, but I recall clearly the specter of what happened in Munich hanging over those games very clearly.

This film is important not only as a historical event, but also as an example of the kind of actions and terrorists activities posed by the radical Arab factions, who seek no less than the destruction of the State of Israel as well as the United States.  Particularly in the times that we live now, when the United States has seen first hand the kind of mindless violence that has been visited upon Europe and other parts of the world for years.

Speilberg takes great care in the film to portray all sides of the issue, using real life news commentary and portraying Arab/Palestinian grief. This is important because it brings home that these people who would murder innocent people for their goals and, indeed, kill themselves as we saw here in 2001, are real people like ourselves, with families and dreams, no matter how perverted we may think they are.

The film also demonstrates the moral ambiguity faced by the primary Mossad agent (Eric Bana) entrusted with revenge on the terrorists. Now, as is explained in the movie, there is no official recognition that those involved in Munich were assasinated, and Israel and its Mossad have denied any official action. Having said that, its been an open "secret", if you will, for years. I personally know of a former U.S. Marine Corps vet, who had experience in black operations during this time period who assured me that Mossad, in fact, took out the terrorirsts.

Assuming what so many believe, and others know, to have happened did in fact happen, where does that leave us watching this film thirty years after the fact? I spoke of the moral ambiguity earlier, and it is shown, and meant for us to digest, as to what, if anything, was accomplished. Surely we can all agree that the film clearly demostrates that terrorism is here now, has been for a while, and will continue to be here. "Here" meaning the rest of the world or anyone who does not assent to the world view of the terrorists. To me, one of the mistakes that has been made is to assume or act like those who would kill innocent athletes, blow up buildings in public places, or fly hijacked planes into buildings are, somehow, rational individuals who just happen to have a divergent point of view, or politics, from you and me.

These people mean to kill you and me, and nothing is going to change that other than a change in their own outlook, not aggressive action that merely stokes their paranoia. Munich shows a strong leader, Golda Meir (Lynn Cohen), making a decision not in the face or for world opinion, or the consumption of the voting public, but in revenge of fallen citizens. As such, the fact that a leader of a nation-state sanctioned murder is put out there for you to accept, reject, agree, or disagree with. I, for one, agree wholeheartedly. I also think the actions of Israel were not done, nor sold to the public, as some kind of cure all for terrorism. Contrast this with what we are being told today, and the number of people who buy that you can forcefully change someone who wants to kill you. You can't. What you can do is protect your own, and punish those who harm your own. Not their friends or countrymen, or those who share their beliefs, but the killers themselves. And their leaders, conspirators, and enablers.

No terrorism won't be eradicated, but one terrorist will. And then two, three, and so on. Its all that a strong, civilized nation can do, and that is the message that I take from Munich.

Whether its the message that was intended or the one that you take, I don't know.

Directed by  Laurence Dunmore. Starring Johnny  Depp, John Malkovich, Susan Morton, Rosamund Pike. Drama/Historical Synopsis: A frank look at the last few years of the Earl of Rochester, John Wilmot, a 17th century poet who was both a friend of King Charles and one of the more influential authors of the Restoration.

This film starts with Johnny Depp as John Wilmot doing a monologue that is shocking in its sexual suggestiveness (considering our modern view of the 1600's) and includes John Wilmot telling us that we will not like him.  

Well, I have to beg to differ. I liked the character and the film quite a bit. I got this one solely because of Johnny Depp (Secret Window, From Hell), who will become a legend if he keeps reinventing himself from role to role. Though I'm a history buff, I had never even heard of John Wilmot and, as usual, I did my background research after seeing this flick. I'm happy to report that, so far as I can tell, the movie stays pretty close to the written history of this talented writer and social agitator who, almost literally, drank and fornicated himself (in a manner of speaking) to death by the age of 33.

The story does not waste much time with a lot of historical background or explanation. Whether this was calculated with an eye to a primarily British audience or not, I don't know but I think that it is a good thing, as the social and political affairs of the time in Britain are going to be outside the knowledge of most viewers. Plus, the story stands fine on its own. John Wilmot is a privileged man in search of nothing other than self pleasure. His taste for the excess is, in no way, dimmed by his station in life or his friendship with the King (John Malkovich Burn After Reading, Mary Reilly). We see from the first moments of the movie that Wilmot is not one to deny himself and, I must say, the sexual innuendo and suggestion might surprise some of you. 

Wilmot is a writer, obviously talented but maybe viewed as underachieving at a time and in a place where literary people wielded much more influence than is comprehensible for us today. He also has a love of the theater, where he sets out to mold a struggling young actress (Susan Morton), with whom he, of course, has an affair. It should be mentioned that Wilmot is married at this time and, in fact, was married until his death, notwithstanding his sexual excesses (including a strong implication of bisexuality).

Wilmot has success in helping his protege become the toast of London, but he is soon in the middle of controversy as he takes a request from the King to pen a play and turns it into a suggestive and lewd satire of the King and his court. Needless to say, this does not go over, as they say, real big and Wilmot is soon on the lam, his relationship with his girlfriend in the tank and estranged from his, for whatever reason, loyal wife.

During this time, Wilmot's physical condition starts to completely deteriorate and the film is quite graphic in depicting the effects of his alcoholism and "social disease" (probably syphilis). Believe it or not, you will see Johnny Depp literally rot before your eyes. Not pretty, but effective cinema that is necessary for the story and also accurate history. To me, you can't help but like Wilmot even as you despise his lifestyle. Maybe he was just a couple of hundred years ahead of his time in attitude, but understand that the film makes no attempt to romanticize or glamorize his sexual conquests or hedonistic lifestyle. Wilmot paid a huge price for this, believe me.

On the other hand, I think the real success of this flick is showing us a little known historical figure whose ideas would not be so far out of step with those of the late nineteenth or twentieth century. An unforgettable scene is a horribly disfigured Wilmot addressing the King's Court and supporting the future succession of the throne from the King (now an enemy of Wilmot's) to his brother who is, hold your breath now, a Catholic.

Johhny Depp is fantastic in this role, disturbingly likeable and completely believable in this role. For those of you who have seen this movie, how many actors of his stature would play a role that is so visually unappealing? Susan Morton is wonderful as well, playing a liberated woman who, like Wilmot, is centuries ahead of her time. And, it will be no surprise that I tell you John Malkovich is great, though almost unrecognizable as the King.