Earthlings – The Scariest Horror Film Ever Made

“The images you are about to see are not isolated cases. These are the industry standard for animals bred as Pets, Food, Clothing, Entertainment and Research. Viewer discretion is advised.”

Image

Earthlings, a film by Shaun Monson, uses the power of image in the form of hidden camera footage to capture the graphic abuse of animals by humans in everyday life. These are sights rarely seen and although the last line of his opening warning asks for discretion, it is only through viewing that Monson’s goal will be achieved. Perhaps, what he means is that you should prepare for the worst, but even then you won’t be prepared.

Many people have to watch the film in “small doses” as it is simply too hard to take all at once. I have seen quite a bit of this footage over the years on youtube, which may be why I was able to sit through it from beginning to end.

Most people say, “Please, don’t show me that. I don’t want to see it. I won’t be able to eat my dinner.” That’s the point. Monson takes us behind the scenes of each of the five subjects listed in the opening warning to show us that our happy lives are there through the torture of what he considers other “earthlings.” According to Monson, the earth is divided into three parts – nature, animals and humankind with the last two making up the earthlings. He does not separate the two. His view is that animals are sentient, can feel pain, and because this is so, they deserve the same empathy as humans.  Through his film he is asking you to make the connection between yourself and animals.

He begins with pets, because that is the closest relationship people have with animals. Pets are cute, and anyone who has one knows the special bond we have with these sentient earthlings. Even if one would argue that people don’t have a special bond with a pet turtle or lizard (as opposed to their cat or dog), one could not deny that they feel pain. Just try sticking one with a needle and see if you don’t agree.

As the film exposes industry standards in puppy mills, factory farms and dolphin slaughter in Japan, leather production in India, circuses and lab work, the undercover footage is a horrifying revelation. It is truth in its boldest form. This footage is not photoshopped. It is real. It is happening. And it is the habits we have acquired through our daily lives that causes our fellow earthlings to be treated in such a manner.

Monson’s film is not a lecture, nor a finger wagging assault (nor is this review). It is film in its simplest form. It gives you moving pictures, it reveals truth, it exposes what is hidden and it asks you to consider what it has shown you.

From the dog you may have bought, to the nice, clean looking burger you eat, to the  jacket and shoes you wear, to the amazing animal tricks you see that cause you to gasp, to the cold pill you take to ease your temporary suffering, this is all possible through the torture of animals on a daily basis.

After the initial warning the film opens with another quote: “The 3 Stages of Truth – Ridicule, Violent Opposition, Acceptance.” I have felt the first one so I completely understand it. As for the second, in the past year we have seen the food industry’s violent opposition by getting some state governments to pass a law making it a crime to shoot undercover footage at one of their facilities. These people are now being labeled terrorists. But through education and films like Earthlings, people are starting to become aware and are slowly reaching the third stage: acceptance. Monson’s hope is that eventually people will accept that these events occur, that animals share our planet and deserve our respect and empathy. And they deserve to have us fight for them and change our habits.

But what would happen if everyone became a vegan? What would happen to all the domesticated animals still alive? The film does not go into that. But that is not its purpose. However, man is incredibly innovative and who is to say a solution would not be discovered if the habits and will of people were changed.

Earthlings is one of the most powerful films I have ever seen. It is sometimes referred to as “The Vegan Maker,” and for good reason. If you would like to view this incredible film it can be seen on their website www.earthlings.com . The film asks you to be bold. Be courageous. Don’t remain in the dark. It is there for you to see. All you have to do is watch it.

Are they serious? Not really.

Video

Sure, Grudge Match is easy to make fun of. Stallone is 67 years old (Really? Holy crap, he still looks good) and De Niro is 70 (What?!! Get oughta here. No way. That means I’m . . . ). How could these two even think this might be plausible? Well, first of all, it’s a movie. In the movies anything is possible and Stallone and De Niro, back in the 70’s played in what are arguably the two greatest boxing films of all time, Rocky and Raging Bull, respectively.

How many of you folks out there remember seeing these films in the theater, raise your hands. Wow, that’s a lot of people. But we’re getting older, aren’t we? We wake up to creaking backs, sore knees and daily medications. So when we look at these two film icons and remember their two most iconic roles, we are young again. And we are fighters. But we have a sense of humor about how we feel (or at least we want to). To see these two actors in a fantasy fueled grudge match makes us young again and quickens our blood. They are aware of how ridiculous their fight would be perceived and so they throw off the serious scent of the hunt with comic crossfire. Add the comedic dash of Kevin Hart and Alan Arkin and you’ve got yourself a winner.

At least before it opens. Because there’s always the chance that they’ll screw it up.

Me? You had me at Stallone and De Niro.

Academy Awards 2013

The Oscar website has a fun ballot that I have filled out and then posted, but I wanted to give a little explanation for my picks (and what I think SHOULD win) here. What I think will win is followed by a (W) and what I think should win is followed by an (S).

Picture – Argo (W), Django Unchained (S) – Django Unchained is deemed too controversial a subject for the Academy to touch, but it is the most audacious, ballsy, original film of the year. The script is brilliant, the performances are terrific and the direction is classic Tarantino – slow burn to explosive climax. I don’t’ think there has been a director since Alfred Hitchcock who is better at creating tension in a scene through dialogue and editing. Watch the bar scene in Inglorious Basterds or the scene at the dinner table in Django Unchained to see what I mean.  Argo was a good film, don’t get me wrong, but Django has so much more seething through its contentious skin, so much more to say about our desire for revenge, film making history and how people must “play” roles to ones advantage if they are to survive.

Actor – Daniel Day Lewis (W, S) What can one say, I never saw him acting. Abraham Lincoln is one of the most known, most respected figures in our history and Day-Lewis just disappeared and poof, there’s Lincoln.

Actress – Emmanuelle Riva (W,S) I think this is where we could see the upset. As voters split between Jessica Chastain and Jennifer Lawrence it may go to Ms. Riva for her heartbreaking, brave, stellar performance in Amour. If people have seen it, they’ll vote for it.

Supporting Actor  – Tommy Lee Jones (W), Samuel L. Jackson (S). Wait a minute, Jackson wasn’t even nominated!!? This is the kind of thing that makes me feel Oscar is just a sham. I might go all George C. Scott on this show (those of you who know how Scott felt and what he did will know what I’m talking about).

Supporting Actress – Anne Hathaway (W,S) I haven’t seen many of the nominated performances (and I don’t see why Jackie Weaver is even nominated). Hathaway has been made fun of in a video and there’s all the talk about losing weight (stop with this already!)and having her hair cut, but she still gave a bravura performance in what is meant to be a melodramatic film.

Animated Film – Wreck-It Ralph (W) I’ve only seen Brave and Paranorman and I haven’t see Wreck-It, but the buzz is for it so it is my pick. Also, I didn’t think Brave was very good.

Cinematography-Life of Pi (W,S) If you missed this on the big screen then you missed it the way it should be seen. It really was an incredible feat of film making in many ways. But I have to say, all the other nominated films in this category were worthy.

Costume Design – Anna Karenina (W) Snow White and the Huntsman (S). It always goes to the period film, but I LOVED the designs in Snow White and the Huntsman. Too bad the film goes downhill about halfway through.

Directing – Steven Spielberg (W) Quentin Tarantino (S). I think Argo is going to take best picture so once again Spielberg will be given the directing prize without his film winning for picture. I thought Lincoln was a bit stodgy, while Django was perfectly paced, even at 2 hrs and 45 minutes. But once again, the Academy doesn’t like what they deem exploitative, controversial films.

Documentary Feature – Searching For Sugarman (W), The Invisible War (S). Okay, I’ll admit, I haven’t seen any of the other doc features except for The Invisible War. But I’ll tell you, you NEED to see this film. It is heartrending and addresses a deep, disgusting institution in what too many people feel they can’t talk about because they’ll appear unpatriotic. Rape in the military is at epidemic proportions. It has developed from a culture of violence, silence and male hierarchy; a closed system that vows to police itself yet simply perpetuates the problem because outside laws can’t touch them. As a nation, we should be ashamed that this insidious practice goes on and on, but through this film and the recent article in Rolling Stone I’m hoping a bit of light is finally starting to crack the thick shell of military secrecy and that outrage will overcome animal acts.

Documentary Short – Redemption (W)

Film Editing – Argo (W,S)

Foreign Language Film – Amour (W,S) This is one of the best films of the year. It is slowly paced (and I think perfectly so), unadorned with split second editing and crashing music. A simple story, simply directed with one of the bravest performances in years by Emmanuelle Riva. A performance matched by Jean-Louis Trintignant.

Make-up and Hairstyling – Les Miserables (W,S) I know that all those Middle Earthers couldn’t be possible without these artists bestowing their brilliance on it, but I’m going for the amazing transformation of Hugh Jackman’s looks throughout the film to win. They actually made the guy look ugly. Whoa.

Music – Argo (W). Could be any of the nominees. I’m wondering if I should go for Life of Pi, though. I think this may be a mistake, but hey, I’ll stick with Argo.

Music (Original Song) – Skyfall (W,S) Seriously, you’re going to bet against a James Bond theme sung by Adele? I wouldn’t. Although I do think that Suddenly was perfectly blended into the action Les Miserables  and conveys a great change of emotion in Jean Valjean.

Production Design – Lincoln (W), Les Miserables (S) This is an amazing category this year. All of the nominated films deserve to win.

Short Film (Animated) – Paperman (W,S). Although Fresh Guacamole was so cool!

Short Film (Live Action) – Buskashi Boys (W), Death of a Shadow (Dood VanEen Schaduw) (S)

Sound Editing – Argo (W), Life of Pi (S)

Sound Mixing – Les Miserables (W,S)

Visual Effects – Life of Pi (W,S) This should win just for the fact that the tiger was created entirely in the computer. BUT, I thought Prometheus was mind blowing in its visual effects as well.

Writing (Adapted Screenplay) – Argo (W), Life of Pi (S). Life of Pi was a wonderful book and deemed impossible to film, but it’s a terrific translation of the book to the screen. Every aspect of this picture came together so that the unfilmmable was filmed. Amazing. But Argo has the momentum.

Writing (Original Screenplay) – Moonrise Kingdom (W) Django Unchained (S). This is pretty close for me. Moonrise Kingdom was practically ignored by the Academy. I would have taken out Beasts of the Southern Wild and put this in its place for best picture. But, as much as I loved Moonrise Kingdom I have to give props to the searing, funny, bold screenplay by the master, Quentin Tarantino.

Thanks for listening to my ravings. 

 

# 98 Zero de Conduite

Zero de conduite monitor and beds

Boys will be boys, as the saying goes. Jean Vigo’s Zero de Conduite is a soft-hearted yet entrancingly wicked homage to the vagaries of boys trapped in that most prison-like of institutions, the private boy’s school. In the opening shot, the boys run in from all angles and must line up before entering the train. Bodies full of joyful, chaotic freedom are funneled into a line before boarding the train.

But the line cannot be sustained and once ensconced in private coaches, two of the boys trade antics, blowing up balloons to represent women’s breasts and squeezing them, displaying toys that pop balls into the air and catching them, then finally breaking out cigars to smoke.

Vigo based this film on childhood experiences. His father was strangled to death after being imprisoned (many say wrongfully) and he was sent to boarding school. The boys are continually being herded into some kind of line, whether it be the beds in the dormitory, the desks in the classroom or the tables in the lunchroom. Vigo’s comment on a repressive society becomes a visual theme throughout the film and links it to the plot. Three boys, Bruel, Caussat and Colin plan a revolt on the school’s annual Commemoration Day when the high ranking officials of the school and town will be in attendance.

One boy, Tabard, seems to be a little bit of an outsider at the school. When he starts hanging out with the three conspirators he is called into the headmasters office and told to watch out for them, that they could be devils, “or worse!” After his private visit he is mistrusted by the boys. But when a teacher approaches Tabard about his melancholy behavior Tabard turns on him and sprays forth a venomous, “You are full of shit!” After this, Tabard is welcomed into the group and that night he declares war against their superiors. This scene is one of the most beautiful in the film. Each incident prior to this is a small breaking of societal codes, but this outright declaration is the catalyst for the most successful event in their revolt – an enormous, dreamlike pillow fight that fills the air with swirling white feathers, laughter and screaming. The fight ends with a boy back flipping into a chair and paraded through the dorm. The monitor is tied to his bed and the four boys escape to the roof to prepare their attack on Commemoration Day.

zero de conduite pillow fight

Throughout the film the boys take every opportunity to fight against their repressive society. They have a food fight in the dining hall after being fed beans for weeks on end, they break from their teacher during a walk in the city and are generally unruly whenever possible. But it is a charming unruliness. No one is hurt. There is no theft from each other. In a creepy scene, the opposite is shown by the actions of one of the head teachers. He sneaks into the classroom while the boys are outside playing and steals their food and letters. His corrupt act is a dark contrast to the boy’s actions. This person is supposed to represent a society of education and order, but it turns out he is a common thief.

Jean Vigo made three short films and one feature (L’Atalante) before dying of complications from Tuberculosis. As little as he produced, Vigo’s place in film history is cemented as many filmmakers site his rebellious portrait as an inspiration for their art. Long live Jean Vigo.

# 99 The Deer Hunter

WARNING: SPOILERS

I can still remember the first time I saw The Deer Hunter. I was living in NYC, studying at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts and going to see a lot of movies. One had to get tickets in advance . . . and they cost $5.00!! This was at a time when the cost for a movie ticket was about $2.50. I arrived on a rainy afternoon and settled into my seat at the Coronet Theater and after 3 hours I could barely move, so blown away was I by what was to become one of my favorite films of all time.

By now the story is well known. The lives of six buddies, bonded together while growing up and working in a small steel town in Pennsylvania are irrevocably blasted apart when three of the friends go off to fight in Vietnam.  The first third of the film is steeped in ritual as the men work in the blast furnaces of the mill, drink at the local bar, and go deer hunting. The centerpiece of this section of the film is the marriage of Steven (John Savage) and Angela (Rutanya Alda).  Angela is pregnant, but not by Steven. However, Steven loves Angela and to him that is all that matters. One of the great aspects of The Deer Hunter is that it never overtly pushes its themes in your face. For example, Stevie (sensitively portrayed by John Savage) reveals his situation with Angela in a quick aside with Nick right after the wedding, before carrying her away in the car. It’s a bit of a throwaway scene, but it also shows Stevie’s love for his now wife and his position as “knight in shining armor.” It is an attitude that reveals another layer of the belief system of these small town men.

The architectural landscape/locations are covered with soot and grit, from the trailer Mike and Nick live in, to the run down house in which Meryl Streep’s character Linda, escapes from her father’s physical abuse, to the pool hall. Everything is eroded and grimy except the Orthodox Church, which glistens with riches. After the wedding, there is a grand, blue collar reception in the local Knights of Columbus hall. The reception is a raucous, drunken, joyful event, but at one point a Green Beret walks in to have a drink. Mike, Nick, and Steven, who can’t wait to get to Vietnam where they hope to be sent to “where the bullets are flying” ask the soldier what it’s like over there. The soldier’s steady gaze and response of “Fuck it,” reveal his knowledge of the reality of this war and the other men’s ignorance of it. His stark response surprises the men a bit, but then they laugh, raise a glass in toast to the soldier with a mighty “Fuck it!” of their own. The soldier’s response is a cold stare. It’s a terrific, revealing scene – one that shows how “drunk” the ignorant men are with the thought of going to “protect America.” They don’t yet know the horrors of war. The Green Beret knows and his response of “Fuck it” is two-fold. It shows his feelings towards the war and also how futile it would be to try and tell these men the reality of it.

There is a break from the dark drudgery of the town and the mill as the men go hunting deer in the beautiful, snowcapped mountains. Vilmos Zsigmond’s cinematography creates a stark contrast between the hunting scenes and the rest of the film. This is the place where Mike goes to be cleansed, to participate in man’s longest running ritual – the hunt for food. But he has a strict code about the ritual of hunting, one which will help him survive in the wilds of Vietnam. He has told Nick that the deer must be taken in one shot. That’s what it’s all about. Nick says he doesn’t think about that much anymore, a decision which will have dire consequences for him. Mike always comes home with a deer because of his strict adherence not only to his code about hunting, but his insistence on how he controls all aspects of his life.  Rituals must be followed, so after a lifetime of hard work, hard drinking, church attendance, marriage and deer hunting, it is off to fight in a war to protect America.

Once the story shifts to Vietnam the audience is witness to what I believe is one of the most harrowing scenes in the history of cinema. Captured by the North Vietnamese, Michael, Steven and Nick must play a deadly game of Russian roulette and it is here that Michael’s survival skills will save them all.  Mike tells Nicky they need to get more bullets in the gun.  Nick responds, “More bullets? How many more?” and when Mike tells him three, his response is the same as ours, “Three bullets? Are you crazy!? “ Mike says, “We gotta do it, Nicky. It’s our only chance. You wanna stay down here and die?” Once done, he and Nick, facing each other, play the game until there are three EMPTY chambers in the gun before turning on their torturers.

Although the acting from everyone in this film is extraordinary, in this scene it is otherworldly. DeNiro and Walken are so in tune, so intense, it is impossible not to be glued to ones seat, waiting to breathe once it is finally, mercifully over.  Cimino has set the scene so the audience wonders how the men can possibly escape. And the manner in which he builds the tension, aided by the performances of De Niro, Walken, the men playing their captors and the editing of Peter Zinner (who also edited The Godfather and The Godfather Part II) is simply astonishing.  Cimino’s direction centers on performance, not style. He steps out of the spotlight and allows the actors the freedom to dig to the darkest places of their souls and that is what makes the film so powerful.

The three men escape, aided by Michael, but are eventually separated. After Nick’s stay at a local hospital he finds himself wandering, both physically and mentally. Eventually, he comes upon a hidden gambling den where men are playing Russian roulette for money. Dragged inside by a French provocateur, Nick’s mental state pulls him into this troubled, dark underworld.  He watches the game and then intrudes, grabbing the gun, putting it to his head and pulling the trigger. It’s a blank. The place erupts and suddenly we see Mike in the crowd. In the ensuing mayhem, he loses track of Nick.

The three friends have become strangers in a strange world, their lifelong connections severed by a blistering war, one which they were raised to believe is part of the American dream, but has now become a nightmare.

The last third of the film revolves around Michael’s return home and his efforts to bring everyone back together again. He connects with Linda (a moving, nurturing performance by Streep), Nick’s love, and slowly they come together in their desperate need for comfort. Later, Mike tries to continue with his rituals and go deer hunting with his other buddies, the ones who stayed home. But he is a different man and finds them stupid and careless. Alone, stalks a deer, but eventually shoots over its head, allowing it to live. As he sits by a clear rushing water fall (a significant contrast to the muddy river in Vietnam) and yells “Okaaaaaaaaay?” into the frosty air, you can feel him come to terms with his old life of ignorance and a newly realized desire for peace.

Mike finds out that Stevie is living in a veteran’s hospital.  When we first see him it is a shock. Stevie is in a motorized wheelchair. He has lost both legs and only has the use of his right arm. Mike gives him a hug and only for a moment can we see the heartbreak in his face. This is a very short moment, but again reveals De Niro to be so in character, so truthful that his expression has many shades. He is devastated by what he sees, but in an instant smiles at Steve as if nothing is wrong. “We made it. We made it,” he says to Steve, which has a dark undercurrent considering that Michael was ready to leave Stevie behind while they were captured in Vietnam. Stevie then shows Mike a drawer full of money that’s being sent to him every month. Mike realizes it’s Nick, making money playing Russian roulette back in Vietnam. It is then that Mike returns to that burnt out land to bring him home.

Mike tracks Nick down, but when the two are face to face, Nick doesn’t recognize him. At a crucial moment in time we will see why, as a flash of his arm reveals heroin tracks. Nick is about to play Russian roulette in front of a raucous crowd so Mike forces his way into the game. Once again he is face to face with Nick, struggling for their survival. First, Mike puts an empty chamber in the gun. Then it is Nick’s turn, but Michael pulls his arm down and we see the heroin tracks. Trying to break through to Nick, Mike reminds him of how he loved the trees back when they used to go deer hunting and the idea of “one shot.” Nick seems to recognize this, smiles and says, “one shot,” pulls Mike’s hand away from his wrist holding the gun, puts it to his head and pulls the trigger. Nick’s luck has run out and as blood pours from his head, Mike screams, “Noooo, no, no, Nicky. Noooooo. Noooooooooo!“ It is a devastating moment in this already heartrending film.

At the time the film came out (and probably still today), the ending of The Deer Hunter is controversial. After Nick’s burial, the friends gather in the bar to have something to eat. John (the owner) is in the back room making eggs and bursts into tears. He then begins to hum “God Bless America” under his breath and as he brings the eggs into the room full of friends they all join in and sing this famous hymn. They  raise their glasses of beer.

“To Nick.”

Freeze frame, roll credits.

After all the friends have been through they still believe in the land that bore them, that gave them work, friends, home and community. Many left- leaning viewers and critics did not like that these people were shown the horrors of war and did not wind up hating or feel at least very angered by the American beliefs and politics that sent them overseas to fight and then wreak havoc on their small town lives. But this ending is perfect. It remains true to the characters, instead of trying to provoke a message. And that is the great strength of The Deer Hunter. It is a character piece much more than a political piece. And although Jane Fonda and others at film festivals tried to make the film political, saying the portrayal of the Vietnamese people was racist, the picture is too strong to be denied its incredibly moving, human story.

.                   

# 100 L’argent (Bresson)

This was my first experience with Bresson and as I watched it I kept thinking of Bertolt Brecht. Brecht felt the purpose of his art was to change society. To do that, he wanted to make his audience think, not feel. The performances in Bresson’s film are flat, de-dramatized in such a way as to compel the viewer to examine the action of the story as opposed to getting totally lost in the emotions of its characters. It may be argued that L’argent is not fully Brechtian (with which I would agree), but the film certainly seems to be guided by the playwright’s theories.

The story revolves around the exchange of money, beginning with the passing of a counterfeit bill. When a boy from a well do to family can’t get money from his father or mother he sells his watch to his friend. The friend gives him a 500 franc note, which is then passed from person to person until it lands in the hands of an innocent oil delivery man. Money changes hands, people lie in court, employees are bribed and employers are ripped off. This exchange of money allows the guilty to escape the hands of justice (at least in the beginning), while Yvon (the innocent oil delivery man) unknowingly tries to use the forgery to pay for a meal. When accused, he strikes out at the owner and is arrested and thrown in jail. Thus begins his downward spiral as he loses his child and wife, attempts suicide and eventually becomes a murderer.

Bresson shoots the hands in action (exchanging money, pushing people, hiding pills, swinging an axe) as if they are the active part of the body, separate from the mind, pushing the person toward unthinking,  wrongheaded and ultimately villainous deeds, a spiral prompted by greed and lies. Bresson’s style is unlike many filmmakers, steady and focused. He continually crops the body, dividing it into parts. There are few long shots, never allowing the viewer to settle into complacency. At first I found it a little boring as I am used to actions such as Yvon’s being expressed in a more emotive way. But even weeks after viewing this engaging film I am still thinking about it. And that seems to be Bresson’s motive.

Top 100 films of all time according to Sight and Sound Director’s Poll

I’m creating this blog because I am a film freak. I love to watch and discuss movies. Every decade, Sight and Sound Magazine conducts two polls to find out which are the greatest films of all time. One poll is with critics, educators, archivists, etc. and the other is with directors. Both polls call on people from around the world so the lists are not “American- centric”, which is what makes it (in my opinion) the most comprehensive opinion list of its kind. I welcome comments and look forward to many good discussions.

Hello world!

Why Do I Love the Movies? 

Damn if I can figure it out. I have loved the movies since I was a little kid. I loved getting lost in worlds so unlike my idyllic suburban environment. But here’s a story that was originally published in Chicken Soup for the Father’s Soul. Yeah, go ahead and blast it for its dripping sentimentality. I don’t care. There were 2000 submissions for this book and they only printed 101 stories. All you jaded souls can scoff. My Dad loves the story. And so do I.

No More Sunday Matinees

I have loved movies since I was a child. I attended Sunday matinees at the Monroe Theater, seeing films like The Love Bug, Charlie the Lonesome Cougar and The Reluctant Astronaut. Then, in 1970 I turned ten, and my hormones kicked in big time. I got into trouble (at that time, getting into trouble meant lighting gasoline in the street and stealing comic books) and my tastes turned from Disney movies to more mature fare. Still, I was precluded from seeing R-rated movies.

All at once, there were commercials on TV for The French Connection. They looked exciting, streetwise, powerful, and testosterone driven. This was going to be a man’s movie. And I was going to miss out because I wasn’t old enough. I can remember when my dad and older brother went to see it, stepping into the freezing night calling, We’ll be back later, Peter running ahead of my Dad in anticipation.

The French Connection broke new ground. The car chase was daring, edgy, and thrilling, like nothing ever seen before (the commercial focused on this now famous scene and made me long to see the movie). Gene Hackman’s portrayal of Popeye Doyle was far from the clean-cut cop audiences were used to seeing. Instead, he played this New York City detective as a trash-mouthed, racist, angry, anti-hero (the film would later snag Academy Awards for best film, director, actor, screenplay and editing). I was a movie fanatic and I felt I was missing out on something historical, daring, and new. Peter was thrilled to be seeing it. I, however, was relegated to another dreary night at home with my mom and younger brother, Steven.

When Peter and my Dad got home they expressed what I already knew. The movie was great. They talked about the car chase. Unbelievable! Hackman was fantastic! Oh, how I wished I were older and could . . .
“You want to go see it, Leonard?”
Was that my father who just said that? Did I hear right? My confirmation came in a second. It was my mother.
“Ed. Do you really think he should see it?” Oh mom, don’t kill my chances. Don’t plant the seed of doubt. Be quiet for just a little longer until I can extract a promise. Then the sweet words came and the foot gently came down with them.
“I don’t see why not. I think he’s old enough to handle it. We can go tomorrow night.”
“But you just went with Peter tonight. You’re going to go again tomorrow?”
My dad looked over at me. He must have seen my eyes, filled with excitement and anticipation.
“Sure, why not?” he said.
“Yay!” I cried and leapt into the air.
The next night I could hardly eat my dinner. I couldn’t wait to get out of the house and see something that I thought only my older brother would be allowed to see.
“Leonard, if you don’t eat something you’re going to be hungry at the movies,” he said smiling to himself. There it was again, confirmation of the event. Yes, we were actually going to go see this R-rated movie together. It would be my first one, my initiation. At last dinner was over. We donned our winter coats and stepped to the front door. My dad grinned, tossed his head back and called out, “We’ll be back later.”
“Okay,” said my mom, “have fun.” I was so thrilled. Now it was Peter’s turn to stay home with mom and Steven.

We got into the car. It was freezing. My dad’s Old Spice cologne gently
enveloped me and the car got warmer as the heater kicked in. I could feel his love for me. This was a time for just he and I to be together. Even though he had just seen the movie the night before, he was going to take me tonight. He didn’t even wait a few weeks. I was impressed and felt special.

The Monroe Theater was big (none of those shoebox multiplex theaters back
then) and smelled of heat, popcorn, and seat cloth. Back then anyone under age twelve couldn’t get into an R-rated movie. I looked older than I was and my dad paid the extra money so we wouldn’t have any trouble from the ticket lady. I was thrilled that my father thought I was mature enough to see an R-rated movie and that he had no problem saying, “Two adults, please,” when getting our tickets. The French Connection was better than I had anticipated. It was the most exciting movie I’d ever seen.

And the most adult.

Hackman cursed like a sailor, beat suspects, crashed his car through New York
City in pursuit of a sniper and shot him on the stairs of a train stop. For weeks afterward I would stand at the bottom of my basement stairs, feign exhaustion, point my imaginary gun upward and yell,”Hold it!” just as Hackman did before he shoots the bad guy.

After the movie we went home, pulled into the driveway and got out of the car.
As we walked up the steps I turned to my dad and really looked at him. I wanted him to know how happy he’d made me, how wonderful it was to believe he thought of me as an adult (at least in some way) but all I could come up with was, “Thanks for taking me dad.” He hugged me, his big arms wrapping me tightly, and held me for just a little longer than usual. Old Spice smelled so sweet.
“Oh, my pleasure,” he said, “my pleasure!”
And it was.

After that we went to the movies alone together all the time. The R-rating lost its importance and was no longer considered a sticking point. I had seen one and could now see all of them. My rite of passage was over. But when I was fifteen things changed a bit and I went to the movies with my friends more than my dad.

In 1975, Peter and I, and my friends Glen Belfer and C.J. Konnerth, waited on
line for two hours (this was very unusual back then!) to see Jaws. I went home raving about it. What a fantastic movie! I could see my father wishing he had been allowed to go with the teenagers to see this event because there was no way my mother was going to go with him and he certainly wouldn’t see it by himself. But he was the parent now. Teenagers don’t really want their parents around when going to the movies as a group.
“Hey dad,” I said, “Ya wanna go see it?”
He seemed a little surprised. He hesitated, knowing how his place had changed, but said, “Well, yes, I’d love to.”
“Okay, we’ll go. Tomorrow night. Just you and me.”
“Terrific,” he said turning away so I couldn’t see him smiling from ear to ear.
The next night we waited on line for two hours to see Jaws. And this time it was my pleasure to take my father to the movies. My pleasure.