Don’t Look Now

I am working on a few writing projects at the moment, including a horror novel. So watching horror movies counts as research. I watched the Nicholas Roeg film Don’t Look Now (1973) this past May.

The movie stars Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie as John and Laura Baxter. The movie opens with John inexplicably realizing that something is wrong with his daughter. He runs outside and discovers her drowned body. The film then cuts to Venice, several months later, where John is working to restore an old church. One evening while the couple are out eating dinner Laura happens upon two English sisters, one of whom claims to be a psychic who has communicated with her deceased daughter. This has the effect of helping Laura resolve her guilt and depression. John, however, is dubious that a stranger may have communicated with their dead daughter. Laura, taken with the sisters, meets with them again. This results in the psychic issuing a warning that the couple should leave Venice.

The movie depicts the conflict between a couple that is still in crisis over the loss of their child. Their conflict evolves from the tension between rationality and faith, and each one’s acceptance, or nonacceptance, that the woman’s psychic powers are real. Laura, believing in the woman and her predictions, pleads with John to leave Venice. He cannot accept the veracity of the warnings, or that the woman communicated with his daughter. Even as there are hints that the psychic is correctly seeing things, John is too caught up in his rationality and rejects it all as nonsense.

There are hints that John sees the same things as the psychic. I noticed these hints, and thought of them as being strange, weird is probably a better way to put it, as I was watching the movie. Much like John, I missed the point of them. After watching the movie I read a few reviews, something I typically do after I watch a movie. It was in reading the reviews that I caught the significance of these scenes.

I first saw this film as a kid, probably in the early 80’s. I remember two specific things from my viewing of this movie as a kid. First is the red rain coat the daughter was wearing before she drowned. The second thing I remember is John chasing a mysterious child in a similar red rain coat through Venice. This viewing will add to those recollections the scene of his wife on a boat with the two sisters. I remembered the twist ending as well, but the movie didn’t make much sense to me as a kid.

Now I realize that this was not a movie designed for children, this is an adult movie. Not just because of the infamous sex scene (the actors have publicly disagreed over whether they had actual sex in the movie), but because of the themes involved: the loss of a child and the subsequent feelings of grief and depression, the acceptance or nonacceptance of religion and the supernatural, rationality versus faith. It is a suspenseful and well-made movie, if a little silly at times. In the end it has a proper twist ending and it builds up its supernatural credentials well enough (if you are paying attention).

I considered watching the movie again so that I could pick up the clues as I went along. In the end I just sent the disc back to Netflix. The movie was boring. I suppose it is a product of its time and that is the way that movies flowed back then; it was enough to dissuade me from dedicating another two hours at an attempt for a better understanding.

American Sniper

It took me a while to sort out my feelings about this movie. I saw it on Saturday afternoon, but it has taken me until now (Sunday evening) (Note: I had a three day weekend so my timing was off, I didn’t write this post until Monday evening) to figure out what to write. This is a movie that has me feeling very ambivalent.

It is a technically good movie. It is well acted. The war scenes are very intense. I wouldn’t say this movie covers any new ground: the worried wife and family at home has been a cliche for a very long time and people have attempted to convey that war is hell for eons.

The protagonist Chris Kyle is portrayed as super patriotic and as somewhat of an automaton. I haven’t uncovered any new information to contradict that portrayal. In the film Kyle eschews politics and political thought. He fights for the men there fighting with him. He earnestly believes what he is fighting for, even as his comrades around him, including his brother, question the wisdom of what they are doing.

I don’t think this is an anti-war movie. Because it focuses on a jingoistic personality, the movie feels jingoistic. So much so, that it got me to thinking about jingoism generally. Is it always thoughtless and emotion laden? Are there thinking jingoists?

I would argue not in this movie. My experience in the army showed me the the men who were expected to die for politics were, and probably still are, acutely aware of politics and its meaning, even as they ostensibly ignore politics. For a man who spent four tours in Iraq, killing Iraqis (and presumably enjoying it), what does it say about him that he didn’t care about politics?

I also got to thinking about the fact that Kyle killed hundreds of people. He did this in prosecution of a war in which the United States invaded another country under false pretenses, in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction that the administration knew not to exist. I don’t see how this is not murder.

I am not accusing Kyle of being a murderer. He was a pawn, played like so many others by a president intent on his own ambitions. He admits to hating Iraqis and considering them savages in the movie. Apparently he wrote this in his book as well. Kyle arrived in Iraq as an invader, killed hundreds of people, and considered them savages because they fought back.

I know there are many people who consider Chris Kyle an unequivocal hero. I have no qualms about calling his actions heroic. Because I like to think about things I notice that his heroic and deadly actions in defense of God, country, and family were committed in a war of aggression commenced under false pretenses. This is what happens when you don’t care about politics.


Selma is a fascinating movie. Anyone with a sense of civil rights history in the United States has heard of the city of Selma, Alabama. I knew that there was a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama some time in the nineteen sixties. It had something to do with Dr. Martin Luther King.

I know that there were many sacrifices of life and many courageous people who took part in the civil rights struggles in the United States. However, the way the history of this struggle is presented in the mainstream media is that Dr. King made a few great speeches, took part in some nonviolent protests, and in the end the white people who ran this Country made a considered decision to grant equality and the right to vote to minorities. Anti-civil rights violence is a series of aberrations which were righted through the courageous efforts of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

That is not what this movie presents. This movie presents many things which I was already aware of: the FBI was surveilling and attempting to discredit Dr. King, the virulent opposition to civil rights in the South, Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference worked for civil rights.

That is the thing, we are always hearing disparate facts, good and bad and indifferent, about the civil rights movement and United States history in general. These facts are rarely put together in a coherent narrative. First this happened, it was a a bad thing. Then that happened, it was an indifferent thing. There was a victory here, that was good. And so on. A bunch of facts, a small narrative here and there, and we have a sanitized, management approved version of history. This movie, Selma, reminded me of the quote attributed to Woodrow Wilson about “writing history with lightning.”

I felt, watching this movie, that the march toward civil rights was not a point on the inevitable march of reason and justice in the United States, as it always seems to be presented; it was a victory  brought on through the hard work and sacrifices of people willing to put their lives on the line. It was a hard won fight wherein strategy and perseverance won out over power and prejudice. I learned something from this movie.

Though I was not alive to witness the events of this film, I have seen in the last several years that the battles are not over. Selma celebrates the events that lead up to the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I was alive to witness the Supreme Court gut this particular piece of legislation in 2012. The film portrays the murder of activist Jimmie Lee Jackson by an Alabama State Trooper. A little research revealed that a grand jury failed to indict that trooper for this murder. Need I mention Darren Wilson or Daniel Pantaleo?

This movie made me angry. The idea of a brutal and ignorant system that dehumanizes and destroys wide swathes of people for no other reason than their skin color makes me rage. The events depicted made me forget that the movie began with a bomb that killed 4 little girls. It was jarring and disgusting and sad, but later scenes in the film caused me to forget all about that opening scene. It is hard for me to see all of the progress we have made in the United States since 1965. I have to wonder if anything has really changed at all.