I have a fever and the only cure is more Kumasi
Posted by Erik Rupard on January 22nd, 2008
On Saturday, my wife and daughter arrived in Park City, Utah, where I am attending a conference at the Canyons ski resort. We met my Oncologist friend Tony Fadell, who is also attending the conference. Though I am LDS (Mormon) and attended BYU, I am not from Utah, or even the west coast (I am from Connecticut), and this is my first trip to Utah since 1994, when I left to go to medical school.
I had forgotten how beautiful this area is, and the Canyons resort is just spectacular. Tony and I went skiing for around 7 hours today and only hit a tiny percentage of the trails here. The way they have set up the trails is very respectful of the natural beauty of the area, and the result is really stunning. I can’t imagine a nicer place to ski (though I wish they had more easy trails for wimps like me), and the accomodations (we are in the Silverado lodge) are clean, roomy, and comfy.
The Sundance film festival happens to be taking place this week, and Lorri and I had the opportunity to attend a screening last night, which turned out to be a very neat experience. The movie we saw was a documentary called “Made In America.” This was the world premiere of the film, and the director, pro-skateboarder-cum-documentarist Stacy Peralta, was introduced before the screening (to rousing applause). There were a few celebs in the audience, and some of the key interviewees in the film came up to the front of the stage after the credits had rolled (again, big applause) and took some questions from the audience. In some of his columns, Roger Ebert laments the loss of the theater-as-community, but this was a notable exception. We were all there because we wanted to be, and the presence of the movie’s key players made it a very intimate, unique experience.
As to the movie itself, Lorri and I had the same general opinion of it. The opening shot was incredible: it began with an inverted aeriel wide of downtown Los Angeles, the skyscrapers hanging from the top of the screen like stalactites. The shot dipped south, with the camera angle slowly changing from inverted, to straight-on (a la google satellite), and finally to a right-side-up view of south LA, which looked immense and menacing. The film is about the origins of gang violence in LA, and the first 20 minutes or so described the genesis of these gangs, which started as “clubs” which the black kids essentially made on their own, as they were summarily rejected from the Boy Scouts and other “white” institutions. This portion of the film was fascinating and one of the interviewees, a man named Kumasi was absolutely captivating in his evocation and explanation of the rage which developed in this truly oppressed group of South L.A. blacks in the 50s and 60s. This particular gentleman truly stole the show, in the sense that when the film moved away from him, it got considerably less interesting; Kumasi has a commanding presence, and his views on the racism which sparked much of the discontent in South L.A. (and, by extension, elsewhere) were well-articulated, forceful, and clearly justified. I found myself thinking that a 105-minute interview with him would have been better than the film, which went downhill about midway through its description of the Watts riots.
So what are my problems with the movie? To name a few:
- The film has a near-fatal case of the “bad white males” syndrome. Virtually every white guy in this movie is either 1) a 60s cop, in black-and-white, holding a billy club, 2) a politician who, the narrator tells us (surprise, surprise!), either did nothing to help, or failed miserably at his attempts, or 3) a professor of sociology (with requisite bookshelf in the background) who tells us without blinking the simple roots of this very complex social situation (again, bad white guys). You know, I’m betting that the billy-club wielders have a story, too. Maybe that story can’t be told in this movie (time constraints, etc), but would it hurt to acknowledge that it exists?
- About midway through the Watts portion, the movie starts to drag in points, with a serious overdose on Microsoft Earth effects, and whole lot of interviews with people (both the L.A. bangers and former-bangers, and the white-guy sociologists [hereafter, "WGS"es]) who say exactly what the prior guy just said. The editing, which offers some really innnovative transitions, and a unique way of skipping over unneeded portions of the interviews, almost makes up for the repetitiveness of the content here. Almost.
- Where are the girls? We hear from gang members, former members, sociologists, and even mothers, but I’ll bet that less than two minutes of the interviews are of girls and young women being raised in this environment. Again, gotta be a story there.
- I think the film’s major flaw was the lack of a clear link between the violence between blacks and whites which arose from racism (i.e., the Watts and Rodney King riots) and the “civil war” (not my term), black-on-black violence of the Crips and the Bloods. The assumption was made in the film that these are directly related, and some mention was made of the way a person becomes “twisted” when constantly under the thumb of racism and oppression, but this is a very simplistic view of a complex social phenomenon. I agree that racism and subsequent rage from the oppressed likely lit the fuse, but what perpetuates it? According to the movie, more oppression. Certainly part of the problem, but just as certainly, not all of it. Example: the film talks about the “gangsta rap” soundtrack to South L.A., and extols the virtues of this music (”brought the plight of American blacks to a world audience”), but never suggests that the ultra-violent, often sickeningly misogynistic lyrics may glamorize and therefore perpetuate gangster violence. Where is the clip of the belated Delores Tucker, or an interview with Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, both of whom have lately acknowledged the insidious influence of gangsta rap? I could come up with many other examples, but suffice it to say that although racism is a major issue which needs to be dealt with if south L.A. is ever to change, it is quite obviously not the only issue.
Having said all of that, I do believe that Peralta’s heart is in the right place. Though he does not appear in the film (except for a few voice snippets), his empathy for these young men is very evident. I don’t think that anyone left that audience on Saturday night who did not feel deep sorrow for the plight of those touched by gang violence, and for the gangsters themselves, who are clearly caught in a trap from which they can’t escape. Cut out about 20 minutes of film time, broaden the discussion of the sources of gang violence, and replace every single one of the WGS interviews with more Kumasi, and I think this would have been a great film, rather than a merely good one.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Erik: Your critique of the film was very interesting and informative. I remembered that you have a strong interest in the cinematic arts and technique. Mom and I viewed Juno recently and we found it to be very well acted with a good story.
One thing that bothered me (and not mom) was Juno’s cavalier attitude about the whole process involving human life. Perhaps this was a fairly typical response from a person of sixteen years. I feared that the movie may have left an adverse message to teens, even though it all turned out O.K.
in the end. Juno was, to be sure, a very engaging person. I note that the actress has been nominated for an AA for her role.
I would like to know what you and Lorri thought of the movie and how it affected your kids, if they saw it. It looks like you guys are enjoying the scenery and snow. I don’t remember you ever skiing in UT. What gives? I’m just not too sure how a Heme-onk (oink?)cares for his patients with a cast on one or more legs.
We called your home recently and I asked Drew, who answered, “what are you having for dinner?” She said “Lean Cuisine!” A very incongruous meal for a string bean. Maybe she ate two of them. Regards to all from frozen New England. Dad
January 27th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Nice review, Roger. You must remember that not everyone takes apart and analyzes a film, book, article, etc. word for word, sound for sound, nuance for nuance, the way the well read half of the Rupard family does. Having said that, in complete incongruity to what I have just said, I think many film makers underestimate the baseline intellect of many of its viewers. We expect a lot more than your average film maker probably . It isn’t the” passive sit and stare at the screen” exercise that many may think it is for your average moviegoer. A good movie, I mean truly good in all aspects; screenplay, cinematography, acting, costuming, and accuracies in these areas, stays with its viewers for days and touches our lives lightly in numerous areas.
Having said that, I’m glad you enjoyed yourself and hope that the girls did as well. Keep me up to date on the Iraq Situation.
Love you, Mit
January 27th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Hey, uncle Erik! its really cool that you got to go to the sundance film festival. That movie sounds especially interesting to me because, due to the writers srike my normal night time tv shows have taken a hit, so ive sort-of re-discovered The History Channel and one of if not the best show ive discovered is Gangland which is very interesting and its about the history of various gangs. If you get the chance you should watch it. Also i noticed that in your “what im listening to” section you have Iron And Wine. Do you have his new album The Shepherds Dog? i got it for Christmas and i think its amazing stuff. see you later!
January 27th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Guys,
We saw Juno and I was pretty embarrassed by some of the content, especially in the first half-hour. The girl in the abortion clinic was really disgusting, and that protrayal of all teenagers as sex-fiends kind of bugs me. Juno herself was cute and funny, but some of her lines were too clever for the room, and had “I am reading from a witty Hollywood screenplay” written all over them. But I loved the Jennifer Garner character, and Michael Cera was hilarious as usual.
Sundance was fun, and the last movie Lorri and I saw there was The Deal, with William H Macy and Meg Ryan. I liked the movie, Lorri hated it, but the cool thing for me was that Meg and Bill were in the audience with us (right there!) and they got up with director after the show and discussed some aspects of the movie, took questions about how they financed the movie, etc. That’s what makes Sundance really special.
Christian: Iron and Wine is a great band, with a cool, folksy sound. I think Gramps Rupard would like them. The NPR site has a whole concert by Iron and Wine, which I really like a lot.
Gangland sounds good–I will check it out. I’ll bet the Discovery channel shows Made In America sometime over the next year, and if so, you should watch it (with your mom or dad’s permission). It is slanted (as above) but there are a few parts which are really incredible, especially the Kumasi parts.
I’m enjoying this blog a lot, and have noticed recently that Russell Ballard and Glen L. Pace (an apostle and a general authority) have exhorted members to start blogs and discuss church-related issues. So, I’m gonna keep it up…
January 29th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
erik,
For lack of reading material reasons, I have reread, yet again, THE TIME TRAVELER’S WIFE. Only a sick mind, or desperate would read the same book 5 times, especially one that realizes so much on its “punch in the gut ” ending, but I always get it, so it’s all good. Really, I read it as an excuse to rerread the Derek Walcott poem “Love after Love”and of course, once I read this beautiful heartwrenching poem, I am inclined to just go ahead and finish up the rest of the 800 or so pages.Do you remember it?
Love After Love
The time will come
when, with elation,
you will greet yourself arriving
at your own door, in your own mirror,
and each will smile at the other’s welcome,
and say, sit here. Eat.
You will love again the stranger who was your self.
Give wine. Give bread. Give back your heart
to itself, to the stranger who has loved you
all your life, whom you ignored
for another, who knows you by heart.
Take down the love letters from the bookshelf,
the photographs, the deperate notes,
peel your own image from the mirror.
Sit. Feast on your life.
Derek Walcott
Now that is a truly lovely poem, and I hope to do it one day, ponder my life, mistakes and all and recognize the person I had always hoped to see in the mirror. I hope I’m not dissapointed with what I see, most especially on the inside. For obvious reasons, I’ll skip the wine, but chocolate wouldn’t be amiss.
Love ya kid, Mit