Gettin' my learn on with Patty Hearst

For some reason I've been on a documentary kick of late. Call it the lack of exciting new films to watch or just wanting to learn about shit I ignored as an unenlightened youth. I pick topics I know the basics about but don't know the full story. In some cases like "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" you get a whole different side of the government's story, which is always a treat.

In "Guerilla: The Taking of Patty Hearst", the director takes essentially a straight forward historical look at the events. Using archival clips and audio messages from Patty Hearst the story is essentially told by those who lived it. In a nutshell, the Symbionese Liberation Army (S.L.A.) , a group of radical political revolutionaries, kidnaps the daughter of Randolph Hearst in a Robin Hood-type extortion/ransom plot. They demand millions of dollars in food to the poor which is attempted with Katrina-like precision by the "man". Over time Patty's voice messages to her parents (and the public) become less of the hostage nature and take on a member/militant tone. Ok Ok you know the story. The main question becomes "is she or was she full of shit?". She is kidnapped, apparently locked in a closet, smokes some really good pot, starts humping one of the leaders, assists in a bank robbery, sends several "FU" messages to her folks, finally is arrested and VOILA she was brainwashed, tortured, a victim of mind control and happy to be back in her multi-million dollar skin. C'mon. I know we live in the prozac nation but please. This was about as convincing as Catherine Zeta Jones turning from tennis-club/pinky in the air drinking tea-wife to a drug dealing Don Corleone in "Traffic".

In the end, the S.L.A. members are either dead or in jail.....except for Patty. The Hearst's money (and to a degree fame) kept her from doing any real time. Sound familiar? President Carter aided in limiting her jail time and President Clinton gave her a full pardon. Why? Had that been you or I, we'd still be gingerly reaching for the soap in prison. It's funny that an organization like the S.L.A. who kidnap/recruited one of the wealthiest heiress in the US would eat shit into obscurity and make Patty Hearst famous (and not for the martyr they preferred). Patty Hearst is a relative household name whereas 95 out of 100 people couldn't tell you what S.L.A.'s initials stand for. I think Patty probably was romanced by the group because she knew she could always fall back on her daddy's dime. She went on a reckless youth binge at no cost. She had nothing to lose. If you had her parents you'd probably go ape shit too. However, when it came time to pay the piper for S.L.A.'s sins she got chickenshit. I guess her principals ended where the prison gates started.

C'mon baby, let's do the Twist

The Skeleton Key had all the elements for me to hate it. The inevitable/obligatory "twist" ending and a cast headed by Goldie's daughter. It's funny, sometimes you watch movies wanting to love them and others you almost salivate the opportunity to tear it apart. Ever since "Sixth Sense" the modern thriller has become too clever for its own good. The twist endings usually wind up being dopey and the more you pick them apart the more dopey they get. All you need to do is watch "Gothika" or "Godsend" to prove that. I really miss Carlotta Valdez.

Skeleton Key certainly has its moments of eye-rolling because the skinny-cute-blonde-chick- is running into dark rooms filled with ghost noises, but overall this is one of the best "twisters" I've seen in a few years. The main reason for this post is I have a funny feeling that when 75% of the folks watch this movie they don't rewind far enough in the story. Sure, they were the black "folks"who were stealing bodies for renewal and it was rather clever how they did it. The real disturbing part however, which is probably why I like it, was that the house full of white vigilantes actually beat, hanged and burned........the children. How fucking creepy is that? That was a huge payoff in the storytelling that wasn't served up to the audience like the typical Scooby Doo ending in most thrillers. You know, where they spend two minutes explaining the previous 2 hours. They could've went cheeseball and flashed back to that original scene in the attic and showed the kids with evil eyes or the childlike horror in the murdered couple. The film gets major points for resisting that. I hate when films have to dumb down the ending. One example would be "Vanilla Sky" as opposed to the original (and far superior) "Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes)". I just spent two hours of my life watching this flick, let me figure it out. If I'm too damn stupid to figure it out then I should be watching Tim Allen movies anyway. All in all, well worth the rental, NetFlix queue and quite possibly the under $20 DVD purchase.

Revenge of the Stiff? Was Neo really Luke's father?

I first saw the original Star Wars film at a drive-in when I was 11 years old. There was about 5 of us kids in the bed of a pick-up truck and I seriously doubt I had any idea of the impact it would have on my impressionable mind. Every kid loved Star Wars. It wasn't a geek thing like Dungeons and Dragons or Star Trek. There was something crack-like about the characters and story. You wanted to see it multiple times, buy the toys, lunch box, halloween costumes, etc. What amazes me most is that Darth Vader was the character I (and obviously others) was most drawn to. As a kid my heroes were Speed Racer, Gigantor, Green Lantern, and Spiderman. After Star Wars, my attraction to "bad guy" characters was born. I see that in my movie tastes today. Why else would I love Frank Booth from Blue Velvet? I will never look at Heineken or Pabst Blue Ribbon the same. Talk about the dark side ("Now it's dark").

Since Darth Vader was so nostalgically a part of my youth I was obviously anticipating the three prequels to see how he became James Earl Jones. Now that all the films on done and on DVD I have to say it's very disappointing. Let's face it, no matter the Lucas apologist, the first two films sucked Jar Jar Binks' brown eye. The acting was horrendous, the story was overly geeky, the characters were weak, and the cartoonish action would make The Matrix III blush. It was total Lucas' filmmaking masturbation. C'mon Georgie, your Yoda action scenes made Neo look like George Burns. I'm not sure you wanted us to laugh at those scenes but that's what we all did. After suffering through the first two prequels I figured the payoff would come in Revenge of the Sith.

Without question everyone who paid to see it, buy it, or rent it did so for the one minute sequence of Anakin donning the black gear. I have to admit I enjoyed that moment. The electro-breathing and James Earl Jones' voice took me back to that pick-up truck in 1977. For that moment I forgave Lucas for all his prequel sins. There is something so great about a moment that takes you back to a simpler time. However the action leading up to that moment was silly and ridiculous. The whole Anakin/Obi-Wan lava ballet is comical. I wanted to love this movie (and the other prequels for that matter) but they fall well short of the franchise's standard. Why?

I think I can sum up what was wrong with all three prequels with two words; Han Solo. That's what was missing. The humor and bullshit bravado that he brought kept the originals from taking themselves too seriously. I think that was Lucas' big problem in these pictures. He took himself way too seriously. He acted like he was making Godfather II. Watch the documentaries on the DVDs, he's quite a pompous ass. Try and picture the originals with a stiff character portrayal of Han like almost every role in the prequels. It's impossible. There is no character in the prequels that resemble anything of Solo's ilk. George tried to establish the comedy element in the Jar Jar Binks ridiculous character. If you watch the documentary of the Phantom Menace DVD you will see that Lucas thought Jar Jar was going to steal the picture. I believe his quote was "kids are going to love this character". Use the force George. Even after Jar Jar was crucified by fans, George stubbornly included him in the next two films. A nice little "fuck you, I'm George Lucas!" to all us fans. Without the Han element he tried to overcompensate with over the top effects and general buffoonery. He should've given these films to another director, plain and simple. Maybe they would've been honest enough to realize the missing link of Han Solo.

Don't you give me any orders, for people like me there is no order

Wow, has it really been over 25 years since my brain was infected with Punk Rock? Over 25 years since my mother told me to turn that shit down or turn it off? Over 25 years since scaring my elders with bands like the Dead Kennedys, Sex Pistols, Buzzcocks, Damned, Dead Boys, etc? Over 25 years since my mother uttered "I know what you are like when you are on something!" I can almost smell the shoe stores on Melrose where you had to travel to buy Dr. Martens or the stench of Vinyl Fetish record shop. The smell of clove cigarettes are as nostalgic to me as a Gigantor lunch box. For any of you whippersnappers, punk accessories and music weren't available at the mall back then. There was no Hot Topic or neatly packaged punk rock one-stop. Possibly even more unbelievable to you was that punk rock wasn't cool, hip, or sexy. Unlike the "punk" of today (Blink/Green Day/etc) the bands never made any money regardless of their legendary status over 25 years later. Jocks, jarheads, and to a degree Stoners affectionately called punks "fags", "weirdos" or "freaks". It was especially charming stuff coming from guys with sweaters wrapped over their shoulders. Apparently Journey sounded much better in their BMW's tape deck than Black Flag.

The mid to late 70's where the scene was born (The UK and on the East Coast of the US) are captured nicely in Don Letts' "Punk: Attitude". I won't bother you with a history lesson of punk rock. I could list a family tree of the essential players and their impact throughout the 80s and into Nirvana's reign, but if you are interested spend an hour and a half with this documentary. It's well worth the purchase, rental or NetFlix queue. More importantly to me this movie reinforced a question I've been asking for the last 5 years. "Where in the fuck is the punk rock attitude?"

Punk rock was not born without reason. Without spelling out a history lesson it's safe to argue that there has never been a better time than the present for a little punk rock spirit. It doesn't even need to be musical (but it would help). My wife is a high school English teacher and it shocks me to hear the attitudes of kids today. Most of these kids are robots for the Fox News/White House propaganda machine. Where are Elvis' hips? Jerry Lee Lewis' dry humping on a piano? Lenny Bruce's wit? Johnny Rotten's middle finger? Jello Biafra's Mayoral run? I see little or nothing today. I'm not talking about TPing the neighbors house, date rape, taking X, wearing black eye-liner, shoegazing, getting shitty grades, tagging and just being an asshole youth. I'm talking about questioning authority and thinking for yourself. Has Paris Hilton fucked up our youth to this extreme? Lyrically Green Day's "American Idiot" was a pretty good start but it was far from any kind of movement.

Let's face it, the heavy lifting of societal change has to come from our youth. I'm 39 years old trying to earn a living and make ends meet. I can't run around with my middle finger in the air anymore. I do what I can to impose...I mean express my views but I (we) could use a little help from the kids. Lastly, to all you thumpers out there I'd like to quote a line from one of your favorite books that is often ignored, "the meek shall inherit the earth". Look it up.

Where have you gone Jello Biafra, a nation turns it's lonely eyes to you.