Letters to the Editor
aptnro
Published Letters: 50 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Trading myths
[Read the article: Is the homeland where America's heart is?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Trading myths back and forth seems to be the flavor of discussion here. At least, most of the discussion. For example, the two views on gun control expressed in the last few posts: on the one hand, some people say the Democrats want to federalize gun control and take everyone's firearms away, and on the other hand, some people say that the Democrats have no such desire, they want to leave gun control in the states' hands, and by the way, the Republican party is steadily taking away the freedom of speech which helps folks defend their rights.
Two myths, both founded on some amount of truth, both distilled into simple soundbites which are easily conveyed to and repeated by the voters (and bloggers, and political entertainers like Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart) who care about the issues.
Who holds which myths, and why, seems to be the central point of the book being reviewed, and also the central argument of the reviewer. The argument that Mann over-simplifies our national political divisions is valid - geography alone doesn't fully explain why some people choose one side and others fall on the other side of the divide. O'Hehir, if I'm reading this the way he intends, is basically saying that Mann is re-telling the old politcal myths, slightly re-explained in light of recent election results, and our culture, both political culture and the culture at large of the last half of the 20th century.
What both of these writers are ignoring is the idea that maybe America isn't a two-myth system. It seems to me that there are really three groups in America: true believers of the "metro" idea of America, their more-or-less polar opposites in the "homelander" camp, and the third group, the one I'm positing - the big percentage of Americans in between, who simply don't care all that much about the myths being bandied back and forth by the "metros" and "homelanders." They are the ones who go to work, watch tv, follow one or two sports (probably NFL and NASCAR, statistically speaking) and generally don't see themselves as either dominant or on the defensive. If they vote, and I'm positing that these folks are the half or more of eligible voters who don't, they glom onto whichever myth happens to lodge in their ear.
American politics has been about these competing myths for a long time, and the only good thing about it is that in our system, most of the time the middle ground folks get substantially left alone while the true believers howl.
-
Everyone who saw the film raise your hand...
[Read the article: "The Departed"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]OK. I saw the film. I loved it. Scorsese is doing what he does best - make films about people who are inclined to shoot other people, preferably in the head. In this movie, for instance, the difference between good guys and bad guys is that the good guys only pistol whip other people, or maybe shoot them in the knee. Bad guys tend to take aim right at the temple.
Of course, Scorsese being himself, this is way, way more than just a shoot-em-up. DiCaprio's performance is outstanding, and he's in great company. Long story short, there ain't no weak links here. Performance-wise, anyway. I'd have to take issue with a few gaping plot holes, and Vera Farmiga's character, though well-acted, had to support some unbelievable plot-points. Her ability to carry that impossible burden does her credit. I still found myself saying "no way!" under my breath.
Using the word "subtle" in the title to this review was way off, though. "Convoluted," maybe. Perhaps "inscrutable," although that might have racist overtones, given the derivation of "The Departed" from "Infernal Affairs." Subtle, though, this is not. The final scene puts the lie to the "subtle" epithet. Jack Nicholson's performance does, too, although it is pretty restrained by his standards.
As for the quality of the review, I gotta say, Ms. Zacharek pretty much nails it, with a few caveats. Spending any amount of time talking about the relative quality of the accents, for example. And she's not the only one. How many amateur linguists are there, anyway? Suffice it to say that no one's accent breaks the illusion that we're watching genuine Massachusetts-type people, mostly from South Boston. Beyond that, why not leave it to the residents of that fair city to parse the intricacies of Southie accents? And referring to a drinking fountain as a "bubbler?" Way, way too cute.