Showing posts with label Kevin Costner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kevin Costner. Show all posts

Monday, 5 November 2018

Hidden Figures (5 Stars)


"Here at NASA we all pee the same colour".

This year a film will be released called "First Man". It's a sequel to the 2016 film "Hidden Figures", but I doubt it will be of the same quality. Sequels are rarely as good as the original film, and it doesn't have any actors of the quality of Janelle Monae, Taraji Henson and Octavia Spencer. I'll go to see it as soon as I have a chance and I'll tell you what I think. I  might change my mind.

"Hidden Figures" tells the true story of the women who worked at NASA in the American space programme. It was a terrible setback to American pride when a Russian, Yuri Gagarin, became the first man in space. America wanted to equal this feat and go on to travel to the Moon. The film follows the struggles needed to make John Glenn the first American to orbit the Earth.

The three women at the centre of the story, Katherine Goble, Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson, had to struggle against the prejudices of the 1960's. They had two sets of prejudices to deal with: they were black (usually called "coloured") and they were women. Don't think that prejudice is a white prerogative. The black men around them didn't think they were capable of working at NASA because they were only women.


The inefficiency at NASA was so bad that it was comical. They ordered a computer from IBM, and it had to be left in the hallway because it was too big to go through the door. After knocking down the wall with a sledgehammer and putting the parts together it stood unused because nobody knew what to do with it. What I mean is, the white men at NASA didn't know what to do with it. Dorothy Vaughan was smarter. She went to the library to borrow a book about Fortran. The library was divided into two halves, books for white people and books for coloured people. The book on Fortran was only in the white section and she wasn't allowed to borrow it, so she stole it. She was the first person at NASA capable of programming the computer, and she went on to teach the other coloured women at NASA programming skills.


Not everyone was prejudiced. Al Harrison, the head of the Space Task Group, didn't care about the gender or skin colour of his team as long as they got the work done. He expressed his anger at his team when they made it difficult for Katherine to do her work. He respected Katherine for her intelligence and hard work. That was all that mattered.

This is an amazing film about women overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles. It should be an encouragement to anyone who's a woman or black or both. Don't waste time protesting. Just knuckle down and prove to everyone that you're just as good as them, maybe even better. In the end your quality as a worker and a human being will triumph.

Success Rate:  + 7.4

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Wednesday, 24 January 2018

JFK (4 Stars)


I was recently recommended this film by a friend. I'm thankful to him. It's 26 years since it was first released, and I'd vaguely heard about it, but for some reason I've never been inclined to watch it until now. When the film started I was a bit scared by the 3 hours 26 minutes running time, but I soon found it so fascinating that I couldn't tear myself away.

The film covers a controversial subject. On November 22nd 1963 President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. Within hours Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested as the prime suspect, but he was never put on trial because he was shot dead on live television two days later.

From the beginning there were doubts about the investigation. Lee Harvey Oswald swore he was innocent, but he was denied access to a lawyer. He was interrogated for 12 hours by the police, but no tapes were made.

Things remained calm, or rather swept under the rug, for the next three years. In 1966 Jim Garrison, the District Attorney of New Orleans, began to investigate the case. He was unable to name any one person as the shooter, but he was convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the killer. It was possible that he fired the first shot and missed, but the following five shots came from marksmen firing from three different angles. This is in contrast to the official Warren Report that claimed there were only three shots, all fired by Oswald. The evidence was arranged so neatly for the police to find that it looks like Oswald was set up. It's highly unlikely that he could have fired all three shots, even if there had only been three. His military record described him as a poor to medium marksman, and he was shooting from a difficult angle through foliage. Garrison asked three expert marksmen to hit a stationery target from the same room, and none of them succeeded. Lee Harvey Oswald was able to hit a person in a moving car.

Jim Garrison claimed that the assassination was orchestrated by the CIA, assisted by the FBI, the American military, the Mafia and anti-Castro Cuban immigrants. The motive was the dislike of Kennedy's pacifism and his intention to withdraw all American troops from Vietnam.

While it's not certain if Garrison was correct in all of his suppositions, there are too many suspicious circumstances surrounding the case. Many of the primary witnesses died soon after the assassination, some by accidental deaths and some by suicide. Somebody in a position of authority was doubtlessly trying to cover things up.

Do I have an explanation? No. I don't have access to enough information on the subject to form an informed opinion. The official documents on the subject were to be kept sealed until 2029, but their release was brought forward to 2017, with the exception of a small number of documents that President Trump decided should be withheld for a few more years. I expect no revelations from these documents. Anyone who wanted to act illegally made sure that nothing was written down.

The film is obviously one-sided, but it's a good film in its pacing and suspense. It's about as good as any legal drama can be.

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Monday, 6 February 2017

Hidden Figures (5 Stars)


This is one of the films nominated for this year's Best Film award at the Academy Awards. It's received two other nominations for Best Supporting Actress (Octavia Spencer) and Best Adapted Screenplay. I shan't give away too much of the plot because it's still in the cinemas. It hasn't even been shown in England yet. It's unusual for Germany to show a film before England.

The film tells the true story of three women who worked for NASA in 1961, preparing to send the first American into space. Being female was a big enough disadvantage 50 years ago, but even worse for them was their skin colour: they were black. Today they would be called African Americans, in 1961 they were referred to as Coloreds. It's always amused me how Americans, unlike the English, avoid the word "black", both in the past and the present.

All three were highly qualified for their jobs, but they were held back by their gender and skin colour. In particular Katherine Coleman was a mathematical genius who far excelled any of the white men around her. Fortunately Al Harrison, the head of the Space Task Group, didn't share the prejudices of the day, and he insisted on having her in his team. His only interest was to put a man into space (and eventually on the Moon), and he wanted the best possible person for the job. That was Katherine.

Dorothy Vaughan was the unofficial supervisor of a group of women computers. In the days before the machines that we call computers today, the word "computer" was the job description for a mathematician who did calculations on paper. Dorothy did the work of a supervisor after the retirement of the previous supervisor, but she couldn't be promoted because of her skin colour.

Mary Jackson is a computer who wants to be promoted to the rank of engineer, but she doesn't have sufficient qualifications, because she isn't allowed into the colleges where she would receive the training, once more a problem of skin colour.

What I like about this film, in contrast to other films about racial prejudice, is that segregation is shown in a comical fashion. The film doesn't set out to tell us that segregation is bad, it tells us that it's stupid, and it's so stupid that we have to laugh at it. There were several scenes that made the cinema audience laugh. Katherine Coleman wasn't allowed to use the white women's toilet (American "bathroom"), so she had to walk 20 minutes to another building, meaning a 40 minute break every time she had to relieve herself. On her second day in the Space Task Group her colleagues gave her a coffee can labelled "Coloreds", because they didn't want her touching their can.

I was especially impressed by Kirsten Dunst in the film, who played the head of human resources. She was polite to the coloreds and never said anything wrong, but her body language and her awkwardness made it obvious that she was one of the most prejudiced people in NASA. Brilliant acting!


I have a problem talking about racial prejudice. I'll use the word "racism", even though I'm aware that it's not exactly the same thing. My problem is that I just don't understand it. Judging a person on his skin colour is just as ridiculous as judging him on his hair colour or the size of his ears. It doesn't matter what a person looks like on the outside, what matters is what the person thinks, says and does. That's so obvious to me that I can't understand why anyone should disagree with me. The only thing I can conceive is that if someone grows up in a secluded environment and never meets a black person he might believe that black people are somehow inferior, out of pure ignorance. However, as soon as he makes contact he should recognise that they're just as good as white people.

My lack of understanding of racism sometimes makes me seem insensitive. When I lived in England I insulted a black friend by making light of racism. I didn't realise that it was a big issue for him. For me it's something not worth mentioning, and if the subject ever does come up I make fun of it.

Gender prejudice is a different matter. There are big differences between men and women, in physical capabilities and temperament. Of course, this doesn't mean that a woman can't be more intelligent than a man, as we see in the case of Katherine Coleman.


In the last few years, especially the last two years, there has been a lot of criticism of the Academy Awards because of the lack of diversity. What's meant is that too few Oscars have been awarded to black actors and directors. This whole argument annoys me. It's not up to the Academy Awards to be diversified; it's their job to decide which actors and directors are the best, regardless of their skin colour. It would be stupid to award an Oscar to the second best actor just to fulfil a quota. There are many first class actors who are black. If we want more diversity in the awards, the solution has to be found elsewhere. First of all, black actors have to work hard to be better than their white colleagues. The competition is tough, but it's not impossible. Secondly, more roles have to be offered to black actors. I mean sensible roles. Too often roles are handed out on a racial quota basis, especially for Marvel films. For instance, Idris Elba is one of the world's best actors, but casting him as Heimdall, a Norse God, was pure idiocy, motivated only by the quota of having at least one black actor in the film.

Another way to create diversity is to write and direct better films starring black actors. Look at "Hidden Figures". It deserves to win this year's Best Film Oscar, not because it's a film about black issues, but because it's the best film. That's real diversity.

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.de

Monday, 4 April 2016

Batman vs Superman (3 Stars)


This film has been a topic of conversation among my friends for months. It was one of the most eagerly anticipated films of the year. What I mean is that my friends were eagerly anticipating it. I had a queasy feeling in my stomach that it wouldn't be such a good film. I expected something that would be average quality and overall forgettable. I was right.

"Batman vs Superman" doesn't really do anything wrong. It's just that it doesn't do anything right. Henry Cavill is very remote and lacking in charisma as Superman. This was already the case in "Man of Steel", but since he has less screen time in "Batman vs Superman" it seems more extreme. Ben Affleck is just as remote and unsympathetic. He's a boring character, with or without his mask. The only ray of light in the film is Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. He's such an attractive, charismatic character that I wanted him to crush the two annoying heroes beneath his feet.

To be honest, a battle between Batman and Superman is a no-contest. Superman has super-strength, super-speed and super-everything else, while Batman is just a normal man who works out. One punch from Superman should be enough to kill Batman. The only way the two can fight is by somehow giving Batman extra strength or by weakening Superman. This is what happened in "Batman vs Superman": Superman was weakened by being exposed to kryptonite.

At least I wasn't alone in my opinion when I walked out of the cinema tonight. My friends in the film group may have gone into the film with high expectations, but they walked out feeling that it was average at best. They were disappointed, but I wasn't. I got what I expected, nothing more, nothing less.

Thursday, 20 June 2013

Man of Steel (4 Stars)


Last night I went out to see "Man of Steel". I've never been a Superman fan, but for me it was an excuse to get out of the house and spend time with other members of the Birmingham Film Club. I had a lot of fun, even though I was shocked to see that almost none of them have seen my favourite film, "Lost Highway". It's my favourite English language film, anyway; at the moment I like "Summer in Orange" more, but it hasn't been released in English, and probably never will be. It's far too German to be popular abroad.

My problem with Superman, the comic book character, is that he's too strong. He can do almost anything. At least "Man of Steel" toned this aspect down by not giving him super speed and letting him run around in a blur. I've read very few of his comics, but the ones I read all seemed to revolve around an excuse for Superman to be weakened to make his battles more credible. Imagine a fight between Superman and the Joker, or any of Batman's enemies. One punch and he's dead. It makes me wonder what the point of Batman is in the DC Universe.

"Man of Steel" is a slightly darker take on the Superman mythology. He lives as a drifter, afraid to reveal his powers, but unable to stand idly by when people need help. He's drawn into the open when a fellow exile from the planet Krypton arrives on Earth, General Zod, who has powers similar to those of Superman. The final battle is over the top action, in which most of Metropolis is destroyed. It was an enjoyable film, but my lack of sympathy for the Superman character makes it unlikely I'll want to watch it again.