In the Summer of 1763 John Adams undertook the writing of an essay entitled “On Private Revenge.” The turmoil of the French and Indian War was only freshly over and the British Parliament in that same year adopted the Proclamation of 1763. The Proclamation granted control over the lands won through the Treaty of Paris to the British government, not the colonial governments. Within a decade the Parliament would go on to do more to seek retribution from the Colonies for the assistance England provided during the war. This enraged the passions of colonial Americans, specifically in New England in and around Boston. Adams’ essay can be viewed only in the light of these events. In his traditional style, Adams calls for law and order to persevere over chaos and anarchy.

The first paragraph of the essay sets up the plan Adams has laid out for his argument. In the Politics, Aristotle asserts that man outside of the city is either a beast or a god. Adams argument is that man is distinguished from other animals because of his ability to unite and entire into society. The natural attributes of man are not enough to make him superior to other animals, but in fact Adams believes they would make man weakest of all other animals. It is found alone in his ability to unite that man is made the superior animal; thus agreeing with Aristotle partially by stating man outside of society is nothing more than a beast such as, “the bear or the tiger.” Within this man, like other animals, Adams argues, “As he comes originally from the hands of his Creator, self-love or self-preservation is the only spring that moves him.” Locke argues that the law of nature is only known through reason, with the exception of the first law which is that of self preservation. Hobbes too argues that within society the Magistrate is capable of ordering his subjects to do whatever he wishes, except if he desires to kill them in which case they are obligated by the Law of Nature to defend their life. And thus Adams has created his argument; man is superior to other animals because he is able to unite himself within society. However, like other animals man has implanted in his soul self preservation, which calls upon man to defend his life whenever it is threatened. How does one preserve his life and at the same time allow himself to exist in society? The law of self preservation appears to grant man the authority to execute the law of nature. Society limits this ability and grants that authority to an impartial third party.

Adams description of a state of nature comes closer to the description provided by Rousseau. He describes that in this state man as he is propagated, food is found on “the banks of clams and oysters”, weapons for war are present, and animal hides are used for clothes. Yet this society is void of friendship, trade, and human bonding unless instinct calls for it. In essence, man is truly free and independent without any other above him or below him. Adams defines the virtues of the “savage state, courage, hardiness, activity, and strength.” Take these four virtues and compare them to the four classical virtues, “Justice, Prudence, Fortitude, and Temperance.” By many the virtue of courage is seen as among the basest virtues, in fact Aristotle in the Ethics describes it almost immediately, indicating that it is the most base of all virtues. The man who is in charge in this society is the one who can kill the best, or run the fastest. This is the basis for tribal leadership, and possibly the roots of how one became king in ancient England, France, or Germany. This basis for determining who is superior will also result in the usage of revenge over justice; the man who perceives himself to be stronger and is beat by another will take it as an insult and attack the other man. Adams even argues that the idea of allowing a third party to mediate the situation is viewed as an acknowledgement of the deficiencies of the savage state. It is clear that Adams views revenge as the hallmark of a savage state. New Englanders within a few years of this essay will attempt to overthrow the established system and seek revenge for the ills done to them by the British parliament. Adams, in a possible prophetic statement argues that when a horse treads over a gouty toe, our passions are so excited that we feel we must kill the horse. The horse is a symbol of Aristocracy in philosophy, which can lead one to see the prophetic nature of the comment. The horse represents the British Parliament, which does end up stepping on the gouty toe of the colonies, who never really recover from the French and Indian War. Adams finishes this section by saying:

For the great distinction between savage nations and polite ones, lies in this,—that among the former every individual is his own judge and his own executioner; but among the latter all pretensions to judgment and punishment are resigned to tribunals erected by the public; a resignation which savages are not, without infinite difficulty, persuaded to make, as it is of a right and privilege extremely dear and tender to an uncultivated nature.

A stark contrast between the savage state and the polite state has been established as in the one man is his own executioner while in the other he is not. Rousseau argues in the Social Contract:

The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces in man a very remakable    change, by substituting in his conduct justice for instinct, and by giving his actions the moral quality that they previously lacked. It is only when the voice of duty succeeds physical impulse, and law succeeds appetite, that man, who till then had regarded only himself, sees that he is obliged to act on other principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations.

Rousseau's sentiments are similar to Adams, in that when man passes into civil society he is expected to give up those habits which were present in him in nature.

This brings up the next point. If society should ever come to the point where we will give up our polite and noble nature, we will become worse than the Goths before becoming Christians. He compares the individual who believes that when offended one should draw his sword to that of the fowl, the bull, and stallion. The image of these three animals are simple, the bird can represent bloodshed, the bull destructive force, and the stallion life and death. It should be noted that he does not use horse, but rather stallion which indicates not the symbol of aristocracy specifically. Instead, the stallion represents the wild, unbridled passions of man and specifically can be seen as a symbol of life and death, which horses are known to symbolize. After initially using fowl, in his ending sentence of this paragraph Adams states, “But are cocks and bulls and horses the proper exemplars for the imitation of men, especially of men of sense, and even of the highest personages in the government!” The cock more specifically than fowl represents the underworld, passion and pride, and thus we arrive at how man is outside of nature: Prideful, passionate, destructive, and wild.

And finally Adams attacks the point that such images of gallantry have been argued from the military. Adams argument begins by stating that such images are not praised by the military, nor have they ever been. Instead, the dregs of society have idealized the Cock, Bull and Stallion as exemplars for man. He argues, “For every gentleman, every man of sense and breeding in the army, has a more delicate and manly way of thinking, and from his heart despises all such little, narrow, sordid notions.” Of these he mentions specifically Divines, Lawyers and Physicians. Divines represent religion, God; Lawyers represent the law; Physicians have a philosophic meaning behind them, in that whenever a Physician appears it represents healing of the body politic. In this instance though it is much more likely that Adams is speaking that Physicians heal the body and therefore praise themselves above all others such as Divines and Lawyers do. It should be interesting to point out that Adams himself was a lawyer. The other set of professions he mentions include: husbandmen, manufacturers, and laborers. They lack the virtue of magnanimity and are instead short sighted, little minded individuals believing their professions are the best in the world. It is likely then, that soldiers of lower ranks are just as likely to believe them superior to any other order. They are, as a result, prone to the, “principles of revenge, rusticity, barbarity, and brutality…” which are described earlier as the principles upheld by the savage. However, soldiers who are superior in their senses recognize the authority not only of their superiors but also of the civil society. Once again, in a similar prophetic nature as before, these soldiers recognize the superior nature of English law. Moving away from calling them soldiers, it is evident at this point that Adams is specifically referencing men in general, not just those who serve in the Army. England, being an image of the polite society, is superior to the savage society; some of his fellow New Englanders wish to rebel against English rule, thus stooping to this level. A truly polite and decent man would recognize that the doctrine of self preservation as indignant.

Adams having completed his argument has demonstrated that man who seeks the doctrine of private revenge has no regard for civil society, and therefore is only as good as a tiger or bear. Only within civil society is man able to full perfect his nature, which is where Adams demonstrates the Enlightenment principle that nature is created imperfect. It is man’s responsibility to perfect nature by building upon it, making things, and this is only possible in society. Likewise, man is only able to be fully man within society under the constrains of law and order which is characterized by justice; whereas man outside of society and in total chaos is characterized by the doctrine of self preservation, or revenge.

Some of the most memorable moments in Pool history are reminisced over and argued about from generation to generation, at Christmas dinner, over a pint at the pub, in the bleachers at team stadiums around the globe, and everywhere in between.  Let's look at some of those unforgettable moments and match ups now, shall we?

One of the most dramatic seasons on record, 1977 was highlighted by the tremendous showdown that evolved in week 33.  Team Querulous had a commanding season lead going into their head-to-head match up with what had long been considered a novelty outfit, Team Wham-O, notorious for drafting irrationally, aiming for huge payouts by drafting celebrities unlikely to die, and thus they normally finished near the bottom of their division.  But, on Tuesday the 16^th of August,

Wham-O stunned the world with the death of the King, Elvis Presley, jumping them out to a strong lead, the first the team had this late in a season in over thirty years.  Not to be outdone, though, Querulous

bounced back on Friday, snaring points for comedy legend Groucho Marx, throwing the clubs into a dead heat.  Wham-O would score the week victory, their first ever against this opponent, but Querulous ultimately claimed the Cup with the deaths of Zero Mostel in September, and Charlie Chaplin icing the cake Christmas Day.

Like many early years of the DPE, 1826 was pretty light on scoring.  This is largely due to the fact that there weren't many worldwide celebrities to choose from (the draft only went seven rounds back then), and so considerably fewer died than do today.  Going into the summer, Team Corpuscle was out in front, having claimed the one significant corpse in recent months - the German composer Carl Maria von Weber.  But then, on the fourth of July, archaic outfit Team Excessum exploded into first with the demise of the second President of the United States John Adams, as well as the third President Thomas Jefferson.  This ultimately would bring Excessum the Tin Mickey, after which the club changed its name to Team Foufa (for "Founding Fathers").

After the strike shortened season of 1994, when all the dying picked up their IVs and walked off the job, there was debate whether the DPE could ever fully regain the public's trust.  Like boxing and horse racing, the Death Pool was seen as a sport on the decline.  In 1997, with attendance sharply down, and the league operating heavily in the red for the third straight season, the number of teams contracted from 45 to 33, and many inside the

sport worried that the death knell may have tolled.  It would take a major event, or a major showdown, to revive some life in the Death Pool.  As the summer of '97 wound down, attendance reached an all-time low.  For the first time since World War II the All-Star celebration hadn't sold out, and the pennant race was remarkably uninteresting, with Team Rigor Mortis up by a bundle, having recently extended their lead with Robert Mitchum's death July 1st.  But in the final hours of August came the grisly death that would reverse DPE fortunes, and indeed return the entire sport to prominence.  Team Precipice's third round pick of Diana, Princess of Wales had seemed like a waste in the New Year's draft, but her demise in that Paris tunnel turned the club from a middling also-ran to a powerhouse.  The worldwide grief was only eclipsed by the global Death Pool interest her death invoked, and suddenly the fans were back.  Precipice followed Diana with a strong second act - Mother Teresa in the grave six days later - and so the great Rigor Mortis/Precipice rivalry was born.

It isn't every season the DPE championship is decided in the final month, never mind the final week.  More times than not over the years the Thanksgiving front runner goes on to victory, due mainly to the number of teams and the comparatively small number of celebrity deaths.  But, 1916 was no ordinary year, I don't need to tell you.  Going into the final days, scheduling had lucked out on a masterpiece of a head-to-head contest.  Team Chickory held a slight lead for the overall title on their final opponent, Blitzkrieg United.  Both had scored with authors (Henry James and Sholom Aleichem, respectively), and were the only legitimate contenders for the DPE Tin Mickey cup.  On the 28th, Chickory appeared to sew up the win on word that Edward Strauss, a lesser Strauss in the Strauss musical dynasty, had passed on.  Their somewhat obscure pick up now looked like a genius move.  Yes, the cup was practically filled with the traditional victory mutton leg, or so it seemed, but lo! The Blitzkrieg was not out of surprises!  The next day , with time on the calendar quickly running out, the news blared across loudspeakers at stadiums everywhere.  One of Blitzkrieg's late round selections, whose name was only mildly known around the world at this point, had died, and died, and died.  His name?  Grigori Rasputin, the Mad Monk himself!  The result?  A stunning victory for Blitzkrieg United, and a thrilling ending to an incredible season!

This has been Great Moments in Death Pool History, sponsored by Camel cigarettes, the Ford motor company, and thanks to contributions from viewers like you!

I used to think that life was all about big things.  Big decisions, big careers, big cars, big houses, big political movements, big success.  Some of these certainly have their place, but I'd rather see glory in the little things.

Watching a little boy grow is like watching a butterfly emerge from it's cocoon in slow motion.  I used to watch with amazement when they showed these transformations in school and now I have the same sense of awe living with my son.  In my favorite book, A Severe Mercy, the author Sheldon VanAuken talks about "moments made eternity," moments in life that are timeless in their significance. This is what I feel on a daily basis as I watch Hudson change. When I observe the tilt of his head as he looks over the counter, or the crease in his brow as he considers a challenge. The look of excitement and pride in his eyes when he learns something new, or the unruly curls on the back of his head. I relish the warmth of his little body when he sits on my lap and the round of his cheeks when he laughs.  His personality is so big he fills up our lives with light, laughter and joy.

I don't know why I'm sharing this with you today.  My head has recently been in big things. I'm reading a fantastic biography on the 2nd President of the United States, John Adams, by David McCullough and it has my head in the heights. Today I also read some chapters from a book called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (John Piper) and delighted in chapter 15 on The Inevitability of Failure: The Assumptions and Implementations of Modern Feminism (good evidence to back up some assertions in my recent post Get Smart Ladies!). My mind is awhirl with matters of state, inalienable rights and the biological proof of basic gender differences between the sexes. It's all very compelling, but ceases to make any sense until I look at my little boy.

In him I see the treasure and beauty in life.  I learn to hold fast to small precious moments so they can live forever in my memory. One day, too soon, he will be grown and gone, and that's a fact of life. I want him to grow up and live his own life.  But until then he's a reminder that miracles happen in the day-to-day. He brings me back to what is really important, and reminds me that if one thing matters, everything matters.

I'm left thinking of a song that has become somewhat of a theme for my mom's side of the family, We Have This Moment Today. You may know it:

Hold tight to the sound of the music of living, Happy songs from the laughter of children at play; Hold my hand as we run through the sweet fragrant meadows, Making mem'ries of what was today.

Chorus: We have this moment to hold in our hands and to touch as it slips through our fingers like sand; Yesterday's gone and tomorrow may never come, But we have this moment today.

Tiny voice that I hear is my little girl calling, For Daddy to hear just what she has to say; And my little son running there by the hillside, May never be quite like today.

Tender words, gentle touch and a good cup of coffee, And someone who loves me and wants me to stay; Hold them near while they're here and don't wait for tomorrow, To look back and wish for today.

Take the blue of the sky and the green of the forest, And the gold and the brown of the freshly mown hay; Add the pale shades of spring and the circus of autumn, And weave you a lovely today.

I can't read those words without hearing the strong tenor voice of my uncle Doug singing them at my cousin's wedding, just months after miraculously surviving encephalitis. We learned to hold each other near while we're here and not wait for tomorrow to look back and wish for today.

So, even though my son earned a nap for throwing a fit earlier and I collapsed exhausted into my computer chair, I smile at the beautiful miracle of his life. How can I deserve the privilege of motherhood? And how do I live up to the responsibility? I love my son and commit him to Christ and cherish him closely, because although he will always be a joy, he will never be today's joy again.

Anyone have any better ideas?

By the time of the Renaissance philosophers began to look at the question of the city differently. In the 17^th and 18^th centuries England produced two of the greatest philosophers of the Enlightenment. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke helped to redefine what the city is and man’s relationship to the city. No longer was the city a natural order which helps man attain the complete human life. Rather, now the city is looked upon as an escape from the natural order. For Hobbes this natural order is a state of war because the only law is that of survival. Without a government to maintain order and ensure everyone obeys the laws of nature and maintains their contracts it is left to the individual to secure their rights. If you imagine the world before pan-national organizations like the United Nations or NATO you see this principle at work. Nations exist in a state of nature with each other, and thus in a state of war. There is no governing body able to enforce the laws of nature or maintain the contracts between two nations. Instead the nation becomes the judge, jury and executioner leading to a state of war. John Locke attempts to appear less savage than Hobbes but essentially reaches the same conclusion. Man exists in a state of nature, which is a state of pure freedom. Through reason man is able to know the law of nature. Yet in the state of nature man is responsible for enforcing the law of nature and contracts. Life is truly short and brutish in a state of nature as Locke states. Ultimately this state of nature dissolves into a state of war causing man to seek to escape nature and enter into society. For the moderns nature was something to be conquered and therefore society cannot be viewed as natural as the Greeks viewed it. Society is formed to allow for an impartial judge, and a common law which is enforced by an outside force. Outside of these responsibilities, society is useless to man. Hobbes defines society, as a Leviathan, the modern view of society is not as man’s friend but as his enemy. Unchecked society can do whatever it pleases whether it is for the good of man or not. For Hobbes the magistrate can do whatever he wants to his citizens and they must obey, save of course when one’s life is in danger and you are obligated by the law of nature to defend yourself. Thus for our Founders, students of men like Hobbes and Locke they would have viewed society, our Constitution, as a necessary evil.

Yet in recent times, namely the end of the 19^th century, a new understanding has developed which does not exclude the Leviathan nature of society but does not reject society’s ultimate benefit to mankind either. The men who were associated with the German school of thought developed by men like Marx and Nietzsche associated society with being able to advance man. The central concern of Nietzsche is breaking man out of his “all too human” nature and the creation of the ubermensch. Marx viewed society as a tool to help advance man along the historical timeline to a period where no government would be necessary. In America we call the men and women associated with this line of thought the Progressives. It was their belief that in order for man to be moral the government had to instill that morality. For the moderns, morality was already present in the form of the law of nature. In order to understand morality one merely needs reason to understand the law of nature. Yet the German Historicist school of thought rejected a universal morality outside of the confines of the society. This notion was what helped spur on the Prohibitionists who believed it was government’s responsibility to ban alcohol to help better mankind. What developed was a notion similar to the ancient understanding that what is good for the city is good for man. Unfortunately, they were unable to temper the Leviathan and encouraged it to grow to control every aspect of human life. Through this belief came the rise of the Totalitarian states of Communist Russia, Fascist Italy and Spain, and Nazi Germany.

What makes the Progressive era different than the Enlightenment? The Enlightenment believed it was the responsibility of the government in a way to enforce the moral code. Yet the Enlightenment had the law of nature, which dictated right and wrong to society. Society was obligated to create laws in accordance with the law of nature or face being deemed illegitimate—they were able to hide the notion that really morality is whatever the majority willed. With the destruction of God by German philosophers came the destruction of the law of nature (ultimately rooted in the Divine Law.) Now it is whichever faction with the biggest guns makes the morality. The society for the Enlightenment is only charged with the safety of the people. Their complete perfection is left in the hands of the individual person. As Locke argues in his Letter on Toleration, society is permitted to promote religion but not religious beliefs—in other words it is man’s responsibility to find his way to salvation by whatever means he thinks best, but society is able to promote a religious lifestyle and prevent dangerous factions from existing within society. The Progressives were less worried about safety and more with perfection of humanity. The Ancients throw a wrench into the wheel of both movements by encouraging the notion that the city provides safety (non daily needs) and that the city provides for the complete human life. However, that safety doesn’t mean that the city should be ignored as in the case of the Enlightenment where individuals can essentially live and let live. Political activity was central in the Ancient understanding of the city. A man who refused to engage in Politics was called an idiot by the Greeks. Their definition of the complete human life had nothing to do with the divine—the idea of man’s salvation and perfectibility would have been lost on Aristotle in the Progressive sense. Rather, complete human life tends towards two arenas: Politics or Philosophy. Both lives potentially can lead to the complete human life. The obligation to be involved in the political life, more than merely casting a vote, is at the heart of why the city’s goods are good for man. By the Enlightenment man’s obligation to society was vested in merely voting. The interests of man at large are often mixed with the passions and interests of the individual. Progressives would view that it is important to have experts in positions of authority, so that their own private passions and interests are eliminated. Man is no longer able to make his own decisions, but is left to the dictates of supposed experts. Thus, since society should be dictated by those of superior intellect (experts in a given field), what is good for the city and man are intrinsically connected.

The Humanitas Prize has announced this year's finalists, which included episodes from Boston Legal, John Adams and The Wire in the 60-minute television category and The Bill Engvall Show (that sound you hear is me scratching my head), In Treatment and Scrubs in the 30-minute category.

The Humanitas honors film and TV writing that "explores the human condition in a way which affirms the dignity of the human person and reveals common humanity." The complete list of finalists is behind the cut.

Feature Film Category ($10,000)
The Diving Bell and The Butterfly, written by Ronald Harwood
Juno, written by Diablo Cody
Lars and the Real Girl, written by Nancy Oliver

90 Minute Category ($10,000)
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, written by Daniel Giat
Charlie & Me, written by Karen Legasse Struck
A Life Interrupted, written by John Wierick
Pictures of Hollis Woods, written by Ann Peacock, Daniel Petrie Jr. & Camille Thomasson

60 Minute Category ($10,000)
Boston Legal: "Roe V. Wade, The Musical" written by David E. Kelly & Susan Dickes (teleplay); David E. Kelly, Susan Dickes & Jill Goldsmith (story)
John Adams: "Part 1" written by Kirk Ellis
The Wire: "Late Editions" written by George Pelecanos (teleplay); David Simon & George Pelecanos (story)

30 Minute Category ($10,000)
The Bill Engvall Show: "Aloha Raffles" written by Kathy Ann Stumpe
In Treatment: "Sophie Week 2" written by Sarah Treem
Scrubs: "My Long Goodbye" written by Dave Tennant

Children's Animation Category ($10,000)
My Friends Tigger & Pooh: "Eeyore's Sad Day" written by Brian Hohlfeld
Sweet Blackberry Presents: "The Journey Of Henry Box Brown" written by Karyn Parsons
Toddworld: "Come Out Of Your Shell" written by Don Gillies

Children's Live Action Category ($10,000)
Johnny Kapahala: "Back On Board" written by Ann Austen, Douglas Sloan, Max Enscoe & Annie DeYoung (teleplay); Ann Austen & Douglas Sloan (story)
Minutemen, written by John Killoran (teleplay); David Diamond & David Weissman (story)
Sheira and Loli's Dittydoodle Works: "Sacrifice" written by David Lawrence, Bill Rodman & Cory Rosenberg

Sundance Feature Film Category ($10,000)
Henry Poole Is Here, written by Albert Torres
A Raisin in the Sun, written by Paris Qualles
The Visitor, written by Tom McCarthy

The David & Lynn Angell Fellowship in Comedy Writing ($10,000)
Fair, written by Cameron Porsandeh
McKellar Hall, written by Nik Blahunka & Marcy Holland

The Humanitas Student Drama Fellowship ($10,000)
Heroes: "The Cure" written by Marla DuMont
House: "Witch Is It" written by Katherine F. Lovejoy

]]> http://kkennedydesigns.wordpress.com/?p=19 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:37:33 +0000 kriskennedy http://kkennedydesigns.wordpress.com/?p=19 this site will be a  bit about my world, art, jewelry, inspiration, travels, and treehouses...check out the why treehouses page for more information on that front. I hope to share with fellow artists, those interested in art, or creativity of any kind.  In my professional career, I work as a film and television designer with an MFA in Scenic Design specifically, but lately, well more than lately, all I've been wanting to do is make jewelry and share it and my passion for making art with others. I look forward to hearing from you, what materials you like and don't like, what inspires you and I look foward to introducing my new lines of jewelry as they come into fruition. I will post some collages of the direction of the current lines inspiration, hopefully later tonight to give you a view of what's to come. For now, check out my links, drop in and say hi, and I look foward to getting to know you.

Forget slip-ups, bombast, flip-flops and
Every form of nonsense. No matter
Conviction or calculation, burn it. Put
Occam's razor to their necks.
What remains? Ten ounces of
Heart. 120 pounds of warm water. Apply
Pressure and they are sweat and
Blood dropped on dry earth under an
Ether sky. Their essence is
Dependence. Shudder and admit: We
Know not what substance will appear as
The next president takes his chair.

We scrutinize decisions, policies, every
Inhalation, but never grasp
Fundamental assurance. Can John Adams or
Abe Lincoln be known before they
Take the oath?! Then their fruit goes
Through the squeezer; their juices mix
Tonics for others; they dehydrate—emerge,
As from a dryer, self-contracted. We
Probe and mine to find them and
So vote for red or blue, but are
Not apt to see that they, and us, are
Hapless, begging, rubes.

by Henry Brooks Adams

Penguin Classics, 208pp, Out of Print

Henry Brooks Adams was a preeminent historian, great-grandson of John Adams, the second President of the United States of America, and grandson John Quincy Adams, the sixth President. He wrote only two novels – Democracy (1880) and Esther (1884) – the first of which was published anonymously (Adams was revealed as the author in 1909) and Esther under the nom de plume Frances Compton Snow. His reasons for doing so are not entirely clear, but perhaps he felt they might detract from his epic histories – the nine volume The History of the United States During the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison 1801 – 1817 (1889 - 1891), the biographies The Life of Albert Gallatin (1879) and John Randolph (1882) and his other work collecting and collating material on New England Federalism (1877). What would the author of such austere histories be doing writing a frothy romance novel about a young woman falling for Episcopal minister?

Esther appeared in the Penguin Classics range relatively recently (2000) but has very quickly fallen out of print, perhaps an indicator of Adams’s obscure status in American letters. Very little of his work is available in commonplace editions, and though the majority of his work can be found between Project Gutenberg (whose text of Esther I used to review) and The Million Books Project, it is clear from download counters at the MBP that few people are interested in what Adams has to say. In conjunction with my reading of Esther I have been reviewing his History of the United States, and it is abundantly clear that Adams is a forgotten genius. His monumental History is a masterpiece of nineteenth century intellectual thought, unafraid to face up to the challenge of seeing the bigger picture of American development in the early part of that century. The chapters that deal with cultural and social life in the key American cities of the day are superlative and should be read by anybody with even a passing interest in this period of history. Through reading the History it is also clear that Adams has a novelist’s eye for the story, which makes his move to fiction unsurprising.

The publication of the anonymous Democracy became a publishing sensation, with many illegal copies of the novel being sold as people tried to work out the identity of the author and who the characters in the novels political scandal were based upon. Adams would later remark, ironically, “"The wholesale piracy of Democracy was the single real triumph of my life."

When Esther appeared in 1884 there was nothing to connect Frances Compton Snow to either Democracy or Henry Adams, other than Adams resorts to satirical wit. Esther, as already noted, tells of one woman’s love for an Episcopal minister, Stephen Hazard. Adams decision to publish under a female nom de plume made Esther’s decisions in this novel seem all the more valid to contemporary readers.

When reading Esther today ones first thought is to those 1930s screwball romantic comedies of which this seems to be an antecedent. The plot line seems obvious, but it is the clash of personalities and opinions that will provide the tension. Esther is going to meet the handsome Hazard, they will fall quickly in love but obstacles will be placed in their way and at the end, after a pursuit, Esther will marry Hazard. And indeed they do meet, there are obstacles (of an intellectual and religious kind, but obstacles nevertheless), there is a pursuit from New York to Niagara, and at novels climax, as the waters of the Niagara tumble over the Falls, Henry Adams manages to confound all expectation with a last line of such devastating impact, that you are sure the power of has been felt all the way back to New York.

In the screwball comedies the obstacles would have been of a physical pratfall nature, but in Adams world they contain arguments about religion, science, art, and poetry. It is over art that Esther Dudley first truly becomes intimate with Stephen Hazard, as she is employed to paint a mural within the church. Along with her confidant, Catherine, a sassy southern woman who dreams of owning her own ranch in Colorado – and one you believe most certainly will for Adams seems adept at creating strong, confident women – they paint not iconography, but themselves and the men they love – Catherine with Wharton.

"By our lady of love!" said Wharton, with a start and a laugh; "now I see what mischief you three have been at!"

"The church would not have been complete without it," said Esther timidly.

For several minutes Wharton looked in silence at the St. Cecilia and at the figure which now seemed its companion; then he said, turning away:

"I shall not be the first unworthy saint the church has canonized."

Ch. 5

Even through their serious discussions there is the comedic undertow, always this urge from Adams to undermine his characters, afraid that without the gentle mocking their solemnity would become oppressive. Almost at the end of the novel does it become so:

Hazard's solitary thoughts were not quite so pointless. The danger of disappointment and defeat roused in him the instinct of martyrdom. He was sure that all mankind would suffer if he failed to get the particular wife he wanted. "It is not a selfish struggle," he thought.

"It is a human soul I am trying to save, and I will do it in the teeth of all the powers of darkness. If I can but set right this systematically misguided conscience, the task is done. It is the affair of a moment when once the light comes;--A flash! A miracle! If I cannot wield this fire from Heaven, I am unfit to touch it. Let it burn me up!"

Ch. 9

The one reason I can see for this novels lack of popularity is the long central argument in the middle where Esther and Hazard and others discuss religion and science, and where Adams’s agendas seems to subsume the story he is telling. There are, it has to be said, some erudite thoughts here, but they sit disconcertingly next to a dry wit of a story.

Along with fellow New York chronicler, Edith Wharton, Henry Adams is interested in the lives of women, particularly of independent women who buck the societal norm. Esther is a truly independent woman who refutes the status quo, and whose decision at the end of this novel will affect her totally. It is unclear whether Esther will find happiness in her decision, but she is willing to stand by her beliefs. She is a frighteningly real character, based upon Adams’s own wife, Marian, who just a year after the publication of this novel, committed suicide, following the death of her father.

After Esther and his personal loss, Henry Adams retired from novel writing. He took to travelling the world with his friend, the artist John La Farge, and Adams’s produced a few more works, histories and biographies mainly, published privately. His two final works, Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres (1904) and The Education of Henry Adams (1907), for which he is now remembered. Both were published in the Penguin Classics series and will be reviewed shortly.

The Gutenberg text of Esther is available here.

The Million Books Project is here.

I'm an Adams fan, obviously. My parents offered to fly me out on a "last minute fun trip" to hear his "Dr. Atomic" when it premiered in L.A. But instead, I wisely took a rain check and opted to view another premiere (Tan Dun's "The First Emperor"). I kind of knew that at least when I was about 30 or so, "Dr. Atomic" would be everywhere, and I could catch it close to home.

I never imagined moving to New York the year that it was to premiere at the MET. Last Sunday I anxiously logged online a minute after tickets went on sale (their site crashed as I expected) but secured a ticket in to its NY premiere in October.

Time is sneaky that way.

John Adams's career in public service began as a defense lawyer in Boston, where he participated in several cases, the most famous being the Boston Massacre Trials of 1770, in which he successfully argued in defense of all but two of the British soldiers tried. He served as a representative to the Massachusetts Council in 1775 and was later appointed as Chief Justice of the state that same year but resigned before he could serve in the position. In 1776, Adams attended the First Continental Congress, where he became the foremost proponent of severing ties with Britain, and was one of the five men commissioned to write the Declaration of Independence. He was also appointed to nearly every committee, and served as the Chairman of the Board of War and Ordinance. He later served as a commissioner to France and Minister Plenipotentiary to Amsterdam, where he secured a treaty of American recognition and two substantial loans. He subsequently participated in the Constitutional Convention of of 1787, and became the first foreign Minister to Britain, where he remained until 1788. Adams also became the nation's first Vice President in 1789, then later assumed the Presidency in 1796.

In addition to providing a thorough record of Adams's public achievements, McCullough also delves into his personal life, particularly his relationship with his wife, Abigail, and their children, as well as his remarkable friendships with Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Rush. What is truly remarkable about McCullough's work is that, rather than simply settling to make generalizations or summation's of Adams's ideas on any particular subject, he reinforces nearly every point with the Patriot's own words, which gives the reader a more accurate sense of the man's character and temperament.

Although the book is quite lengthy, it is very well researched and, with the exception of the first chapter, flows quite nicely and does not lag or rush through any portions of the story. The vocabulary is easy to understand, and the chapters are not overly extensive. Although the book includes a basic family tree of both John and Abigail's families, as well as extensive source documentation, I was disappointed to find that it does not posses a time line of Adams's life. Regardless of whatever shortcomings that the book may have, I found it to be extremely informative and equally as enjoyable. I would definitely recommend this work to any history buff, and especially to those interested in the Revolution.

Sources:

Photo: Courtesy of BarnesandNoble.com

For reasons I've never understood, the Revolution hasn't fared well on the silver screen.  There are a few period films that I enjoy watching.  1776 remains a personal favorite of mine, because it helps restore some of the suspense and urgency that two and a half centuries have worn away from the debate over independence.  I've also got to confess that I'm a fan of The Patriot.  It's a compelling story told well, and it focuses on the critical war in the South, even if it plays fast and loose with the facts.  A&E's made-for-TV films The Crossing and Benedict Arnold: A Queston of Honor also deserve an honorable mention.  I haven't seen HBO's Adams miniseries yet, but I've heard some great feedback.  Still, the Revolutionary War can't match the Civil War or WWII in terms of number and quality of film adaptations.

This hasn't always been the case.  As the filmography at the above website shows, the Revolutionary War was a pretty popular subject during the infancy of moving pictures.  From the early 1900's to the 1920's, filmmakers were turning out Revolutionary War stories at a surprisingly high rate.  Similar projects often appeared close to the same time: Paul Revere and Nathan Hale were both popular subjects in the 1910's, and Francis Marion got his own film in 1911 and again in 1914. 

It's clear that moviemakers were interested in the Revolution from the first days of putting stories on film.  It's also clear that interest in making Revolutionary War films didn't keep up with this initial burst of enthusiasm.

There are a lot of stories from the War of Independence I'd like to see on the screen, but it doesn't look like it's happening anytime soon.  Countingdown.com lists quite a few WWII movies in the works, but I couldn't find any Revolutionary War-related projects in any genre.  Maybe the current Founding Fathers craze will bring more filmmakers around.

Story Synopsis (contains spoilers)

It starts right where Part 3 left us, and Adams is informed that the British have surrendered to General Washington. Quickly, steps are made by the Dutch to give loans to the new government to be in place of the British in America. All is resolved from Part 3 in less than 5 minutes (after the opening titles).

John Adams ends up representing America to England, where he has a brief but important meeting with King George [This is one of my favorite scenes in the series. Well acted and authentic.]. Beyond Adams time in Britain, he returns to serve the new country in France, now under better terms than in Part 3. There, he reunites with his wife Abigail. It has been some time since they last saw each other and this special time together is cherished by the Adams couple.

While in France, they get to spend reflective time with Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. The three men compare ideas and ideals. Of course, we see that Mr. Franklin is no saint, nor is he about to change. Mr. Jefferson, however, seems to be changing his position in many issues Mr. Adams regrets to learn. In the end of their meeting, it seems the camaraderie the three shared in the past will never be the same.

The Adams return to America to be welcomed with celebration by the citizens of the new country, along with the children who are all now considerably older than when Mr. Adams was last with them. Family matters are played out on their new homestead at Peacefield. One of Adams' daughters begins to court. Mr. Adams guides John Quincy to stick to his meaningful political goals, and the issues with his son Charles are starting to mount up, as Charles begins to show his true form of foolishness.

Family matters are soon the background to the next serious venture of Mr. John Adams. It seems the first presidential election is upon him, and the people vote him in as vice-president under George Washington. This would appear to be a great match of the minds, and the episode closes with the inauguration of the first President of these United States.

What I Think

Part 4 is a necessary disappointment. There's not much that warrants the full length of this installment if your primary interest is to see great moments of historical significance. There are a few, but not like there was in the first three parts. This episode delves much deeper into character development and catch up. It seems most of the film is showing how Adams has to catch up with everyone that he was cut off from during his time in France, Holland, and Britain.

What I Liked

The best parts—in the order of relevance—were moments with George Washington, King George, John Quincy, Thomas Jefferson, and Abigail Adams. (While these were my favorite parts, I'll go ahead and mention the screen time for these supporting characters was in the exact opposite order.) These characters and their development take the story to the next level.

What I Didn't Like

We see the way Mr. Adams can be a disappointment as a father. Although Adams is dedicated in all aspects of life, he gives special attention and opportunities to his children in order of their hard work and diligence. The closer they meet his expectations, the more he'll show them open favor. The greater the disappointment to him, the more he will openly ridicule and otherwise ignore. Whether this perspective of Mr. Adams relationships with his children is authentic or not, the major events are true, so there is some truth to the disappointments that couldn't be side-stepped in giving an accurate depiction of this time in the Adams life. Basically, not all went well for the Adams family, and it is sad to see them struggle in family matters.

Some would say this part was slow. I'm unusually patient, and I didn't have a problem with it, but you might.

I wish there was more of George Washington. His moments really sweep me off my feet. Second to him, I do have a great interest in John Quincy Adams, but all things considered, he has little to do in Part 4. Thomas Jefferson is interesting to me, but not as much as these. But, obviously, Thomas does get more attention all throughout the series.

Content to Watch Out For

I'm very pleased when a married couple has no problem showing deep affection, but I'm not good with any sort of physical intimacy portrayed in film. This is the greatest vice in Part 4. After Mrs. Adams comes to France to be with Mr. Adams, there is an intimate scene between them. On some level, HBO must think this like doing this sort of thing for authenticity and artistic romantic appeal. I find it disrespectful in the least—to characterize the passion this married couple has for all the audience to see. Consider also that John Adams is a founder—historical figure. It's all the more repulsive to invade their privacy. Fortunately, this is a singular incident in the whole series.

So I Give It 2.5 Stars Out of 4

It could've been better, obviously. Still, it was well executed and authentic. I'd watch it again.

Les abonnées de Super Écran peuvent, depuis mercredi dernier, voir l'une des plus récentes et acclamées minsérie de la chaîne payante étasunienne HBO: John Adams.

Après avoir joué un rôle de premier plan dans la Révolution étasunienne, Adams fut vice-président des États-Unis durant la double présidence de George Washington, puis président à son tour. Second commandant en chef, certes, mais le premier à être élu à la suite d'une véritable course présidentielle, alors que George Washington se fit davantage officialiser dans son titre de président qu'élire à proprement parlé. Battu par Thomas Jefferson, un autre Père fondateur, lors des élections de 1800, Adams pris sa retraite lors de l'entrée en fonction de son successeur en mars 1801.

Le premier épisode introduit John Adams, avocat de Boston qui défend des soldats britanniques impliqués dans ce qu'on appelle le «Massacre de Boston». Fort de sa victoire en court, cet événement conforte Adams dans l'une de ses plus ardentes valeurs, à savoir que les lois doivent primer sur les hommes:

« A government of laws and not of men »

John Adams, "Novanglus Papers", 1774-1775

L'une des scènes de cet épisode est particulièrement troublant, démontrant à quel point la sauvagerie et la stratégie s'affrontaient, incarnées par des commerçants frustrés réagissant par la violence et des intellectuels qui se demandaient s'il vallait mieux laisser cette grogne populaire s'exprimer dans ses plus virulentes manifestations ou bien jouer la carte de la rhétorique patriotique — les révolutionnaires ont d'abord tenté de court-circuiter le parlement britannique pour se soumettre directement au roi, à la façon  (inversement) des villes impériales de l'Empire germanique — et juridique.

Toujours juste, l'acteur Paul Giamatti est celui qui prête ses traits à John Adams, probablement l'interprétation la plus imposante de sa carrière, lui qui avait déjà brillé dans l'introspectif Sideways (À la dérive en canadien français). Jusqu'à ce jour, sa prestation lui a valu de remporter le prix TCA pour l'«accomplissement individuel dans un drame», ainsi qu'une nomination aux prochains Emmy Awards dans la catégorie «meilleur acteur principal dans une minisérie ou un film».

D'ailleurs, John Adams aligne six nominations aux Emmy, dont une concernant la performance de Laura Linney dans la peau d'Abigail Adams, épouse de John. Trois autres acteurs se partagent la tête d'affiche de la catégorie «meilleur acteur de soutient dans une minisérie ou un film»: Stephen Dillane (Thomas Jefferson), Tom Wilkinson (Benjamin Franklin; j'ai hâte de le voir) et David Morse (George Washington). Petite anecdote, les deux autres acteurs à se retrouver en nomination dans cette catégorie sont également issus d'une minisérie de HBO: Recount.

Le processus d'indépendance des États-Unis est l'une des périodes de son histoire qui me captive le plus. John Adams semble être une merveilleuse mise en images de cet important épisode, avec l'originalité de le présenter du point de vue d'un Père fondateur trop méconnu des gens. Triste ironie que plusieurs personnes ignorent le rôle de John Adams, alors que trop considèrent Benjamin Franklin comme l'un des meilleurs présidents.

Évidemment, Franklin n'a jamais été président des États-Unis, d'où l'ironie :!:

Mise-à-jour: mon site de référence préféré en matière de cinéma, IMDb.com, m'a induit en erreur. Ce n'est pas six nominations que récolte John Adams aux prochains Emmy Awards, mais bien 23. En comparaison, Frères d'armes (Band of Borthers - 2001) en a récolté 20, alors que le record de tous les temps appartient à Racines (Roots - 1977), qui en avait obtenu 37.

]]> http://lifeofando.wordpress.com/?p=767 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:15:56 +0000 Ando http://lifeofando.wordpress.com/?p=767 First of all, I'd like to convey my apologies for the lack of frequency in posts this summer.  It is, after all, the summer andhas been filled withall those summery things that keep one from spending meaningful hours in front of their computer screen, racking their brain for the tiniest of anecdotes worthy of self-publication.  Plus I was out of commission for about a week with a pretty bad cold, which kept me from posting, anddoing much of anything else.  Even talking for more than a minute or two sapped me of the energy needed to maintain my will to live, so I was not up for much writing or thinking of things to write.  The one thing you can always do when ill is to watch TV.  But of course the week I get sick also happens to be the week our cable was turned off (which was by choice, not because we didn’t pay our bill).  So I had that going for me, which was nice.  But thanks to Netflix, my marvelous little tiny black Netflix box, andmy healthy DVD collection, there was no shortage of video diversions.  I watched a wide and varied array of shows and movies this summer, some which dovetail together quite nicely and some which had no business being viewed within a week of each other, much less the same afternoon.  I'll do a quick run down andreview of some of them now.  With clips at the end, because I know that's the sort of quality you've come to expect from the Life of Ando.

Dick Van Dyke Show - This show definitely belongs in the pantheon of great sitcoms.  Of course its dated.  Pretty much everything from the early sixties is, but that's part of its charm.  And besides that its genuinely funny more often than not.  Besides the talented fella for who the show is named, the rest of the cast is great also; Sally (Rose Marie) and Buddy (Maury Amsterdam), Rob Petrie's (Dick Van Dyke) wisecracking writing partners are never without a joke and his wife Laura played Mary Tyler Moore before thirty years of plastic surgery.  She's looks like a melting mannequin now, but she was very pretty back in the day.  And the show was very ahead of its time.  Sure, Rob and Laura still slept in separate beds a la Leave It To Beaver, but Laura wore pants.  Pants!  The show was written by Carl Reiner (best known for those of us under 40 as Saul from the Ocean's 11, 12, & 13 movies) and that's a big part of what makes it a good show.  About the only bad part of it is Rob and Laura's son Richie.  He is highly vocal andhighly annoying.  Fortunately, he's not in every episode.

There Will Be Blood - One of the most highly acclaimed movies of 2007 and one of the most interesting movies I'veever seen.  It's not exactly the type of movie that you really "enjoy", but the kind you appreciate and discuss and study.  It's the story of a man, an oil man, Daniel Plainview, who is driven by greed, power, and competition to the point of, if not insanity, then something close to it.  The story takes place in California over a period of years in the early 20th century.   Plainview is played by Daniel Day Lewis in what can only be described as a tour de force performance.  I'm not really sure what that means, but I see it in movie reviews a lot and think it applies here and it makes me sound smart and snooty.  Plainview isn't so much a character as he is a personification of an idea or representation of an insatiable thirst for domination.  He’s involved in a power struggle with the young preacher of the small town’s church, who is himself a charismatic and, perhaps, shady character.  But no one can see that except Plainview.  I disagree with a lot of reviewers who say that Plainview was basically soulless from the beginning.  I think that’s making it too simple.  While he certainly was no angel, he doesn’t appear to me to be completely without basic human qualities, such as compassion, obscured as they may be.  But an event in the film starts a more rapid decline into the baseness of his character, and the more successful he becomes the more he is willing to do and say whatever it takes to get his way.  A little one paragraph review doesn’t really do this movie justice and maybe I’ll work up a full blown review later.  If you’ve seen it, I’d love to talk about it with you via email.

John Adams – An HBO mini-series produced by Tom Hanks based on the biography by David McCullough and once again the pairing of Tom Hanks and HBO does a great job, as they did with Band of Brothers.  Paul Giamatti does a great job as the title character and Laura Linney is also very good as Abigail Adams.  Until very recently, Adams has probably been the least known and appreciated, at least among the general public, of the Founders when compared with Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin.  That’s some pretty heady company, yes, but Adams deserves an equal footing, if not as a president, then as the driving force in the Continental Congress for independence.  The mini-series does a great job of putting the spotlight on him and his contributions to the Revolutionary Era as well as the early Republic.  One minor complaint, sometimes the cinematography was a little weird.  At times it almost had that old Batman TV show from the sixties feel.  Weird, slanted angles and stuff like that.  It just didn’t seem to fit the material at times.  But that’s a pretty minor gripe.

1776 – Speaking of Mr. Adams, on or around the 4th of July I watched 1776, a cheeky, entertaining musical about the 2nd Continental Congress that doesn’t take itself too seriously, but seriously enough to still respect its subject.  Produced in 1972 and based on a stage play of the same name, I hadn’t even heard of this movie before a couple years ago.  John Adams is played by William Daniels, best known to my generation as Mr. Feeney from Boy Meets World and as the voice of Kit from Knight Rider.  That must look pretty cool on a resume:  Played John Adams and the voice of a super intelligent Trans Am.  And better still, portraying Thomas Jefferson is Ken Howard.  The White Shadow!  Which is fitting seeing as how the delegates from Delaware were named Salami Harrison and Benjamin Haywood.  Ok, that’s not true.  Despite its cheekiness, or maybe because of it, 1776 was pretty good.  The music was OK, but I found the scenes dealing with the actual history of the debate within congress to be fairly accurate and compelling.  But then I am a history nerd.  It was a little long. They could’ve cut out a song or two, but overall I enjoyed it.

Lost – For years everyone had been telling me, “You’ve gotta watch Lost, you’ve gotta watch Lost.”  And for years I put it off.  Not sure why exactly, maybe I didn’t want to buy into the hype.  But Jen andI finally decided to give it a try…andwe didn’t get much sleep for about a month.  Being that we’re four years behind we had a lot to catch up on and having more than one disc at home at once made for a dangerous proposition.  The show totally sucked us in and we spent many a late night glued to the set.  Lost is full of all the stuff that make these kind of techno soaps, a phrase I have just now coined, like 24 and Heroes, compelling.  Action, suspense, drama, twists, turns, double-crosses, and just enough romance to keep the ladies interested.  We still haven’t seen season four yet, so don’t give anything away in the comments.

Brick – I had already seen this movie once and thought it was so good and original I bought it.  It’s like a 1940’s noir(only not quite as convoluted), complete with the rapid fire, often cryptic dialog, only it’s set in a modern day high school.  The story is about an outsider trying to findout why his ex-girlfriend was murdered and he uncovers a mystery involving drugs and all the strata of the high school pecking order (to quote Grace from Ferris Bueller):  The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, bloods, waistoids, and dweebies.  No movie is quite as good on a second viewing, but this one held up nicely.  It’s not a feel good movie, but its one of the most original ideas I’d seen on film in a long time.

A&E Biography:  Thomas Jefferson – Continuing with my viewing of Founding Father related material, I watched this A&E Biography on Thomas Jefferson.  It was good enough I suppose, just not earth shattering.  It’s hard to get all the little nuances of Jefferson out in 45 minutes, so I guess they did their best.  I’m currently watching a Thomas Jefferson documentary by Ken Burns and it’s much better so far.

Carrier – This is a 10-hour documentary/reality series that aired on PBS earlier this year.  It follows a six month deployment of the air craft carrier USS Nimitz.  It was really an eye opening look on what everyday life is like on a ship in the US Navy.  It’s not like the movies.  Well, except for maybe the pilots.  But for the average sailor it is hard, hard work for long hours.  We all recognize and appreciate the sacrifices our armed services members make by putting their lives on the line, but this really showed the less heralded sacrifices of leaving behind your friends and family for six months or more.  The doc zeroed in on a few of the 5,000 strong crew and followed their story for the deployment, in addition to capturing how the ship functions.  There are people from every walk of life aboard, from those who are from a “Navy family” to those who were homeless before they signed up.  Some support the war in Iraq, some don’t, but they all do their duty.  Well worth the ten hours.

Across the Universe – I’ll just copy the review I wrote on Netflix:  The music is the only thing saving this too-long snore from being a two star picture. The characters are all petulant, self-important brats who think they're being artsy and world-changing when in actuality all they do is complain. There are some clever nods to sixties legends in some of the characters, the obvious two being Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin and a couple entertaining musical vignettes, especially Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite done by Eddie Izzard, but it wasn't enough to hold my interest for its two plus hours. Could've been something interesting and original, but badly missed the mark.

American Experience:  John & Abigail Adams – From PBS’ excellent American Experience show, this documentary was great.  After watching the HBO John Adams mini-series, it was reassuring to watch this more “scholarly” look at the man and not find much between the two by way of historical discrepancy.  Very well produced, and the recreations very well acted, this would be a good place to start to discover John Adams.

Cloverfield – Sort of a modern day recreation of a Godzilla movie, with a twist.  The whole movie is told through the lens of a video camera.  I mean the whole movie.  Every shot.  They pulled off the gimmick pretty well, though if you get car sick you may have to watch it in chunks...or you may blow chunks.  If a gun was placed to my head andI was forced to choose between very recent flicks in this same genre I might take I Am Legend.  Well, maybe not.  But maybe I woul—wait!  BLAM!!!

No Country For Old Men – I’m a big fan of the Cohen brothers.  I think they’re weird and quirky, but also serious and brilliant.  NCFOM has been hailed as a masterpiece, on par with Fargo, and while I don’t know about that it was good.  Javier Bardem’s villain has already become a classic, with his weird hair cut, limping gait, gravelly voice, andstrange implements of death and the other main actors, Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin are excellent as well (hard to believe that Josh Brolin was in Goonies).  It’s like There Will Be Blood, its awards season rival last year, in some ways, but certainly doesn’t belong in the same genre.  My next sentence may be a semi-spoiler, so skip it if you plan on seeing the movie and don’t want to know anything.  **Semi-spoiler** The ending was a little weird and confusing and I know rubbed some people the wrong way, but it does kinda make sense given the movie’s title.  Don’t know if I totally loved it, but I think I at least get it. **End Semi-spoiler**

So there you go.  A really long Wednesday Review.  With the summer coming to a close, hopefully I’ll be better about posting regular, shorter posts, rather than long and bloated catch-up posts.  What?  My posts are usually long and bloated?  Welp, I guess you’re stuck with them then.

And now the clips!

Dick Van Dyke Show - D.v.D. was a master of physical comedy.  Here's maybe one of the best examples.

There Will Be Blood- A trailer featuring tour de forcer Daniel Day Lewis.  The only thing missing is the milkshake scene.  I drink your milkshake!

John Adams - A trailer for the mini-series.

1776 - One of the better (and sillier) songs from the movie.

Lost- Ok, technically this is a clip from Lost, or a compilation of clips, but...well, you'll see.

Brick - Great fight scene and best movie line ever involving a thesaurus.

A & E Biography:  Thomas Jefferson - Not surprisingly  I couldn't find any clips of this on YouTube.  Instead here's maybe the oddesJefferson related video on the web.  A tribute montage featuring clips from 1776 (with the White Shadow as TJ) and using the Goo Goo Dolls' Iris.  Very odd.

Carrier - Here's the first six minutes of the first episode.  Hopefully it'll get you hooked.

Across the Universe - Rather than waste your time with a clip from this movie squandering a good Beatles song, I'll just leave the movie out of it and let you enjoy one of my faves from the Fab Four's formative years.

American Experience:  John & Abigail Adams- Couldn't find any clips of this one either.  Instead here's a less bizzare tribute to a Founding Father set to the theme from the HBO John Adams.

Cloverfield - I didn't want to give too much away on a clip with this one, so here's Exec. Producer talking about it instead.  Not quite as scary.

No Country For Old Men- One of the best scenes in the movie.  That is one creeeeeepy dude.  I think I soiled myself just watching that.