Day: April 15, 2002

Well written, but wrong

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

Chronicle copy chief Georgia Evdoxiadis weighs in this week with a commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. It is well written, as one would expect of our dear copy chief, but in the end is off the mark. She says Israel has gone too far in its attempt to cripple the terrorist forces in the West Bank. But I’m not particularly interested in that. Here’s where I take major exception:

It is increasingly obvious that the Israelis and Palestinians cannot be left alone in the Middle East. They have proved, like two violent children, that they cannot play nicely. It is time for the United States and the rest of the world to step in and take control of the situation.

If they are really immature, like children, what makes Evdoxiadis think that the United States can really get them to play nicely? They’ve been fighting over this turf for 52 years and billions of dollars in U.S. aid, diplomatic cajoling, etc. seems to have made little difference.

Evdoxiadis continues:

President Bush and the United States no longer have the luxury of non-involvement. The Middle East conflict will influence all future foreign policy issues, including any decisions countries might make about aiding an effort to depose a certain Persian Gulf dictator. The United States must lay down the law to Sharon in a way that makes potential consequences clear. If he still refuses to comply, our country should not hesitate to punish violence and human rights violations.

So the United States should punish Sharon’s violent efforts to punish Palestinian violent activities. Yeah, that should work just fine. Clearly, Sharon is quite convinced that what he’s doing in the West Bank will be effective, and doesn’t give much of a hoot about what Dubya thinks. If Israel wants true independence from Washington, it should wean itself off the teat of American foreign aid. Certainly, the United States should cut it off before Sharon even has a chance to ask. Israel doesn’t much care about U.S. opinion — they shouldn’t have a need for American dollars or equipment, either.

Evdoxiadis concludes:

Few can deny that the Jewish people deserve a place to live, but so do the Palestinians. There must be a way to reconcile the two. Now is the time for action if that goal is ever to be reached.

Yes, there just must be a way. But what way? Only the two sides can settle this conflict. U.S. threats aren’t going to help any, because when it comes down to it, both sides view this as a fight for survival. It’s only when they arrive at the point where they feel that coexistence is better than mutual destruction will things ever get better. And there’s not much the United States can do to help them reach that point, except act as an interlocutor in negotiations. To say “there must be a way” is to be naive about the situation, and to think that U.S. involvement will do anything more than harm American security is to be dangerously naive.

Two new stories

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

Unless you’re really interested in what’s going on at Columbia, you probably won’t find either of the two stories I wrote for the Chronicle this week very interesting. The first deals with a new cancer research lab that National Science Foundation money is paying for. The second is about the hiring of a new security director. Interestingly, in the cancer research lab story, I included some salary information about Science Institute head Zafra Lerman, who is the fourth highest-paid administrator at the college.

I figured that it never hurts to include information about how much administators are making when you have it. And I thought the information was useful to readers, since they might conclude that the woman was earning her pay by landing a $100,000 government grant. But our faculty adviser said it was irrelevant to the story and, anyway, there was no point in getting Lerman upset. Great news judgment.

For the security director story, I wanted to include some information about past Chronicle coverage of security issues during the departing director’s tenure and perhaps get some crime statistics at Columbia the last few years, but I just didn’t have the time to pull it together. I’m not sorry about it, though, as it may have been deemed irrelevant and impolite, making my efforts fruitless.

This all comes on the heels of the spiking of a story I wrote about a failed journalism department search for a new chair. The leading candidate, Cole Campbell, was turned down during a meeting of the department search committee and college administrators. This was surprising since only a couple of days before, the chair of the search committe spoke glowingly to me about Campbell’s chances.

I had been assigned to cover a speech Campbell made to the Journalism Department but chose instead to report that the presumably leading candidate was no longer in the running. I talked to people in the Journalism Department and in the School of Media Arts (to with the department belongs), but they wouldn’t comment other than to say that “the search is ongoing.”

I found out some information about Campbell’s rocky tenure during his time at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and included that in the story. So why was it spiked? Journalism Department folks made calls to the Chronicle, saying that since the Chronicle had not covered other failed or canceled searches in other departments, it was unfair to report this one. They suggested that a larger story about Columbia’s problems recruiting top administrators should be done instead. That’s a legitimate story to write, but just because the Chronicle hadn’t reported previous failed searches didn’t make the new story unfair.

It’s likely that no one on any of the other search committees was foolish enough to go on the record about the candidate’s chances, as did the woman in this case, who effusively praised Campbell and said he was “heads above” the rest of the field. So, the Chronicle’s journalistic judgment is compromised on a seemingly regular basis by its concern for maintaining good relations and the desire not to interrupt the flow of ad dollars. I suppose this shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering that it is not an independent newspaper, but rather is funded partly by the journalism department and uses a college class as the core of its writing staff each semester.

I do find it pretty amazing that the journalism department, of all places, would twist arms to make sure that a story that would reflect badly on them didn’t run. It just goes to show that, in the end, we all want journalists be tough on the other guy but go easy on us.

‘Apocalypse’ eventually

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

I finally saw “Apocalypse Now Redux” on video. Was hoping to see it on the big screen, but never got around to it. The two all-new scenes — Capt. Willard’s crew’s sexual encounter with three USO-touring Playboy models and a visit to a plantation owned by French colonists — are interesting, but “Apocalypse Now” was not substantially worse for their absence.

The whole notion of a “director’s cut” is tough to grapple with. In a necessarily collaborative medium such as filmmaking, directing necessarily involves compromises. There are commercial considerations and there are compromises with actors, set designers, costumers, uncooperative locales, etc. A fantastic amount of chaos was especially present during the making of “Apocalypse Now,” as documented in “Hearts of Dearkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse.”

So what do we make of things when 20 years later a director decides to reimagine the whole movie, re-editing it from scratch? Moreover, to what extent does this ownership really exist? The old movie is firmly implanted in the public’s mind. It was shown at festivals, awarded Oscars and has had a long life on home video and in film classes. To what extent is the movie really Coppola’s to tinker with? Though he would like “Redux” to be viewed as the “Apocalypse Now,” it’s not likely to happen.

That’s primarily because the two new scenes are not revelatory. The scene with the Playboy models is confused and tackles the subject of objectification of women in a rather clumsy way. After Capt. Willard trades two barrels of fuel for the women’s time, one of the models prattles on about how being a model is so difficult because no one expects her to have any independent ideas. Meanwhile, Lance paints her with war makeup and paws her relentlessly. A rather heavy-handed way to make the point, and lacking any of the frenzy and excitement of the USO show where the riled up crowd forces the Playboy models to escape via helicopter.

The French plantation scene is an interesting diversion, but instead of adding to enigmatic nature of the film detracts from it. There is a rather involved dinner-table conversation about France’s history in Vietnam as compared to America’s — how they differ, how they are similar. It’s worthwhile as a kind of educational aside, but it’s precisely because of its visceral power that “Apocalypse Now” has such an impact on viewers. The French plantation scene disrupts the overall psychedelic flow of the film which builds to a crescendo when Capt. Williard & Co. finally reach Kurtz’s compound.

The best addition is some more dialogue from Kurtz which better explains what the character is all about, why he went insane and how his insanity relates to war in general and the Vietnam War in particular. I don’t know why so many critics think Brando sleepwalks through the role. I think he’s really compelling as Kurtz, and gives him just the right air of arrogance bordering on pure evil.

Still, “Apocalypse Now Redux” is worth seeing. It will be interesting to see if the original or “Redux” is the one which lasts in cinematic history.

‘Bandits’ offers idiot logic

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

No, I’m not talking about the ending to this Bruce Willis–Billy Bob Thornton vehicle, I’m talking about the bandits’ moral justification for their actions.

Depositors’ money is federally insured up to $100,000, they argue. So, it’s only the government which took those hard-working folks’ money in the first place that will feel the pinch. And anyone who’s banking more than $100,000? Well, they obviously didn’t “work” for it in the first place, the bandits say. I wonder what Willis or Thornton would think if their future salaries were limited to $100,000 per film. But they’re just actors; they don’t deserve the blame — except for being in a mediocre movie.

It’s screenwriter Harley Peyton who deserves the lashing. OK, it’s true that the people who bank less than $100,000 get their money back from the federal government through the FDIC. But where does Peyton think the money to pay them back comes from — the banking fairy? Obviously, taxpayers make up the difference. And that is a net loss to society, because since money is fungible and the FDIC is just replacing the funds the bank robbers stole, the money is essentially going to the bank robbers themselves.

Sure, the costs of recouping the depositors is spread over all of society, so no one in particular feels the pinch. But it all adds up to the same amount of money in the end. It just feels a little better since it is the anonymous taxpaying public — rather than specific depositors at a particular bank — that is left holding the bag.

I’m usually not bothered by pictures which glorify criminals or take a morally neutral approach to their behavior. It allows us to see inside the criminal’s worldview — or at least the criminal’s worldview as imagined by Hollywood screenwriters — and, frankly, it’s more entertaining. But don’t take us for fools with some ridiculous nonsense about nobody really being hurt by bank robbers. Perhaps the fictional bandits in the movie believe that, but there’s no reason to let those lines in the screenplay go unchallenged and treat the audience like idiots.

I’ve heard this line repeated in several bank-robber movies now. I wonder if Hollywood screenwriters actually believe it, or know that their criminal characters are likely to rationalize their behavior that way. Talk about your moral hazards.

‘Riding in Cars’ with self-pity

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

Penny Marshall’s film, which I saw on video last weekend, has a few funny moments to recommend it, and the performances are generally first-rate. Steve Zahn is particularly good as the no-good boyfriend/husband who just can’t help being helpless. But at least he’s pretty straightforward about it. His character is poignant because he’s aware of, but still unwilling, to correct his central flaws as a human being.

The same cannot be said of Drew Barrymore‘s turn. She is, firstly, unconvincing as the older Beverly D’Onofrio. While she becomes a mother at 15, she honestly does not look like anything more than an older sister to the 20-year-old version of her son played by Adam García. Secondly, her character is simply unlikable. She is self-involved and refuses to take responsibility for her decisions, to the point of blaming her son for her situation.

She blames her parents, her boyfriend and ultimately her son for getting in the way of her dream of being a writer. And then she finally achieves that dream by spinning gold out of the pain she created for herself and selling the movie rights. I don’t begrudge anyone a living, and perhaps her memoir has layers of depth not presented in the movie, but it’s pretty revolting.

Now, I imagine that’s why Barrymore wanted to tackle the role. Accustomed to cutesy roles in such middling films as “Never Been Kissed” (directed by Penny‘s brother, Garry) and “Home Fries,” she was probably looking for something a little meatier. And there’s no doubt that the movie encompasses some serious subjects: teenage pregnancy, drug addiction, irresponsible parenting, etc.

The major problem is that Marshall and Barrymore want to bring in the emotionally disturbing material for gravitas but don’t want to dwell on it too long before getting to the next heartwarming moment of misbegotten motherhood. While I don’t think that the humor should have been left out entirely, it would have been more effective if the overall tone of the movie had been more serious. Beverly D’Onofrio’s character is not lovable or just one more woman struggling to make it — she made serious mistakes that made her life and, more importantly, her son’s life incredibly difficult. That is tragic and it should be treated with the requisite seriousness.

That D’Onofrio and her son seemed to have made it through is more of a miracle than anything else. In the end, the repugnance of D’Onofrio’s character was not redeemed by anything else the film had to offer.

He’s not a sociologist, he’s a conservative!

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

The Stris (a.k.a. “Mom”) told me on Friday morning that a new book was forcing her to reconsider her views on marriage. Apparently, the eminent sociologist William Julius Wilson had written a new book discussing the disastrous effects of single-parent families in the African-American community.

Before, The Stris said, she hadn’t been particularly partial to marriage, and didn’t really have a view either way on whether it had much to do with the many social problems which plague African-Americans, including higher rates of unemployment and imprisonment and lower rates of high school and college completion.

I must admit that while I don’t pretend to know all the answers to the problems that plague blacks in America, single-parent families certainly don’t seem to help the matter much. Raising a child in a stable, two-parent home seems more important to me, personally, than the parents being “married,” per se. After all, not all parents can make a marriage work, especially in cases where one partner is abusive or what-have-you.

But what occurs in the black community — where half of children are born out of wedlock — is that too often marriage is not even considered an option. Or too many of the men in the community are, frankly, unsuitable husbands. Anyhow, it’s a complex problem which merits open-minded discussion, as do all matters of public importance.

Later, though, The Stris told me that William Julius Wilson hadn’t written this new book at all. She hadn’t read it, you see, but only heard about it. It turns out that conservative scholar James Q. Wilson had written the new book, “The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families.”

That changed everything as far as she was concerned. William Julius Wilson was a respected sociologist, known for such probing works as “When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor,” which, while it considers cultural factors, puts most of the blame for inner-city rot on economic factors. Perhaps it’s no surprise that Wilson calls for a major government jobs program in the book.

In contrast, J.Q. Wilson explicitly rejects much of what W.J. Wilson’s analysis of the problems of inner cities. While admitting that one reason why marriage among blacks has dropped is the financial disincentives provided by welfare benefits, he argues that a larger factor is cultural, over and against W.J. Wilson’s economic arguments. He wrote in a winter 2002 City Journal essay, “Why We Don’t Marry“:

At least for blacks, one well-known explanation has been offered: men did not marry because there were no jobs for them in the big cities. As manufacturing employment sharply declined in the central cities, William Julius Wilson has argued, blacks were unable to move to the suburbs as fast as the jobs. The unemployed males left behind are not very attractive as prospective husbands to the women they know, and so more and more black women do without marriage.

The argument has not withstood scholarly criticism. First, Mexican Americans, especially illegal immigrants, live in the central city also, but the absence of good jobs has not mattered, even though many Mexicans are poorer than blacks, speak English badly, and if undocumented cannot get good jobs. Nevertheless, the rate of out-of-wedlock births is much lower among these immigrants than it is among African Americans, as W.J. Wilson acknowledges.

Second, Christopher Jencks has shown that there has been as sharp a decline in marriage among employed black men as among unemployed ones, and that the supply of employed blacks is large enough to provide husbands for almost all unmarried black mothers. For these people, as Jencks concludes, “marriage must … have been losing its charms for non-economic reasons.”

Of course, J.Q. Wilson’s larger point is that the reason why out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed among blacks (and among whites too, though not to the same levels) is that the cultural norms have changed in such a way that marriage is no longer a religious or social obligation but a personal choice. Wilson blames the Enlightenment for this development, and apparently now sees it as essentially irreversible except by a profound change in cultural attitudes.

But that was not the case four years ago when he advocated a “GI Bill for moms,” which would have the federal government giving education credits to women in exchange for their staying home with children. Apparently, not only is being unwed a crisis — being a working mother is too. This is the danger of cultural conservatism — it is a short leap from deciding what’s best to people to using government as a social engineer.

And I certainly don’t agree with J.Q. Wilson’s fierce opposition to drug legalization or his alarmist opposition to cloning. Still, I think there’s something to be said for the argument that marriage is devalued.

I don’t think it’s right for everyone at all times, but it’s useful as a social default — kind of like the Windows settings that come pre-set on your desktop the first time you power up your new computer. It doesn’t mean you can’t change things around, but for most people raising children, marriage probably works better than not being married. (Which, by the way, makes me wonder why so many conservatives are opposed to gay marriage. But that’s another issue.)

So I’ve got problems with both Wilsons, but I think it’s funny that The Stris was so open-minded about changing her position when she thought it was the liberal sociologist W.J. Wilson who wrote the book, and so off-put when she discovered it was conservative scholar J.Q. Wilson. I suppose we all filter out opinions and sources for information in this way. I read Reason religiously, but only read the National Review or The New Republic occasionally. And, certainly, I give more credit to the opinions of self-described libertarians than to liberals or conservatives.

But in the end, I like to think that I’m open to a viewpoint no matter it’s source. I guess The Stris is not. But she’s honest about it — you’ve got to give her credit for that much.