If you enjoyed the television show Everybody Loves Raymond or even if you did not watch the show and are just interested how cultures differ, check out the documentary Exporting Raymond now on DVD and Blu-ray. The movie follows Phil Rosenthal, the creator of Everybody Loves Raymond, as he works with TV producers in Russia to make a Russian version of the hit American television show that starred Ray Ramano.
Most everyone is familiar with television shows that have been remade for other countries, such as the American version of the British hit, The Office. While shows like The Office may morph into something a little different than the excellent original, it is interesting how different cultural concepts can change a television series when it travels across borders.
In Exporting Raymond, we see Rosenthal’s frustration as he tries to convince his new colleagues to stay true to his original vision of the television show while also watching them incorporate changes to make the show successful in their own country. For example, Rosenthal must debate why the characters should not be dressed in the latest fashions when they are lounging around the house, as the Russian costume designer argues to make the show more attractive to viewers.
There is not a lot of drama in the movie, as it is just about a TV show, but it is interesting to see the process of creating a new version of a successful television show in another country. One of the cool extras is that the DVD includes a couple American shows of Everybody Loves Raymond along with the Russian Everybody Loves Kostya version of the same stories. Like the half-hour television shows, we are happy to report that Exporting Raymond also has a happy ending and the two countries did not have to go to war to resolve their differences about the television show.
The two German-language films in this edition of “Movies You Might Have Missed” each feature an ex-con and a prostitute trying to escape to a better life while also touching on universal existential themes. The stories are very different, but both movies are outstanding.
The Austrian film, Revanche(2008) may not be full of as much action as one might expect from the name, which is French for “revenge,” but it will keep you glued to the screen. The movie is a meditation on themes often seen in film noir movies of loss, connections among humans, revenge, and redemption. Ex-con Alex, played by Johannes Krisch, comes up with a plan so he and his prostitute girlfriend Tamara, played by Irina Potapenko, may escape to better lives. But some bad luck leaves Alex and a police officer fighting their own demons as they struggle to continue living in the face of tragedy.
Revanche shows the existential struggles of every-day life — chores like chopping wood and going to the grocery story — while raising questions about who we can blame for our life’s misfortunes. The Austrian film, directed by Götz Spielmann, is in German with subtitles and was nominated for the 2009 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. It also is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. DVDTown has a longer review.
I recently watched Werner Herzog’s Stroszek (1977), about an ex-con, a prostitute, and an elderly man who leave their troubles in Germany to make a new life in Wisconsin. Well, that is the nutshell description but it does not capture this poetic existential tale of human existence. Even Herzog notes in the commentary that he does not fully understand the symbolism of a scene with a dancing chicken, but he claims it may be the best segment he has ever filmed. And that is from the guy who filmed the ending of Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972) with the monkeys.
Will you be blown away by Stroszek? Maybe not, but what I loved about the movie was that the next day after watching the movie, I could not stop thinking about it. Rotten Tomatoes gives it an amazing 100% rating from critics (and 92% audience rating). If you want to read more about the film, including some of the background behind the film and Bruno S. (who played Stroszek), check out Roger Ebert’s review. The official trailer tells too much of the story in a 1970s kind of way, so instead I am including a fan’s montage of scenes from the movie with Radiohead’s “No Suprises.”
{Missed Movies is our continuing series on good films you might have missed because they did not receive the recognition they deserved when released.}
Hot Coffee is a new HBO documentary about how corporations used a famous legal case to push for limits on their liability under the guise of “tort reform.” Although you think you know about the McDonald’s hot-coffee-spill case, you know less about what happened than you think.
In 1992, the 79-year-old Stella Liebeck went to McDonald’s with her grandson. After they made their purchase, the grandson pulled over the car to divide up the food and to allow Liebeck to add cream and sugar to her coffee. While removing the lid, Liebeck spilled the scalding coffee, which caused third degree burns and sent Liebeck to the hospital for eight days. After McDonald’s refused to help pay for medical expenses, Liebeck sued the company. The media reported about Liebeck winning more than two million dollars in punitive damages against McDonald’s, but that award was reduced to less than half a million dollars, and then the parties reached a settlement.
Hot Coffee tells a lot more about the case than you probably knew, because most of us know about the case from what we heard from corporations who used the case to get states to limit individual people from suing companies for damages. After you see the photo of the Liebeck’s third-degree burns and the know that hundreds of other people were burned by the coffee, you might be glad that she sued, leading McDonald’s to lower its coffee holding temperature. And, while you may still agree that limits on damages are a good thing, you will at least question the way corporate money influenced our perceptions of the issue and also bought politicians to support tort reform.
Overall, Hot Coffee is very informative and will open your eyes about an important issue. While it does take one side and you may disagree with some of its conclusions, its discussion of the legal cases will make you question some of your ideas. And that is always a good thing.
“Mad Movies” (or “Movies that Make Us Mad”) is a Chimesfreedom series about movies that expose information that we might not otherwise know about, revealing misinformation, lies, and hidden stories that make us angry.
On August 26, 1974, Charles Lindbergh died of cancer in Hawaii at the age of 72. Lindbergh was the first person to fly solo nonstop across the Atlantic Ocean, and he is also the subject of one of my favorite bio-pics, The Spirit of St. Louis.
Looking at the year he died, it is difficult for me to believe that Lindbergh’s life overlapped with my childhood, as he seems from another age. And 1974 is not that long ago. Similarly, his talented wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh lived until 2001.
The Spirit of St. Louis, directed by Billy Wilder, is the movie I saw in my childhood that established Jimmy Stewart as one of my favorite actors. It is a compelling movie about a unique type of heroism, and Jimmy Stewart must carry the movie. If he is not interesting, the movie fails, because a key segment of the movie is Stewart alone in the plane. But the film works and captures the drama, fear, and loneliness of that first solo transatlantic flight.
Lindbergh’s solo 33-1/2-hour trip, where he had not slept for 55 hours, was a kind of isolation that is rare in this modern world with crowded airplanes, cell phones, and Internet access to the world. Like Michael Collins’s trip around the dark side of the moon after separating from Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin in 1969, Lindbergh’s uncertain groundbreaking trip required a special resolve to face one’s fears alone.
And the movie The Spirit of St. Louis does an excellent job of showing that isolation, as well as the logistics and preparation involved.
After the Historic Flight
Although Lindbergh’s life continued past his flight and even past where he saw Apollo 11 land on the moon, the film rightfully ends with Lindbergh’s heroic triumphant flight in 1927. Unfortunately, the rest of Lindbergh’s life would not always be so happy.
In 1932, Lindbergh lost his son in an infamous kidnapping and murder. And as World War II approached, his statements about the war made him a fallen hero. He argued against U.S. involvement in the war, making controversial statements supportive of the Nazis. But after the war broke out, he served in the Pacific as a military observer and flew combat missions.
Each one of those stages are worthy of more discussion — or additional movies, because Lindbergh was a complex man. There is Forward From Here: Leaving Middle Age–and Other Unexpected Adventures, a book by Lindbergh’s daughter Reeve Lindbergh, where she recounts her discovery after her parents’ deaths that her father had three secret families in Europe. Using fiction to consider Lindbergh’s complexities, author Philip Roth wrote a novel, The Plot Against America, that imagines an alternate history with an anti-Semitic Lindbergh being elected president over Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
It is difficult not to ask questions about the choices that Lindbergh made in his life, where he resided on the edge between being a hero and a villain, between joy and tragedy, between order and chaos. We may revisit some of these topics in the future, but for today, on this anniversary of Lindbergh’s death, if you are interested in the heroic flight, the James Stewart movie is a great place to start.
I have been to the spot on Long Island from where Lindbergh began his historic flight. But unfortunately, it is a shopping mall.
Fortunately, Lindbergh’s body received a better burial. After he died, he was buried on the coast of Hawaii next to the ocean. The inscription on his tombstone includes a phrase from Psalm 139: “If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea.” Although the Psalm continues, the inscription on Lindbergh’s tombstone ends there, leaving the reader mid-sentence, wondering if you do that, then what? Just like Lindbergh’s life, the inscription leaves one with many questions.
Have you seen The Spirit of St. Louis? What did you think of it? Leave a comment.
On Chimesfreedom, we have often noted the power of movies, and one example of that occurred today when Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley walked out of an Arkansas court today as free men. Known as “the West Memphis 3,” the three were convicted in 1994 of killing three young boys. One of the three victims was mutilated, making some suspect a Satanic ritual killing, which cast suspicion on Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley, partly because Echols practiced Wicca. When they were convicted in 1993, Echols was eighteen and the other two were under eighteen. The conviction was based in large part on an inconsistent confession that police obtained from the borderline mentally retarded Misskelley after twelve hours of interrogation.
In 1996, directors Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky released the award-winning documentary Paradise Lost – The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills about the case. I remember seeing the film years ago and being intrigued by the disturbing case. The documentary raised serious questions about the guilt of the three youths convicted of the crime.
In 2000, a sequel Paradise Lost 2: Revelations raised further questions about the evidence and focused on continuing efforts to prove Echols and the other two were innocent. Watching the movies, one begins to suspect another person featured in the films may have been involved in the murders. The movies helped gain support for the West Memphis 3 from a number of celebrities, including Eddie Vedder and Natalie Maines (Dixie Chicks), who were at the court hearing in Arkansas this morning. A third movie on the case is scheduled for a January release.
Today, following the discovery that DNA evidence did not connect the three to the crime, prosecutors allowed the three to plead guilty and maintain their innocence. Through the plea deal, the three were released for their time already served in prison.
Are they innocent? It is difficult to tell with a plea deal like this, and there is some evidence against them while there are also serious questions about much of the evidence. Either way, though, they have each spent seventeen years in prison, with Echols having spent part of that time on death row when he initially was sentenced to death. In light of today’s news, it is quite fortunate that he was not executed. Hopefully, some justice was done in the case. But paradise cannot be regained, as their time in prison cannot be returned, and the lives of the murdered boys cannot be brought back.
The release of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley is due largely to the work of their attorneys and supporters, but it is fair to wonder whether or not they would have gained this attention and received the quality of legal representation they did without the notoriety that came from the films. Movies can make us happy, they can make us cry, they can comfort us, they can make us angry, they can inform us, and maybe they can correct injustices.