Our book selection for May-June is Truth and Duty; The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power, by Mary Mapes. Our next meeting is on June 24. Contact justbooksbemidji@gmail.com for details.
Mapes was a Peabody Award-winning CBS News producer who broke the Bush National Guard and Abu Ghraib stories and was subsequently fired.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
There Will Be Blood
Most of the members of JUST Books had seen this movie before the club met on Thursday. They said I should see it, so I borrowed a copy and watched it last night. I can't remember ever comparing a book and a movie without being terribly disappointed in the movie. My reaction to There Will Be Blood seems like an exaggeration of that trend.
It's a good movie. It's dark and grim. The music is eerie and sets your nerves on edge. The characters are unlovable; you can't begin to sympathize with them. I could hardly wait for it to finish. What seems to be its only redeeming quality is the fact that it may suck people into reading Oil! - just like a pool shark sucks in his marks. But, I think that's enough. Oil! is a good book. Oh, I should mention that some of the actors did a good job of portraying their gruesome characters.
The movie and the book are so different, I'm not sure whether someone who really likes the movie would like the book, and vice versa. I belong to the latter group. I think Hollywood revealed its dark, twisted, emotionally sick nature in this movie, for sure.
Rather than trying to identify how the movie differs from the book, I think it's easier to list their similarities:
1. The book is about a boy whose father is an oilman. The movie is about an oilman who has a son.
2. The book and the movie take place in California during the early 20th Century.
3. The father is surprised and/or disappointed in his son's interests and/or choices.
Considering all the people who were involved in the California oil rush of that period, Hollywood could have picked a totally different family to portray, that just happened to share a couple superficial similarities with the family in the book. Or, maybe Upton Sinclair (the author of Oil!) was just a sympathetic person who couldn't force himself to focus on the less savory aspects of an individual's nature. Hollywood certainly has no such sensitivity.
I think Sinclair would be pleased that interest in his novel has been revived. I think he would be very disappointed that his message is as relevant and important, today, as it was in 1926. (If his dreams of social reform had come true, contemporary society would be much different.) I don't think he would be a bit surprised that his message was totally omitted from the film - not even a hint of it was left in!
It's a good movie. It's dark and grim. The music is eerie and sets your nerves on edge. The characters are unlovable; you can't begin to sympathize with them. I could hardly wait for it to finish. What seems to be its only redeeming quality is the fact that it may suck people into reading Oil! - just like a pool shark sucks in his marks. But, I think that's enough. Oil! is a good book. Oh, I should mention that some of the actors did a good job of portraying their gruesome characters.
The movie and the book are so different, I'm not sure whether someone who really likes the movie would like the book, and vice versa. I belong to the latter group. I think Hollywood revealed its dark, twisted, emotionally sick nature in this movie, for sure.
Rather than trying to identify how the movie differs from the book, I think it's easier to list their similarities:
1. The book is about a boy whose father is an oilman. The movie is about an oilman who has a son.
2. The book and the movie take place in California during the early 20th Century.
3. The father is surprised and/or disappointed in his son's interests and/or choices.
Considering all the people who were involved in the California oil rush of that period, Hollywood could have picked a totally different family to portray, that just happened to share a couple superficial similarities with the family in the book. Or, maybe Upton Sinclair (the author of Oil!) was just a sympathetic person who couldn't force himself to focus on the less savory aspects of an individual's nature. Hollywood certainly has no such sensitivity.
I think Sinclair would be pleased that interest in his novel has been revived. I think he would be very disappointed that his message is as relevant and important, today, as it was in 1926. (If his dreams of social reform had come true, contemporary society would be much different.) I don't think he would be a bit surprised that his message was totally omitted from the film - not even a hint of it was left in!
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Oil! by Upton Sinclair
I feel like I owe Hollywood for this one. If the movie "There Will Be Blood" hadn't been made, I may not have been introduced to this remarkable novel.
Set in Southern California in the late 1910's and early 1920's, Sinclair uses a young idealist, Bunny, who grows up in a household consumed by 'new' oil money as a vehicle to examine two strata in society: working class socialists and upper class capitalists. People in both groups seem remarkably rational and human. I didn't get the feeling that there were any real heroes or villains in the story.
Familiar plot: One day, after I'd been reading this book for a while, I sat down to an episode of the sit-com "Dharma and Greg." Same plot! The TV show is funnier, but way less compelling. In Oil!, Sinclair actually mentions the story of Siddhartha (Buddha), which may well have been his model, brought up to date.
I found this book to illustrate the dilemma of middle class liberals. We enjoy a comfortable life, which sometimes creates conflicts with our ideals. Even those of us who live modestly by American standards have incomes in the top 5%, worldwide. American consumers shop for price, a practice that has sent most manufacturing jobs to Asia where environmental and labor restrictions are minimal or non-existent (but out of sight). We are the problem. We know it. Like Bunny, we protest, we contribute to just causes, but we are reluctant to take steps that will land us in jail or in a ghetto.
Like Bunny, we are distracted by Hollywood. He indulged in a love affair with a movie star. We indulge in movies and TV. I think Sinclair said something about the radio being one-way communication by which the listener is fed propaganda and is sedated. Sometimes I seriously wonder if TV has prevented a revolution in this country. I'll bet the Capitalists chuckle when they see news footage of people looting stores during riots and hauling away television sets! Rioters dousing their own flames!
It really seems hard to believe that this book was written in 1926, and not 80 years later. It seems like Oil! sets today's issues and concerns in another place and time, that we might observe them more objectively. The fighting between the Socialists and the Communists reflects the lack of cooperation among third parties, today. Business had such complete control over government in the early 20th Century that we have to believe our suspicions are well-founded that the situation remains unchanged. The western propaganda about conditions in Russia after the Bolshevik revolution (and before Stalin) mirrors that of conditions in contemporary Cuba and Venezuela. The reader is left with the impression that nothing has really changed in this country.
I especially enjoyed Sinclair's subtle sense of humor. It's a vital element in such an examination of our deep social problems. I've been trying to look for humor in today's presidential election campaigns. Indeed, that may be their only redeeming social value!
Set in Southern California in the late 1910's and early 1920's, Sinclair uses a young idealist, Bunny, who grows up in a household consumed by 'new' oil money as a vehicle to examine two strata in society: working class socialists and upper class capitalists. People in both groups seem remarkably rational and human. I didn't get the feeling that there were any real heroes or villains in the story.
Familiar plot: One day, after I'd been reading this book for a while, I sat down to an episode of the sit-com "Dharma and Greg." Same plot! The TV show is funnier, but way less compelling. In Oil!, Sinclair actually mentions the story of Siddhartha (Buddha), which may well have been his model, brought up to date.
I found this book to illustrate the dilemma of middle class liberals. We enjoy a comfortable life, which sometimes creates conflicts with our ideals. Even those of us who live modestly by American standards have incomes in the top 5%, worldwide. American consumers shop for price, a practice that has sent most manufacturing jobs to Asia where environmental and labor restrictions are minimal or non-existent (but out of sight). We are the problem. We know it. Like Bunny, we protest, we contribute to just causes, but we are reluctant to take steps that will land us in jail or in a ghetto.
Like Bunny, we are distracted by Hollywood. He indulged in a love affair with a movie star. We indulge in movies and TV. I think Sinclair said something about the radio being one-way communication by which the listener is fed propaganda and is sedated. Sometimes I seriously wonder if TV has prevented a revolution in this country. I'll bet the Capitalists chuckle when they see news footage of people looting stores during riots and hauling away television sets! Rioters dousing their own flames!
It really seems hard to believe that this book was written in 1926, and not 80 years later. It seems like Oil! sets today's issues and concerns in another place and time, that we might observe them more objectively. The fighting between the Socialists and the Communists reflects the lack of cooperation among third parties, today. Business had such complete control over government in the early 20th Century that we have to believe our suspicions are well-founded that the situation remains unchanged. The western propaganda about conditions in Russia after the Bolshevik revolution (and before Stalin) mirrors that of conditions in contemporary Cuba and Venezuela. The reader is left with the impression that nothing has really changed in this country.
I especially enjoyed Sinclair's subtle sense of humor. It's a vital element in such an examination of our deep social problems. I've been trying to look for humor in today's presidential election campaigns. Indeed, that may be their only redeeming social value!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)