Our Favorite Ford Drives Home

We in Chuckonia are saddened tonight at the news of the death of President Gerald Ford. He was a good man and a true statesman, and made a fine impact in his little time in the White House. He once stated before Congress and the American people, "I want to be a good President. But I need your help." Few elected leaders would be so openly humble. He was not an abuser of rhetoric, but rather one of the people and spoke to them as such. He was of the people and worked for the people. That is to be honored. Though many condemned him for pardoning President Nixon, he did it as a matter of principle to help the post-Watergate healing. He was not a slave to political favors and did things for the benefit of the country instead of "playing the game." Among the many great Presidents we have had throughout history, President Ford is especially distinctive, as was a great man who was also a good President. We hope that he, now more than ever, will serve as an example to those who enter politics - a field often to referred to by Ford as a "noble profession." Farewell President Ford. We will truly miss you.

The Unexplainable Political Fears of TV and Movies

We in Chuckonia want to pose an interesting scenario to our readers and patriots.
After sleeping in on this lovely Saturday morning, we awoke to find one of our favorite films, Back to the Future, airing on USA Network. While watching the last half of the movie, it came to an important scene in which Marty McFly attempts to warn Doc Brown of the fact that he will be brutally shot to death in 1985. As Doc does not want to compromise the stability of the space-time continuum by knowing too much about the future, he refuses to listen to his concerned friend. Still planning to warn Doc somehow, Marty goes to Lou's Cafe nearby and sits down to write a letter to be opened in 1985. Knowing the film as we do (basically being able to quote it) we noticed something missing in the letter written by Marty. In the original film, and every televised incarnation since its 1985 release, the letter as written and read by Marty has gone like this: "Dear Doctor Brown, On the night I go back in time, you will be shot by terrorists. Please take whatever precautions are necessary to prevent this terrible disaster. Your friend, Marty." However, in today's broadcast of the film by USA Network, the letter-writing scene was edited, so that when Marty read the letter back to himself, it read thusly, "Dear Doctor Brown, On the night I go back in time, you will be shot. Please take whatever precautions are necessary to prevent this terrible disaster. Your friend, Marty." They did not let him say the words "by terrorists." In fact, when the camera moves down to actually show the letter, the words "by terrorists" are erased from the page (didn't know a network could edit that much). This was an interesting twist to us, as it goes beyond editing for adult content or time but edits for political implication. In the film, the terrorists were Libyans from whom Doc Brown obtained plutonium for his time machine. While Libya's relations with the U.S. and the rest of the world have changed somewhat over the years, they are far from holding "Favored Nation Status." In our post-9/11 world, have we decided that "terrorist" is a profane expression, a faux pas, and a dirty word? Have we gotten to the point that we want to avoid declaring any old enemies as terrorists, even in 1980s science-fiction movies? Are we worried about kids seeing something on television that makes them turn to a parent and ask "What's a terrorist?" More importantly, are we worried that socially and politically ignorant parents would find a hard time explaining it? Why should such a move be made over 20 years after a Cold War-era fiction film was released? If you can answer these questions, then you're smarter than we are. We welcome your input on it. And until next time, as Doc Brown would say, "See you in the future."

Bond Fans, "Lynd" Us Your Ears

Being the Bond fans we are here in Chuckonia, we feel it necessary to break the long silence and finally express our true thoughts and feelings on the newest James Bond film, Casino Royale. To be frank, this is (in a way) NOT the newest James Bond film. Rather, it is a new Bond film series which is beginning. The man played by Daniel Craig is called James Bond and his MI6 service number is 007 and his parents are dead and he does have a boss called "M" and he bears many personality characteristics common to another film character called James Bond, but he is not the same character who was portrayed by Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan. Therefore, we find it confusing for less knowledgeable fans and unfair to die-hard loyalists to compare him to that other character. Granted, it was getting a little hard to believe that a man of at least 80 years of age (Do the math. If Bond was a naval Commander in WWII, he'd have to have been born in or before 1927.) could bungee jump, scuba dive, have sex multiple times in a day, and generally kick ass like the five Bonds before Craig, but it is also hard to let go of the guy. James Bond was like Batman - a superhero with no actual superpowers. That's what makes Bond the perfect hero - he is human. However, he was far more human in the novels written by Ian Fleming (we have read some of them, and did a term paper on Fleming himself) than the silver screen made him in the 1960s. When Eon Productions decided to, basically, reinvent Bond that's what they shot for - the deeper level of flawed, emotional humanity. On film (before Craig) Bond was objective and always primarily focused on the mission, but he cared about people at the same time. In print, Bond was much colder and almost a robot for England. He sometimes regretted his work and the dark life it forced him to lead. This may be due, in part, to the lack of worldwide severity found in some of his literary missions. Even he didn't find them so immensely important all the time. On film, Bond's job had to be kept simple. To do this, many of his missions started out with a global problem that heightened the suspense early on (perfect example, You Only Live Twice) or a simpler mission turned into a much bigger calamity to make for intriguing plot development (perfect example, Octopussy). Now, we find the film-makers returning to the novels and giving Bond every ounce of his literary humanity. But again, they can do that because they have created a second James Bond; not because Daniel Craig and the writers have changed the old James Bond.
This leads us to an actual assessment of the film. Having read Casino Royale (a great book, by the way), we first commend the Bond folks for recreated the story very faithfully. They added a lot of stuff (the book itself wouldn't make for a 2-hour movie) but took practically nothing away. Some of the more powerful scenes were taken straight from the pages of the 1953 masterpiece, particularly the scene in which Bond is suffering torture at the hands of Le Chiffre. One scene that I wish were more exact was the one in which Felix Leiter bailed Bond out of a jam to keep him in the card game. The film makes it (and Felix's whole involvement) rather lackluster compared to the book, or even the original Bond films. The novel truly shows Felix to be the hero that he is and would later be as his friendship with Bond grew. Speaking of Felix, it was an interesting move to use an African-American actor for the role. His literary counterpart was a tall, pale Texan with a true Southern flare. However, Jeffrey Wright's limited-time performance was of high quality. As for Vesper Lynd, the writing, acting, and environment for the character came together beautifully. We noticed that in the film, she seems less depressed about her betrayal but was still very distraught. Le Chiffre, also, was very well-interpreted and was almost pitiable in his fear of his investors. We love what they did with "M." It was a breath of fresh air to see her so devoted to purpose and as less of a bureaucrat as during the Brosnan years. As much as we love Judi Dench, she is probably the most deceptive component of this new Bond films series. She is playing the same character as in the original series but is very much a different character. The "M" she portrayed before would never have said some of the things she said in Casino Royale. Perhaps this new persona will allow for some fun developments of the character in films to come. We missed "Q" and Moneypenny but realize that by a strict interpretation of the book, "Q" would not be included anyway. All-in-all this is a good character-focused film which Fleming would probably be pleased with. It can never, however, replace the original Bond in our hearts. It will find a new place and be the "second Bond." We give it two thumbs up, but will keep the Daniel Craig films in a distinct separate stack from our other Bond films, as they are films of a different series. We look forward to seeing further installments in this new Bond series. In the meantime, we recommend that you read Casino Royale and the other 007 novels, if you have not already. Literacy is very important in the Chuckonian Federation. And, what better way to experience the joy of reading than with a character you already know? So, watch, read, and enjoy.
And thanks for reading this. For now, that's the view from Chuckonia...