Archive for November 12, 2007

A board member of the NH Libertarian Party writes an open letter to Ron Paul

I am personally acquainted with this person, as are my parents. That’s how I found this.

Most of the letter is of interest chiefly to Libertarians, but one part of it struck me as worth repeating:

On the topic of the Constitutionality of abortion rights, I could cite a right to privacy, which I do believe in, as a Libertarian. I think the government needs to stay out of our homes, our bedrooms, and our doctor’s visits. Yet, you support government violating the most sacred of trusts, the most intimate of issues. One that should remain between a woman, her doctor, her partner and her conscience.

If privacy isn’t enough, the Constitution contains a second support of a woman’s right to choose. You see, the thirteenth amendment of our great Constitution is the amendment against slavery. In 1865 our Congress ratified an amendment that said that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

If a woman has not consented to sex, the possible result of that rape is, simply put, enslavement. However, a woman who consents to sex yet not to pregnancy, is still enslaved as long as she is involuntary bound to harbouring the body and developing life of something she did not consent to creating in the first place.

Her other objections are well-put and also may be of interest to more Left-leaning readers.  You can read the full letter here.

Monday Movie Review: The Taking of Pelham One Two Three

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974) 10/10
A gang of criminals led by “Mr. Blue” (Robert Shaw) kidnap a New York City subway car and hold the passengers hostage for a million dollars. Transit police Lieutenant Garber (Walter Matthau) negotiates for time while trying to discern their plan.

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is probably best known today as the source for using color-coded pseudonyms during a heist, lifted by Tarantino for Reservoir Dogs. Which is a shame; the movie should be known for its own merits.

One way to describe Pelham 123 is to tell you what’s not in it. No one on the subway car is related to, or in a relationship with, anyone working in the transit office or for the police. None of the hostages are Lt. Garber’s mother, sister, or childhood sweetheart. There are no coincidences in the plotting or characterization at all. No one in the movie looks like they’re in a movie; no one has perfect features, or exquisite skin tone, or flawless makeup. There’s no romance. But it’s not a “guy” movie, either; the hostages are as likely to be female as male, and there are an unusual number of female roles for a heist movie.

All of which makes it kind of hard to describe. Some movies are great because they have a sweeping theme, or are startling or innovative, or are romantic, or incredibly witty. But a handful of movies are great because they’re just great movies. They tell interesting stories with a rich array of embellishments. You walk away from them thinking not about love or truth or family or death, but about storytelling, and authenticity. The Man Who Would Be King is such a movie, a great yarn, you might say. So is Treasure of the Sierra Madre. And so is The Taking of Pelham One Two Three.

The movie is populated with a terrific collection of character actors; only Shaw and Matthau are anything like stars, and even they are not of the “star” mold. The other criminals are Martin Balsam, Hector Elizondo, and Earl Hindman. On the transit side are Jerry Stiller and James Broderick (among others). Julius Harris is a cop, Lee Wallace as the mayor is a dead ringer for Ed Koch three years before the real Koch became mayor. But pulling out names sort of defeats the purpose. What happens is a cumulative effect; that you’re looking at real people who are in and around the New York City subways circa 1974. That effect is never diminished, never movied-up. The location footage is grimy and run-down. Everything feels very real, in a way that works for both comedy and drama.

Of course, if you’re going to blend comedy and drama, you want Matthau, who can turn the whole thing back and forth between the extremes with a twist of the wrist and a shift of eyebrows. There’s a lot of laughs, but this is mostly straight-ahead thriller. You never really know what the kidnappers are going to do next, or why, but you’re never confused as they reveal their plan, point by point. The cops are confused, but only exactly as much as the audience.

That’s a tough line to walk. In lesser movies, you either catch onto a plot before the good guys and are stuck feeling like your heroes are stupid, or you never catch on because the whole thing is too obtuse. Here the crooks are just a teeny bit smarter than the cops can follow, but not crazy chessmaster smart.

In sum, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is the kind of smart crime story that is all too rare. Definitely catch it the next time it comes around on TCM.