Lean on Me

I must admit to knowing little about the daily operations of American schools, I've seen various films and read books presenting snapshots, but I remain largely unfamiliar with concrete details.

Thus when focused on a school like Eastside High as depicted in John G. Avildsen's Lean On Me, at first I'm tempted to trust to exaggeration through interests in presenting irate shock.

But perhaps my lack of knowledge is tending to obscure manifest realism, and there are indeed schools comparable to this one down South, even if they're tough for Canadians to envision, I could never imagine things getting that out of hand.

The school's discipline has deteriorated so profoundly that extreme measures are suddenly called for, as a new principal is effectively hired with the hopes of increasing its state average (Morgan Freeman as Principal Joe Clark).

If its state average does not improve the state itself will take objective control, and personal flair and individual reckoning may fade into bureaucratic oblivion. 

Naturally their personal flair has lacked efficient recourse to strength in recent decades, and manifold undesirable elements have arisen to challenge rational rule.

It can be heartbreakingly tragic when genuinely concerned individuals are rashly ignored, and a lack of upheld respect for authority leads to wild insecure degeneration.

Mr. Clark's methods aren't widely appreciated and he's honestly difficult to deal with, as he takes absolute control and refuses to listen to anyone else's opinion.

He fights the unruly head on and makes great strides in encouraging learning, unconcerned with image or friendship or reputation he authoritatively expresses himself.

Within the extremist example the case is made for sharp edged discipline, if things degrade to such a level a hug and a bandaid may not solve things.

The question is what happens the next year after the situation has evolved, and newfound pride in educational advancement establishes roots within the school?

Then does the headstrong leader gracefully adapt to the less volatile circumstances, and once again encourage democracy amongst students and staff alike?

If so, the unfortunate necessary embrace of hard-hearted methods finds justification, if such a situation existed (massive drug dealing etc., not something as harmless as gender identity), and couldn't be remedied otherwise.

If the leader doesn't relax power or refuses to acknowledge his fellow staff, then disconsolate dismal camaraderie may lead to the loss of highly valued personnel. 

The next school year isn't the focus so the overarching jury provides no verdict.

However the school resists being taken over.

And becomes a safe place to learn again. 

The Man in the Iron Mask

A vile king sits on the throne of France who cares not for his people's well-being, throwing lavish parties while they struggle and starve even feeding them rotten food refused by the army.

His knowledgable aids freely advise him to modestly listen to their desperate pleas, but in classic despotic fashion he hears nothing and does little more.

As fate would have it, much more liberally so, he has a twin brother locked-down in prison, his face hidden behind an iron mask, his identity shattered his will forlorn.

When it becomes clear that the King won't budge even after wise counsel loyally implores him, the Three Musketeers bust the duplicate out and begin to train him in royal affairs.

But will the switch go smoothly not the easiest thing to hoodwink aristocrats, getting to the King even more treacherous even if he unsuspectingly trusts them?

They almost make it, it almost works but pesky D'Artagnan (Gabriel Byrne) foils the plot.

Having a scandalous secret of his own.

To zealously lay threadbear.

The Man in the Iron Mask makes starkly plain the inherent dangers in relying on monarchy, even if the second Louis the 14th (Leonardo DiCaprio) is just and considerate, it doesn't mean his successor wasn't wicked and cruel.

Democracy levels the playing field thereby eliminating despotic traits, at times even revelling in ebullient generosity (many thanks to Trudeau's Liberals), is it not preferable to hinder corrupt autocrats?

I suppose the opportunity to play a musketeer and frequent lavish palaces etc., is far too tempting to flippantly ignore, but you wonder how so many first rate actors found their way into this brash debacle (remembering Swann in Love). 

It certainly has popular appeal and likely did well at the box office, but even the sword-fights aren't that entertaining, ah well, what do you when they offer millions?

You have to be much more clever in a democracy which is why they often aren't quite so brutish, as the knavish premier of ye olde New Brunswick has swiftly discovered in recent weeks.

Perhaps the Conservative Party of New Brunswick's bitter criticism of their autocratic leader, will serve as an example for the rest of the county should other provinces get out of hand.

So many variables to abruptly consider should you seek political leadership.

Why not study William Lyon Mackenzie King?

He certainly kept at it for awhile.

The Great Dictator

I find the introduction of disclaimers (although at times necessary) provides an unfortunate layer of stress to an otherwise upbeat festivity, but nevertheless, please note that when I write about abounding mesmerizing life, I'm doing so to celebrate the fleeting natural world and critique flagitious warmongers. As humans encroach further and further into natural realms they become more and more precious, as does celebrating their vivid wonders with elastic readiness and proactive verve. Simultaneously, as a new generation far removed from the horrors of World War II ignorantly and childishly plays with the world like the Dictator of Tomania (Charlie Chaplin), with no regard for human frailty, the celebration of life becomes inclusively paramount especially concerning the bombarded Ukraine.  I'm not trying to secretly make an argument that is pro-life in regards to abortion, since I believe it is a woman's right to choose and that men have no say in the unfortunate scheme of things. The argument laid-out in (the now unfortunately titled) Freakonomics makes a strong practical case for the sociocultural benefits of permitting abortion within reason, and the ways in which poverty and starvation significantly decrease in jurisdictions where it's allowed.

But it's still an untoward topic when lauding the return of ebullient spring, as the animals wake up from their slumbers and venture forth to see the world again.

I sometimes wonder what their dreams are like while they efficiently sleep throughout the winter, and if they're indeed more inclined to hibernate than they are to reemerge.

There's even an animal dream sequence in Jean-Jacques Annaud's sympathetic The Bear, the idea perhaps deserving of longer treatment within feature length animated films.

It's wonderful to see different life forms the shapes and sizes the species and families, each one of them a thoughtful miracle effervescently composing holistic community.

Although there are many beautiful things various people have crafted throughout the centuries, they'll never be more radiant than a dragonfly, or more worthy of respect than a resilient wombat (as others have noted).

But the cultivation of brilliance at times leads to the dismissal of other life forms, since they struggle with advanced calculus and have never constructed an ornate palace.

As Chaplin relates in The Great Dictator's climax as he presents his bold attempt to end World War II, while intelligence is indeed a remarkable gift, it still shouldn't lead to widespread cynicism. 

I always thought it was the duty of the naturally gifted to nurture the flock and wholeheartedly care for them, notably taking into consideration the lessons they've learned through practical experience. 

It wasn't just to sit in an empty room and listen to fawning praise lacking constructive nerve.

Lost in self-obsessed blunder. 

Lacking animate resonant vitality.

6 Underground

A self-made billionaire well-versed in hardboiled expression embraces volatile altruism after having been reanimated (Ryan Reynolds as One).

Having given up on the political process (not me), and assembled an eclectic mulitdimensional team, he proceeds to take on a cruel haughty despot, who bombs schools and gasses his own people.

His brother's the exact opposite and would rule by upstanding means, if he wasn't locked down in a lavish penthouse under cloistered lock and key.

The mission: take out the despot's generals to destabilize the military, then free the forlorn bro from ostentatious disenchantment. Afterwards head to the nation in question to launch a coup and inaugurate political reform. Try not to make friends along the way. And engage in optic dissimilitude.

The team is ready and willing to achieve herculean ascension.

It's full-on cloak and dagger.

With sensationalist logistics.

I don't mean to critique their ambition nor mitigate their heroic impact. Despots who tyrannize their own people when they could be educating them or encouraging communal development are certainly disheartening. 

6 Underground's still somewhat basic, however, with sharp divisions, like a Western for kids, morals fitting snuggly within a domain that overlooks contradictory realities, not that the domain doesn't appease widespread outrage, or challenge ennui claiming nothing can be done.

In this instance, sending in an elite independent group to bring about political reform within a repressed nation seems apt, and there's even a plan to smoothly transition from one political platform to another. No decades of fighting afterwards by warring factions with no interest in harmony. No general hunger or unrest or unemployment while the country tries to figure out what to do.

Haven't both left and right wing proponents encouraged clandestine coups around the globe to disastrous effect, though, isn't political change more substantial if it's self-generated, as seems to have been the case in many currently peaceful countries?

It would be nice if things were as simple as 6 Underground makes them out to be, but simple solutions for problems this complex are often sought for nefarious means.

The film resolutely approaches the fight against tyranny with rapid fire multidisciplinary dialogue, but it's also abounding with gratuitous violence, prostitution, and characters lacking identity.

If you're critiquing a despot for using poisonous gas on his own people, you shouldn't have your heroes use gas to attain their goals later on, even if their gas is harmless.

I know the characters aren't supposed to know each other due to mission parameters, but this film would have been stronger with much more character depth.

Depth of action excels in the opening moments, however, with the best car chase I've ever seen.  

It's a solid action film.

That loses something in its naive oversimplification.