Small Town Gay Bar

The American landscape is littered with small towns that were always portrayed as the model of perfection for raising a family and developing citizens with American qualities. Whether a small New England town, southern backwoods town or a western stop along the way; the American small town has always been billed as a nice community. So it comes to no surprise that the great qualities of small town life are present when Malcolm Ingram, the director of Small Town Gay Bar (2006), briefly interviews Bill Curtis, the mayor of Shannon, Mississippi. The mayor advertises that the folks are nice and welcoming and everyone is important to the community. But then there's the gay bar. And in a moment of brief resignation the only thing that the mayor can say is that some people don't agree with that but it exists because it has a right to exist. Maybe that's just the politically safe remark to make but the body language in a few brief seconds is one of the many feelings that are examined in Small Town Gay Bar.



The gay bar that is in Shannon is called Rumors, the place is nothing more than a small run down shack whose insides are crudely decorated to look like a paradise. The owner Rick Gladish knows that having a bar for gay people in a community where homosexuality is looked down upon is difficult. For those who are gay in Shannon and some of the surrounding towns the bar is a paradise. Many of the patrons view the bar as a place where they can be themselves. The patrons are fully aware that a completely "out" lifestyle is looked down upon in their part of the world. The owner of Rumors knows how difficult it was and is to have a place where homosexuals could gather and be themselves. Many patrons of straight bars seem okay with there being a gay bar as long as it is out of sight and out of mind. But for others the gay bar is dangerous to the quality of life and the town.

The film looks at these dangers by examining past gay bars that existed in rural Mississippi and by hearing the stories from those who used to go to those bars. One bar, Crossroads, is described as an open air free for all atmosphere that included; drinking, boxing, wrestling, and a litany of sexual activities. The pressure of the anti-gay movements and mismanagement led to Crossroads downfall. For other bars there were random shootings, threats made, and an overwhelming sense of danger that led other bars to become no more. Ingram interviews one family who's son was found dead, an apparent victim to a hate crime, due to his sexuality. By sharing this crime, Small Town Gay Bar raises the issue of the importance of life.



Small Town Gay Bar includes the anti-gay groups, A.F.A (American Family Association) and Fred Phelps synonymously known God Hates Fags group. Both groups represent a conservative fundamentalist christian backdrop for their ideology. Phelps is interviewed and he is not short of negative words towards the repercussions of homosexuality. He recounts the story of his first protest sign and how he felt that people would join his protests in riding his community of homosexuals. Unfortunately, in Phelps mind, this only made him see people as homosexual loving God haters. Phelps rhetoric is strong but in a more tone down approach the A.F.A is able to feel the same way without being so harsh. Tim Wildmon, an A.F.A representative, is interviewed and champions the need for wholesome family values and a moral law for all people. He is also portrayed as a hypocrite by the gay community because a family member of his is gay and Wildmom denies that Rumors exists even though he knows it does.

The film does not go into the political debate of homosexuality and the issues associated with that but it certainly shows that there is a resilience to those who are homosexual. The pressures of being homosexual in a small town are constantly told by those interviewed in the film but those interviewed continually find places to meet and form relationships with each other. At the end of the film the owner of Rumors decides to sell the bar and move on. The pressures of operating and owning a bar are tiresome and stressful but the end of the road for one bar there comes news of a new bar, Different Seasons. Different Seasons is the new name of the renovated Crossroads bar and is looked at as the new place for homosexuals in rural Mississippi to go to.



Whether the small town gay bar comes or go's there is ample evidence that the gay community will continue to exist even in places where they are not welcome or looked down upon. What is clear in the film is that the divisions between those who are gay and those who are straight are very deep. The film chalks this up to the make up of rural Mississippi culture and bible-belt ethics. Small Town Gay Bar does not posit any solutions to clearing the gap. The film itself may be a piece for an argument for tolerating the gay lifestyle, but it certainly doesn't offer the hope for reconciliation and understanding to those groups who are against the gay lifestyle. To further drive the divide wider, before the credits, Fred Phelps appears again and says that all of those who are homosexuals are going to burn in hell and there is nothing they can do about it. Some may see this as a laughing point or another attempt to devalue what already self devalues, but maybe it is the last shot in an argument that wraps itself up after eighty one minutes. Unfortunately, the debates still exist and the final words are yet to be spoken.

Who Killed the Electric Car?

First off I have to say it wasn't me.

Though I may very well be part of the problem that the filmmakers of Who Killed the Electric Car? (Chris Paine, 2006) come to as part of their conclusion. The question of the electric car is intriguing and that is what the film focus's on. Most specifically the film focus's on the EV1 and the cars rise and fall. But for as much as the film is the story of a car. It is also a film that addresses the ever popular issue of global warming or, if you prefer, climate change. As Chris Paine weaves in and out of the stories of those who owned the EV1 the wheels of conspiracy spin on what led the vehicle to be pulled from the roads.



The film opens with a tongue and cheek funeral for the EV1 and Martin Sheen's narration that touts the car as a savior machine. A brief history of electric vehicles and the b-roll footage of old electric cars being replaced by combustion engine vehicles becomes the ground work for the real problems of pollution. Though Who Killed the Electric Car? is a film that is for all audiences, the film is very much a California centric film. What is briefly stated in the film is that the EV1 was not sold nation wide but rather in California and Arizona. Though this is not the focus of the film and is told as a minor fact , it is paramount to the effect of the real problems of electric vehicles and possibly what the problems are of Who Killed the Electric Car?

Much of the film can be seen as a commercial for the EV1 and electric vehicles. As the EV1 is glamorized by Hollywood celebrities and the few owners it seems that the electric vehicle is the solution to California's and even the nations pollution problems. In a time where the rhetoric surrounding gasoline prices and vehicle carbon emissions a film like Who Killed the Electric Car? is a perfect voice for discourse. Though the film is heavily handed towards the electric vehicle. Chris Paine very much touts the vehicle as an underdog in the world of SUV's and gas guzzlers. But the underdog is more a less a fall guy for the oil industry and car manufactures. The film makes connections between the oil industry and their collusion with the government and car manufacturers. As California's regulations on car emissions began to falter so to did the electric car. General Motors ad campaign's come across as odd at best and the concerns and questions of the general public were not answered.



The film also addresses the governments move towards the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle as another reason for the electric vehicles demise. The film disposes the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle as a futurist concept. The gap between non-emitting vehicles and carbon emitting vehicles becomes the place where the film finds itself in the end. By 2003 California turned aside their emissions mandate and began pulling the electric vehicles off the road. The electric vehicle's defeat becomes a rallying cry for those who want electric vehicles. Who Killed the Electric Car? shows that in death the ghost of the electric vehicle will continue to haunt us. It may haunt those who used to own the vehicles but for those who have not, the vehicle becomes a relic, and to be saved for museums. Many of the EV1's found their resting place in car compacters and car shredders and it is the filmmakers view that the car manufactures wanted the electric vehicles absolutely terminated.



Even though the film looks for answers as to the question of who? Where do we go next with the knowledge that we know about electric vehicles? The filmmakers constantly show that there is a demand for electric vehicles. As there is a demand there is also, from street interviews, a lack of knowledge about electric vehicles. Even though the film shows this, there is not much details as to the negative aspects of the electric vehicle. Edward H. Murphy of the American Petroleum Institute believed that the electric car failed do to inadequate technology. As much as Murphy may be on the side of oil the film does not divulge into what he means by inadequate technology. History does show that car manufacturers and the oil industry do have influence on what is driven and how transportation is developed. The fingers pointed at the oil industry by the filmmakers tries to connect, and not adequately, the electric vehicle and the nations addiction to oil with the Iraq war and policy's of the government.

If anything the killer of the electric vehicle is money. Whether it be money to; make, sell or lose do to gas prices, money is the driving factor. But with questions being asked by Who Killed the Electric Car? the pull towards fuel efficient vehicles grows stronger and stronger. Certainly Who Killed the Electric Car? is populist in nature and in a way a form of propaganda. But if the discourse of global warming, pollution and solutions, becomes an open forum for everyone, then Who Killed the Electric Car? is another voice in the forum.



If one day electric vehicles make their return and are not concept vehicles but practical vehicles for everyone, I would not be surprised if the price of the vehicles is out of reach for most of us. As the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is still is a mirage and part of a slight of hand, as proposed by the filmmakers. The cry's for fuel efficiency may be falling into a void. Who Killed the Electric Car? very well does its best to let us know of those voices and to even join in and demand some action to be taken by the car manufactures and the government, even if nothing happens. The hope of maybe one day having vehicles with zero emissions may still be a long ways off. We may never fully know the full extent of the possibilities of the first electric vehicles but there is one thing that is certain. That the killer of the electric vehicle is still out there.

CSNY/Déjà Vu

March 20th, 2003. A coalition of forces, predominantly made up of American soldiers invades Iraq. The war in Iraq was the first major military operation by U.S. forces since Operation Desert Storm in 1990. Prior to that was the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War left deep scars in the U.S. It was a war that divided generations, changed the landscape of patriotism, and became a rallying cry for changing the social landscape of America. During the Vietnam War there were many forms of protest against the U.S. government. One of those ways was through music and one of the bands who gave voice to the disdain was Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.

Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young could be considered one of the first super-groups of music. The band comprised of members from The Hollies (Graham Nash), Buffalo Springfield (Stephen Stills and Neil Young) and The Byrds (David Crosby). Their initial incarnation was a brief experience but their relationship with each other would continue through the following decades. With the invasion of Iraq and subsequent difficulties that came from the invasion, a growing disdain began to permeate throughout the U.S. The news reports of intense fighting in Fallujah and increased insurgency activity along with the reports of torture being practiced on Iraqi prisoners, became rallying cries for skeptics who had initially protested the invasion. For those who were against the war, the election of 2004 would resurface many feelings of the Vietnam era. The democratic candidate for presidency, John Kerry was a veteran of Vietnam and a major objector to the Vietnam War upon his return from duty. Kerry would lose the election to George W. Bush and the next political point of change would be the mid-term election of 2006.

During 2006 Neil Young would create his anti-war album Living With War which lead to his idea of going on tour with Crosby, Stills and Nash. The tour would comprise of their political music and the hope of the tour would be to challenge audience attendees into helping them see the reasons why the U.S. should not be in Iraq. Neil Young would also document the tour by creating the film CSNY/Déjà Vu (2008).

CSNY/Déjà Vu looks at the reactions of people effected by the war in Iraq while also announcing the repercussions of not understanding the effects of the Vietnam War. The film constantly tries to give the sense of Déjà Vu by looking at the events within the United States now and comparing them to the events in the United States during the Vietnam War. Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young all give recollections of the Vietnam era and how a message of peace has always been a message of their music. The film does not focus so much on the music of the tour but does show how the music's message is still prevalent today. Older songs like "Ohio", "Déjà Vu", "Military Madness", and "For What It's Worth" become songs that cry for reason and understanding. Neil Young's Living With War album becomes the battle cry of the tour with songs like, "Looking for A Leader" and "Let's Impeach the President".



The reaction of the audience to the tour is mixed with much of the audience being made up of people from the generation of Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. For some age is where the similarities end because the politics of the day are divisive. At a stop in Atlanta some of the audience jeer and walk out on the show as Neil Young performs "Let's Impeach the President." The film constantly points to the fact that there are some who are not interested in protesting or the war in Iraq, some are just interested in going to see a band perform. This mixes well with the medias review of the tour which is mixed at best. The narrated reviews seems to add to the varying viewpoints of the Iraq War and how divided the country is on the war.



CSNY/Déjà Vu addresses the need to be aware of how the war is shaping the country. The band is aware of the misinformation about the war in the mainstream media. Neil Young touts his website, Living With War Today, as a place where people can upload their anti-war songs and leave posts about their war experience. The site is also shown as a place where true facts and figures are shown about the number of killed soldiers because of the war. Through the website Neil Young is connected to some returned soldiers from the war.

Throughout the film Micheal Cerra, a veteran of Vietnam and war reporter, conducts interviews with returned soldiers, family members of those who served and concert attendees. One former soldier, Josh Hisle, is a musician who questions the reasons why he was there. He puts music to his emotions and even performs for Neil Young. Other soldiers are interviewed and are trying to do the best they can with handling the stress of war and understanding why they went. With showing what returning soldiers are doing with their war experience the film makes a connection with what returning soldiers did as protest during the Vietnam war. These interviews try to solidify the view that the Iraq War is similar to the Vietnam War and hence to make viewers feel that sense of Déjà Vu.



CSNY/Déjà Vu may very well address the issue of war in Iraq but the film does not fully address the pro-war standpoint. At the end of the film there is an epilogue that shows that the midterm election did not go as planned as the anti-war protesters wanted but the fight continues. One strength of CSNY/Déjà Vu is the ability to look at the past and really ask the question, "Do we want to repeat it?" Now we have reached the point where Iraq war has faded. Combat troops have been recalled and now the U.S. is just a presence rather than a force within Iraq. CSNY/Déjà Vu shows that the voice of older generation is still active but it is the newer generations that will have to carry the torch, become a force rather than a presence and if peace is so important then we will have to actively pursue living without war or else face that sense of Déjà Vu again.

Salesman

Nineteen sixty-eight was a year that many historians of the United States of America see as a turning point in the country's history. Even in the world of Hollywood filmmaking, nineteen sixty-eight saw seminal pieces of work that supported the changing landscape of the culture. Films such as; 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick), Night of the Living Dead (Romero), Rosemary's Baby (Polanski, Head (Rafelson), Faces (Cassavetes), and many more. These films not only showed the changing landscape of American culture, (some argue the rise of youth culture, others the change from modernism to post-modernism) but also the philosophical and psychological shift in the representation of characters within the films. The general tone and feel of many films in the sixties seemed to personify the difficulties of accepting the "establishment" and the separation of generations seemed to show the gulf that was growing between young and old.



The documentary film Salesman (Maysles Brothers, 1968) supports the philosophical change in the American psyche that was prevalent in the nineteen sixties. Salesman, though, shows the pressure of working class salesmen who struggle for financial security. In filmmaking the classical Hollywood big spectacle films offered much in the way of surface appeal. You knew who the characters were and how they would face the challenges that arose in the film. As independents and young film makers infiltrated Hollywood, characters became more complex, and doubt, fear and failure became traits of the hero's in some films. That's if the film even had a hero. Salesman has no hero but ever presently convey's the doubts, fears and failure that comes with selling door to door.

Now I'm sure for those who are of the documentary mindset, Salesman is no mystery. But in comparison to the fiction films of nineteen sixty-eight, Salesman seems other worldly. Maybe it is because of the film stock, the black and white film stock doesn't have the flare of even George Romero's Night of the Living Dead. Or maybe that other worldliness comes from the fact that the filmmakers follow salesmen who look so unexciting, and don't have the counter culture representation or even appeal as say the characters in Bob Rafelson's Head. But there is something that Salesman has that many of the popular films of nineteen sixty-eight doesn't have and that's reality.

Salesman centers around four main Bible salesman, one in particular Paul Brennan, nicknamed "The Badger".

It is his story within the films body that seems to be the center piece. Paul's visits to various houses and attempts at selling a highly ornamented catholic bible are wrought with failure and a half hearted attempt at trying to make a sale. Paul's failures are mixed with other salesmen's success. In one day of selling Paul has no success and at the end of the day he is asked how the battle went? He talks about the day while his fellow salesman watches a boxing match on television. In a way Paul is broken down fighter. He says he used everything he had to try and sell but nothing happened. Paul acknowledges that the business is on the fringe but it is not the business. It is Paul that teeters on the fringe, with each failure he comes closer and closer to breaking. The Maysle brothers capture each failure and the build up tension with close ups of Paul that seem to bottle the anger, disappointment and resignation that Paul vocalizes among his fellow salesman at the end of the day.




From the outset of the film the pressure to sell the Bibles is evident. Excuses are made by Paul about the territory that the salesman are selling in. When addressing an assembly of the salesmen, the general manager chides the salesmen as being the reason for any rejection of a sale. In one sequence as Paul travels by train to the Chicago sales meeting his journey is intercut with fellow salesman pridefully exuding themselves.


At the sales meeting the salesmen are told that they are doing God's work by selling Bibles. The evidence of their work is spiritually lacking and catholicism is used as a tool to try and sell Bibles and Encyclopedias. It seems that the only higher authority that they are working for is a financial deity. The salesmen use the differences between Irish catholics and other european catholics to try and find ways to exploit the consumers emotions. Along with pandering to potential buyers, using two salesman to make a sale, or incessantly pushing the product to create guilt.

One sequence of the film has two of the salesmen using as much spin to sell the Bible to a family that cannot afford the cost. The wife of the family wants the Bible but knows that the cost is out of reach. The salesmen do whatever they can in getting a small down payment. Later in the film Paul visits the poor family and lies about his position as a district manager and then creates a story about penalizing the processor of the order to get money out of the wife of the poor family.


What follows is Paul changing a flat tire. The flat tire is a minor inconvenience compared to making a sale but I can't help but see the flat tire as a symbol for the extent that Paul will go to make a dollar. He roles the tire down a hill and laughs. Paul is no different from the tire, he's used and blown out, his job is a joke and the pressure of selling is too much to take. After a terrible work day he vents about selling and believes he has all of the reasons why people buy and don't buy the Bible. His fellow co-workers treat him as if he is a leper, it is as if the lack of success could be contagious. Paul tags along on a potential sale and tries to help his fellow salesman. What happens is Paul being rejected and then used as selling device by his fellow worker to try and get a family to buy the Bible.


It's the last straw for Paul and he quits being a salesman. He try's to joke with his fellow workers but Paul's attempts are futile, instead of being funny he looks burned out and sounds incoherent.




In an interview the Maysles participated in about documentary they quoted about Salesman the verse from the Bible, "What profit a man if he gains the world yet loses his soul?" Paul is a man who knows that his soul is gone and traded for the dollar. He sings at one point in the film if I was a rich man, from Fiddler on the Roof. Paul is a real example of the malaise of living a life that is constantly striving for financial success. Many fictional films of the sixties portrayed characters with a dissatisfaction for established means of living, and characters looking for a freer way of life. The final blank stare that Paul gives in Salesman does not offer much in the way of hope for his future. The door to door sales business has passed him by, the emasculation of being a failure only leaves Paul with the possibility of retiring. But what is he retiring to? Of the landscape that we see in Salesman we see the harsh Massachusetts weather of winter. The broken down landscape via train when Paul goes to Chicago for the sales meeting and then finally the bazar world of Florida, with streets named after characters and places from Sinbad's Voyage and the houses residing eclectic residents. Paul is out of place, time and purpose.

Though time has progressed past the sixties and the days of door to door salesman with the nature that is represented in the film, Salesman still touches upon the challenge of trying to make a living. Grand philosophical and psychological words are never really spoken in Salesman but the film's content still seems to ask the question, "For what is our purpose, and why do we do what we do?" For every forlorn stare and moment of contemplation that seems to be a product of the environment in which we work, there is a bit of Paul within us. Maybe our souls were not meant for the whole world.