Well, I guess I’m a published writer now. Some of you may recall that I have been doing a little freelance writing, and if you’ll click the link here, you’ll find my frist article on page 34!
I’m well into the application process for four different PhD programs. (Theatre at IU, OSU, and LSU, as well as Humanities at University of Louisville), and I’m pretty much waiting on answers now. While I am excited about the prospects of moving to a new city and marching the hallowed halls of some institution of higher education, I must admit that I fighting the spectres of insecurity and feelings of inadequacy. What if I’m not admitted to any of these programs? What if I can’t find a way to pay for it? etc. These demonic questions haunt me, but I’m trying to remain undaunted Things will work out, I’m sure.
I promise….but something just jumped out at me.
Everyone seems to be giddy about Rummy’s resignation, even I was, until I realized that I don’t know exactly what he’s done that has made him so hated. Many portray him as maelevolent, a diabolical schemer who is promoting his own agenda and somehow advancing secretive Imperialist causes.
I decided that I’d do some research to find out it the common perception of Rumsfeld was legitimate. Some have tried to pin Abu Gharib on him, but the only legitimate crticism of him seems to be that he has complelely underestimated the insurgency in Iraq. According to Rummy’s critics, he has chosen to walk and the sunny side and operate the offensive in Iraq as if the insurgency doesn’t really exist. His critics, mostly liberal or moderate types, say that he is ignoring or renaming a civil war that is occurring in occupied Iraq.
So what should he have done as the cheif civilian officer at the Pentagon? Rum’s critics almost universally say that he should have deployed many more troops than he has, and that he should have equipped them with a much better arsenal than they currently have. Perhaps these critics are correct…..
Then I saw this article. Many of the same people who want Rummy out are now advocating further troop reduction. How can this be? If he’s done a bad job in underestimating the terror in Iraq, how does reduced troop levels help reverse the ill that he’s done? Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems to me that if deploying too few troops is doing a bad job, then in order to do a good job, one must do the opposite.
Does this seem like hypocrisy to any one else?
Calling oneself a good American citizen and electing not to vote is a bit like calling oneself a good parent while neither praising nor punishing one’s children.
A while back, I told you a quaint little story about trying to see A Prairie Home Companion the film. You remember–the power went out mid-movie, and we didn’t get to see the end. If you’ll recall, I promised a more thorough discussion after I’d gone back and seen it again.
The problem was, I never got back to theater to see the film in the three day time span that it was actually available in theaters. I had to wait until the film came out on DVD to finish it. Lately, a venerable member of my reading community has been clamouring for my thoughts on the film, so now that I own it, I probably should go ahead and give my critique. Let it never be said that Killian doesn’t keep promises.
As you probably are aware, Prairie Home is a fictional account of the last night of a radio program not entirely unlike the show that graces NPRs airways Saturday night. Both the show and the film are brain children of Garrison Keillor, a phlegmatic writer who, through no explanation other than Providence, masterfully brought the genre of radio variety show out of the dusty coffins of the early twentieth century and made it into a staple in many twenty-first century Americans lives.
According to Keillor’s commentary on the DVD, he had been toying with the idea of writing for a film, and Robert Altman happened to be interested in directing it. It turns out the Altman’s wife is a huge fan of the show…and, well, to make a long story short…Altman agreed to help Keillor out. What followed was one of the most unique films I have ever seen.
The movie does have some typical Altman conventions: extremely realistic-almost to the point of distraction-rapid fire dialogue and incredibly long, continuous scenes. In my view, though, the similarities to Altman’s other work ends there. As Altman claims in one of the DVD interviews, he is simply a “recorder” of the intricate story that Keillor has constructed. If the movie doesn’t work, it’s not Altman’s fault. Likewise, if it does, Altman doesn’t deserve much praise.
The writing and construction of this film are eerily reminiscent of Thornton Wilder’s experimental work (think Pullman Car Hiawatha and The Long Christmas Dinner), and I do think that Our Town’s daddy would weep as I did at the profound statement that Keillor manages to make without having to explicitly state it. Indeed, the viewer spends the length of the movie laughing at the silly and somewhat shallow depictions of show favorites such as Guy Noir and Dusty and Lefty the cowboys, but in the end, he realizes that he has received a sermon on the brevity and urgency of life that rivals any he has ever seen.
The performances are wonderfully delivered, even the performance of Keillor himself (who admits that he has a face more suited for radio than film), and the soundtrack is refreshing and a delightful reminder that there are still people in the world who can make music that resonates without making a single political or social claim. All in all, the complexity of the film’s script paradoxically echoes the simple, Norweigen claim: we are who we are, and we are built to do what we do, so there’s no need fussing about the superfluous stuff.
So, since I feel that the film has encouraged me to embrace simplicity, I’ll state my opinion of this film as simply as possible: I like it. I think it is one of the most important movies I will ever see.
In case you are illiterate, or blind…check this out!
