I really haven’t seen very many movies in the last few months and I’ve been writing a lot more than I’ve been reading, so I haven’t added anything to my Bibliography or Filmography pages. But after recently seeing the first movie reviewed below, I decided to write this column detailing several new additions to my review pages.
The Pyx (1973) stars Karen Black as Elizabeth Lucy, a Montreal call girl who is found dead in the very first scene; the film alternates between the police investigation into her death and flashback scenes depicting her last week of life. Black’s portrayal of the troubled but good-hearted girl is both sympathetic and realistic; Elizabeth is shown to be neither better nor worse than other women, and her problems (such as heroin addiction) are balanced with examples of her good character (such as her efforts to protect another working girl and her gay roommate from the villains). I suspect the writer had some inside information because details such as Elizabeth’s being an independent contractor and the police harassment of her madam rang completely true and aren’t often seen in movies of this type. My husband and I both found the movie to be suspenseful and interesting, though he felt the pacing of the last act was much too slow; I suspect that its low IMDb rating is due in part to that, but mostly because the film is incorrectly labeled as horror and those looking for supernatural content and finding instead a combination detective thriller and drama (something like a Canadian giallo with less gore) might be disappointed. I won’t spoil it for you, but I will say that though I came to know and like Elizabeth and to dread her impending doom, I was pleased to see she faced the end nobly and, in her own way, heroically.
Soylent Green (1973) is of course most famous for its last line (no spoilers now, readers!) and the environmental disaster overtaking the world it depicts, but those who haven’t seen it recently (and who aren’t as attuned to prostitution issues as I am) may not remember that almost every speaking female character in the movie was a whore. For those unfamiliar with the film, Soylent Green stars Charlton Heston as a police detective in a near-future (2022) New York City in which pollution has destroyed most of the Earth’s ability to produce crops and rural areas are therefore turned over entirely to vast and heavily-guarded farms – resulting in the entire population being crowded into already-packed cities. Since there isn’t remotely enough housing most people are either homeless or living in critically-overcrowded tenements, and attractive young women escape this hell by becoming “furniture”, prostitutes who are allowed to live in luxury apartments in exchange for providing sexual favors to the tenant. The most interesting aspect of this situation, IMHO, lies outside the confines of the movie itself; whenever it comes up on discussion boards it’s almost inevitable that some neofeminist will express how “disgusting” or “degrading” the lives of the “furniture” are, as though starving in the street is better. Nearly everyone in this dystopia (except for the small elite who can afford apartments) is treated as subhuman, and in fact the whole plot hinges on it; women certainly aren’t singled out for it. In fact, educated people similarly prostitute themselves as “books”, earning a living by doing research in the chaotic mess into which libraries and records have been plunged. Of course neofeminists never consider such things, which makes me wonder how the planned remake will handle the “furniture”; I suspect that male “furniture” will also appear and they’ll all be depicted as utterly miserable due to their “humiliation”.
Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey A. Silverglate
Regular reader Americanus sent me this book (via my Amazon wish list) after we discussed it in a comment thread, and I’m glad he did. I can’t say I enjoyed it because this isn’t the sort of book one enjoys; in fact, it’s the sort which makes one incredibly angry. But it’s because few Americans bother to educate themselves about these abuses that they’re allowed to go on. The book details the “perversion of federal criminal law into…a trap for the unwary honest citizen instead of a legitimate tool for protecting society”. Silverglate, a prominent criminal defense and civil rights lawyer, shows how federal law has been so expanded and at the same time made so vague, that the average American commits about three felonies every day without being aware that he has done so. Federal prosecutors out to make a name for themselves, maliciously attack political enemies or instill fear into entire groups will basically pick likely victims (sometimes at random) and then go “fishing” for laws they can credibly argue the victim committed. And despite the fact that they rarely have enough evidence to secure a conviction (if any at all), the cost of defending oneself against federal prosecution is so ruinously high and the possible sentences so terrifyingly long (measured in decades) that most victims fold and accept plea-bargains which usually involve suborned perjury against other intended victims (often but not always “bigger fish”). Worst of all, the necessity of proving mens rea (criminal intent) has basically been eliminated in federal courts; such intent is assumed and juries are routinely instructed that if the fact of the crime (the actus reus) is proven, they must vote for conviction whether they feel the accused intended to break the law or not.
Silverglate illustrates this growing tyranny with a number of cases (discussed in exhaustive detail) against medical professionals, brokers, accountants, criminal defense lawyers, journalists, merchants, artists, teachers, students and many others. And if you find my description of these persecutions disturbing, wait until you read the book.
I’ve been aware of Three Felonies a Day for some time, but probably won’t read it: I’m already close enough to homicidal toward government thugs. It would be excellent reading for anybody who isn’t already aware of how lawless the United States has become. And when I say “lawless”, I’m referring to men and women who work for the government and persecute the innocent and the guilty alike with, apparently, zero interest in determining which is which.
Well said.
Just finished Three Felonies a Day myself. It wasn’t quite what I was expecting since it mostly detailed situations that would not be a risk for most people. Still, it was very disturbing.
I did add Soylent Green to my Netflix queue. I haven’t seen that in ages.
Anyone remember the SNL episode with johnGoodman playing the role fo Soylent Greens director?
The made a Soyent Green2 ending with Phil Hartmen playing Charelson Hestons charecter.
The final line was “They didnt change the recipe like they said they would!!”
Well, again, locking people up has become profitable. Monetarily to the corporate prisons, and politically to the prosecutors.
What I’m about to say will probably get me called a Marxist or some such stupid BS, but some things should not be profitable.
I had the chance to watch Soylent Green some time back, and had to leave before we were finished. I didn’t much care to finish next time, though, as I found the movie to be boring and already knew the final twist. What struck me was that obvious technological solutions weren’t being employed, presumably because of high start-up cost (though lower cost over time) and a lack of either will or imagination. Arcologies, hydroponic greenhouse skyscrapers, etc. None of them used. And I look at America today, where we are arguing over whether or not to build high-speed rail… and then I find out that “high speed” in this case means 150 MPH (241 KmPh). Meanwhile, Japanese Shinkansen is doing 176.2 mi (283.5 km) and is being upgraded to 199 mph (320 km/h), with plans for a few maglev lines to operate at over 300 MPH (480 KmPH). The French TGV has been making 173.6 mph (279.4 km/h) for some time.
It isn’t so much that we don’t know how to solve problems, as that we don’t have the will to solve problems. We do one little thing at a time, often some feel-good thing that doesn’t help much if at all, and the next thing you know we’re eating Soylent Green (the taste varies from person to person) instead of the venison steaks and mango salad we could be feasting on if we’d just built those greenhouses.
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but this sort of thing pisses me off. “High speed rail” indeed!
That’s not Marxist, it’s a basic requirement for defending the individual from the state. This is what happens when governments exist to make a profit.
The people on the right that I find the most tiresome are the ones that keep repeating “Government should be run like a business”, as if that meant something good.
*shudder*
When the government is run for profit, it is NEVER for the profit of the populace, but for a select elite of amoral swine. This has been true no matter if the government was a nominal Monarchy, a nominal Theocracy, a nominal Democracy, or nominally Communist.
t
Very true. It’s worth adding that any “profit” made by government is not a result of creating value, but rather by confiscating wealth from productive individuals using implicit force or, when required, explicit force. In other words, by acting like the Mafia, not like a business one can choose to patronize or boycott. Murray Rothbard famously called government a criminal gang writ large, and I think he’s right.
Yes, indeed. My Father, the History PhD, taught me that the American government was revolutionary because it was at least FOUNDED with the idea that it existed to provide a very limited range of services to the citizenry, that this idea was STILL radical and (in the minds of far too many people) dangerous, and that the Political Class HATE the idea.
You’ve already shown that you know the difference, sweetie. But thanks for posting that link again. Should be required reading.
I saw Soylent Green when it came out (my Mother was a huge Charlton Heston fan) and I understood/noticed that almost all the women in it were prostitutes. I was in grade school when I 1st saw it.
Soylent Green is one of my favorites. And feminists won’t get it, of course.
They *only* see women; they don’t see degraded men. In housewives, they only see a bored prisoner. They don’t see the exhausted, oppressed 1950’s-60’s factory male. They don’t see the miner, risking his life. They just see the wife.
They’re as blind as conservatives.
Feminism and other extreme political philosophies such as Marxism and Afrocentrism are actually better understood as religions than as traditional political viewpoints; they teach blind adherence to the “faith”, have certain “prophets” and “scriptures” adherents are expected to revere unquestioningly, and deal with facts which disprove their tenets by denial.
Funny, but this feminist “got it” when she 1st saw it (Soylent Green) in grade school. I was taught the GREAT parts of feminism by both parents my whole life. HHHMMM…both my parents educated me about the men and women who worked in dangerous conditions for years. They talked about the people who lived WAY BEFORE them also not JUST the 1’s in their generation. Speaking of wives, when my Dad had a heart attack when I was a baby, my Mother nursed him plus worked a full-time job. She could have EASILY just taken the easy way out and RUN. She chose not to. My oldest brother at the time was 15 also so there were 3 other kids at home besides me to raise. At this time their marriage was healthy in that she helped him out during this very hard time. I love using real-life examples to blow apart WONDERFUL, FAIR blanket statements and stereotypes! “Blind as conservatives”-really? HHMM…the TRUE preachers that are truly changing the world for the better every day, they sure are blind! I know the people they’ve helped would agree…lol. The 2 preachers that I know personally who when I talked to them about being bisexual, how BLIND they were! I mean, for SOME reason they’ve never treated me different, never said get out of this church and never come back, burn in hell, etc. Never said anything close to that. HHMM…they sound VERY blind to me…lol. Plus these blind people are always doing charity work…how can that be? There’s a lot of other “blind” (eyeroll) people that are conservatives I could name that are very open-minded, caring and doing a lot to change the world for the better. HHMM…
Laura, anecdotes don’t “blow apart” blanket statements unless the people who make them specifically claim that there are no exceptions to those statements. Every rational person knows that every rule has exceptions (except for that one), so unless a person making a statement says “there are no exceptions” it’s a safe bet he knows they exist, and therefore anecdotes say nothing about his statement one way or the other.
He said “conservatives,” not “preachers.” And yeah, they ain’t all blind (conservatives or preachers, or liberals or feminists or….). The ones who make the most noise, though…
As Donnie Dark said, “There are none so blind as those who will not see!”
Dear Sailor B, I picked preachers because many of them are socially conservative (the horror…eyeroll) and because I’m sick and tired of conservatives getting ###*** like they’re “blind” (eyeroll). I love to bring up my experience with the 2 pastors at the church I go to (when I do go…wink) and how they’ve NEVER treated me any different when I talked with them about me being bisexual. That experience broke a lot of the ###*** stereotypes about conservatives. YES! I love having any experience that breaks even 1 ###*** stereotype, blanket statement, etc. 1 of the things I love about you is from the time we met I saw you were also against the ###*** that’s out there and I’m very glad that me being an MVS has taught you about the ###*** about that group also. You’ve taught me about at least 1 group also and I thank you. Yes, I agree about the 1’s who make the most noise and it reminds me of 1 of my favorite sayings: STILL waters run deep.
[kiss]
I understand the book Soylent Green is quite different from the movie.
But I haven’t seen/read either… yet.
Soylent Green is based on a Harry Harrison novella named Make Room, Make Room! which is indeed fairly different.
It’s on Kindle… I downloaded the sample yesterday and started reading it last night.
I’m not sure I want to pay 7 dollars for a copy with so many typos. Maybe when it comes to the Kindle library, I’ll read it.
One thing that struck me is the lack of “here to there” in the book. There’s no thought put into why things in the author’s present become the way things are in the book’s dystopian future. There are a variety of issues, I see in it.
First, is the lack of economic thought. Absent some sort of disaster or price controls, we will never run out of a resource. There will be no sudden shortages. The resource will start to become scarce, prices will go up which will make less economically viable options competitive, leading to more supply. At the same time, people will notice the rising prices and either start to invent new solutions or existing unaffordable alternative solutions will start to become affordable.
Second, the book seems to treat people as dumb. As it becomes more and more difficult to feed your children, people will have fewer and fewer children which puts a limit on overpopulation.
And it bothered me that Russ didn’t know what a “wooden nickel” was. It’s like a lot of cultural knowledge was lost just by overpopulation.
I understand the thing about lesser-grade ores becoming economical and such, but is this true of every physical resource? I get that as we used up, for instance, the petroleum that bubbled to the surface and lay in pools, the price of oil went up and it became worth while to drill for it, and as we used up the easily-drilled-for oil on land, it became worthwhile to do expensive things like drill off shore and mess with oil shale or sands.
But unless there’s a truly infinite supply, things do eventually run out. I could see, if not oil, perhaps helium becoming scarce, with either no low-grade sources to exploit or those sources being so expensive that helium is priced out of the range of ordinary people.
In many parts of the world, it is the most desperately poor who have the most children. So I’m not confident that “As it becomes more and more difficult to feed your children, people will have fewer and fewer children which puts a limit on overpopulation.” That seems reasonable, but it also doesn’t seem to be what people do.
All that being said, we do tend to invent our way out of the old Malthusian crunch, over and over again. We may yet be dumb enough to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but seeing as I’d rather be alive today than any time in history, I suspect that the future will be even better.
Dystopias make for interesting stories, and can serve as cautionary tales, but as predictions I have little or no faith in them.
You’d rather be alive now because you ARE alive now. Ever heard the expression “we live in the best of all possible worlds”? Most people from ANY time period think that they’d rather be alive then than at other times, and others disagree. By some mid-20th century standards, you’re living in a mild dystopia RIGHT NOW.
An airline pilot was asked, “Why do you want to fly an airplane with four engines?”
“Because they don’t make one with five.”
I’d rather be alive now than any time in history because I don’t have the option of transporting myself further into the future.
The mid-20th Century was a time of rampant disease, racial prejudice with legal sanction, McCarthyism, constant warfare around the globe, and the constant threat of nuclear annihilation. The voting age was twenty-one. Even adjusted for inflation, median household income was less than today. We did get the music of Elvis Presley, Little Richard, and so forth, but we’ve still got their music and all that has come since.
If I had a time machine, it might be interesting to visit the 1940s, ’50s, and (particularly) the ’60s, but actually live there? Thank you, but no.
I can well believe that most people in most time periods would rather be alive then than at times before, because times before (if you take the package deal) usually suck mightily compared to when they find themselves. The 2010s will suck mightily compared to the 2050s.
Not always. I refer you to the fable of the”City Mouse and the Country Mouse”. You don’t mind the problems of your era because you’re used to them; someone from outside would find omnipresent surveillance, “stranger danger”, half the population being fat, rampant genocide, police militarization and the erosion of the Constitution, etc etc etc just as horrifying as you find the problems you mentioned.
Well I did say “usually.” I’m sure that in the Great Depression there were a lot of people who decided that maybe the Gilded Age wasn’t so bad after all. Right now, the 1990s look pretty good.
Yes, there is a bit “city mouse, country mouse” to this, but really, how many people would move to anything more than, say, thirty years ago if you had to take the package deal?
The italics are there because there is a tendency to say “It was better back then; people weren’t so fat,” but kind of neglect the fact that a lot of them were crippled by polio and that smallpox was still around. I’d rather be fat than have polio or smallpox.
“It was better back then; people weren’t under constant surveillance,” but almost everybody was pre-convicted of being a Communist. I don’t like today’s almost ubiquitous surveillance, but I’d sure rather be watched now than then.
“It was better back then; we didn’t have all this genocide,” except that oh hell yes we did.
And so on.
It’s a general rule based on the law of supply and demand.
We’ll never run out of oil because as the supply of oil goes down, the price of petroleum goes up. As that happens, people will see there’s money to be made inventing replacements for petroleum, people that already have expensive substitutes will be able to compete with petroleum-based products, etc.
To use your helium example, the US stopped all exports of helium to Nazi Germany. The Germans responded to this by building the Hindenburg for use with hydrogen. Of course, the Hindenburg went up in smoke, leading to the decline of the zeppelin industry and the rise of the fixed wing aircraft as a substitute technology.
I am aware of that. There are reasons that is true — high mortality rate, a desire for more workers for a farm, lack of birth control, etc.
I think the third one is quite interesting… the ancients had quite a few forms of birth control that worked and were lost in time. I have a suspicion that expansionist ideas were behind that.
I get supply and demand, but it isn’t magic. It can make the costly stuff more acceptable, but it can’t make something out of nothing.
If we could get the cost of launching stuff into space down to about 10% of what it is now, we could start building satellite solar power stations. A decade of developing those and we could make synthetic hydrocarbons to replace gasoline and such. We could pull the carbon out of the very air, making it carbon neutral.