DVD Review: The Electric Chair

Text © Robert Barry Francos/FFanzeen, 2010
Images from the Internet

The Electric Chair
Written, produced and directed by Mark Eisenstein
Wild Eye, 1985 / (rereleased) 2010
105 minutes, USD $16.95
Wildeyereleasing.com
MVDvisual.com

Whether Mark (Marcus) Eisenstein’s work could be put into the transgressive film category is borderline, but he does have an aggressive style that has a large dose of religion (mostly Jewish), confrontation, and imagery.

His The Electric Chair, from 1985, has long (well, for 25 years) been considered a piece of “lost cinema,” directed by this film professor from Jersey City State College. Fortunately, Wild Eye Productions has not only seen fit to release this piece of unorthodox cinema, but has also added in a whole bunch of Eisenstein’s shorter pieces as extras, along with some trailers and a track commentary. But more of that later.

Written originally as a play that was mounted but once, Eisenstein (okay from now on I’m just referring to him as ME…deal with it) decided to make a film out of it, and offered the lead role to Harvey Keitel, who actually wanted to direct it as well. ME was all for it, but due to prior commitments, Keitel backed out and offered up his pal Victor Argo in the lead. Yes, the heavily Jewish role was handed to an actor of Puerto Rican heritage, who just nailed the role perfectly. There is a lot of dialog in long bursts, and being trained as a stage actor, Argo was more than up for the part. After filming for no pay, the film sat in the can in minimally edited form for years, even after Argo’s death in 2004.

Though filmed in the ‘80s, ME finally finished the black and white film by editing in some footage he took of decrepit buildings on Block Island in the Long Island Sound (or would that be considered the Atlantic?) in 1971, in splashes throughout the narrative, effectively adding a layer of mood to the zeitgeist of the story.

The basic premise of the plot is centered around a shoe salesman, Arnie Schwartz, a lonely man whose marriage is grown as tired as he is, and who spends nights doing a stand-up comedy and music show at a local bar in New Jersey (where most of ME’s films are located). An electric chair appears on the stage as he is bombing, and in front of an audience that represents his whole life, he is warned not to achieve several levels of intimacy with the object.

As the gig does on, the comedy act turns into a rant about the philosophy of comedy, and bit by bit focuses in on his life, God, and schtupping, which uses up most of the film. It takes a strong actor to be able to portray this level of anger and still remain somewhat sympathetic (though in the commentary, ME states that he was not going for sympathy, just the anger), if not pathetic. In front of his mother, himself as a young man dominated by her, his kid sister, a sax playing rabbi, a couple engaged in their own intimacy, and others, Arnie rails right to the climax, which comes as no surprise. However, it is the last shot of the film that I found the most effective and unnerving.

The time goes quickly, and Argo is more than up for the task of possibly his only starring role in his long career. Keitel would also have done well, but Argo brings some depth to his emotions, and can punch out the lengthy gunfire dialog, while in close-up, without ever making it redundant or boring. It’s hard to turn away as he gives his all, which is even more impressive considering, as I said, he wasn’t even paid for it. That’s dedication to a craft.

The images of the super 16mm film (except for the Block Island footage, which is a grainy 16mm) is exceptionally sharp, giving a near German Expressionist pastiche, with high contrasts and an occasional glow, with Argo’s white suit against a black background. It’s the facial close-ups where the shadows are the most effective. My only qualm is the editing, sometimes a bit too sharp and jarring, or perhaps that was the meaning (the other Eisenstein filmmaker, Sergei, was famously noted for proclaiming that “editing is motion”).

This is definitely not a date movie, nor is it a backdrop film. It needs special care and attention from the viewer to see the slow build-up to the finale, and all the subtlety in-between as the tone of the film changes.

The commentary was interesting all the way through, though I felt like I wanted a second one. ME is paired up with indie filmmaker Peter Crocker (I may have this name wrong) and Rob Hauschild of Wild Eye Productions; Crocker is an “expert” on the film, and runs off with the conversation a number of times I just wanted to say “shut-up, this isn’t your film” more than once. A lot of technical questions are discussed about the film, the “hardware” as it were (pre-production, production, and post-production), but not enough, I feel, on the “software” (plot, meaning, intentions). I would have like more insight on what ME was trying to “say,” and at key moments, such as the ending, I thought, “why are you talking about that instead of what’s on the screen?” Don’t get me wrong, the commentary is full of fascinating facts, it just left me wanting more than it offered.

The shorts by ME that are included, and there are several of them, run from the “mini-feature” of “The Roach,” which lasts more than 20 minutes, to a couple that are just a few minutes.

“The Roach” is an interesting set piece of a waterbug that suddenly becomes human, but still scuttles about, played well by 20-something hipster type Eric Mednis. He has no dialog, and flops around when he’s on his back. The Roach is as confused about the human world as it is about him. He keeps following a profane exterminator named Mr. Acme, played by Nick Taylor, and is nearly seduced by a lonely woman (Joan Moossy, who is in many of ME’s productions), before the film ends, Nero-and-Poppaea -style. The film is simple and smart, and obviously a reversal of Kafka’s infamous “The Metamorphosis,” and is one of his few works here in color.

Some of the shorts are extremely esoteric, such as “The Smog” (1967; 6.5 min.), where people are filmed talking in a smog while their voices are re-recorded; “Eight Tragedy Term Papers Plus Three by Maggie Murphy” (1967; 15 min.) in which a real-life poetic term paper by a student who passed away is read by ME as a typewriter types out newswire stories; and in “Mark Eisenstein: Inventor of the Frame” (1982, 1.5 min.), the director explains how he “invented” the frame for cinema (before, supposedly no one knew where to look). There are a couple of others of varying success, but interesting to help put The Electric Chair into a larger picture of Eisenstein’s process.

There are also some trailers put out by Wild Eye Productions, though there is also one for an unreleased Eisenstein film called “God Is On Their Side,” an (I am assuming) allegorical tale of trying to get God on one side or another during a war, while all he wants to do is sing, dance, and smoke cigars. Why am I so interested in this? Simply because God is played by (and credited to) Buster Poindexter, also known as New York Dolls’ vocalist and Staten Island’s own David Johansen.


Bonus video:

GOD IS ON THE OTHER SIDE - rare UNRELEASED movie trailer - New York Dolls from Wild Eye Releasing on Vimeo.

Against One’s Self-Interests: Local Bad Choices on a Global Scale

Text © Robert Barry Francos
Images from the Internet

There are two local stories going on in the news right now, both of which are raising eyebrows on an international stage. Here is my take.

The 9/11 Pig Roast

The Saskatchewan Party is running this province right now. It is a new political organization which has a strong conservative curve that makes the Republicans in the States seem moderate. Their election to higher office has much to do with the traditional bent of rural communities whose population is wary of government spending on cities and social programs, and not paying enough attention to farming needs (there are just over a million people in Saskatchewan, but less than half in the two major cities of Saskatoon and Regina). The Prairies have long been leaning this way, despite the relatively liberal (as opposed to Liberal) leanings of Saskatoon, though currently under the thumb of the Mayor Don “me-me-me” Atchison (sort of like New York City under Giuliani or Bloomberg).

As a fundraiser for the Saskatchewan Party, they are throwing themselves a pig roast on April 11 in the local town (oh, sorry, recently declared city) of Martinsville, about 10 miles north of Saskatoon. As a guest, they have invited New York City fire chief Richard Picciotto, who was trapped in the North Tower on 9/11. Why conservatives love to drag out 9/11 for their own means even after all these years is another question, but one that this particular blog does not concern.

To publicize the event, they chose Nancy Heppner, the Minister of the Environment, to design the flyer. This is where the controversy starts. She chose an image of the Twin Towers burning, in itself not a wise choice, even as Picciotto was one of the surviving heroes of the attack (yes, attack, by Saudi nationals… I’m not into conspiracy theories… but I digress…), even with some benefit of the doubt. To have the buildings burning, as a promotional image though, seems a bit heartless. Okay, we are talking about conservatives, so that’s not so far off (again, their vision is “me, me, me”).

[The flyer (click to enlarge)]
And here is where the fun begins. On top of the image, it says, “Pig Roast.” I’m not sure about in Canada, but in the states, “pig” is also used as a derogative term for the members of the organizations who were the first responders to the scene. There were 341 firefighters and 23 police officers acknowledged to have been killed in the burning and subsequently collapsing towers. To use this image under the term “pig roast” is beyond an oversight, it is cruel. Definitely a lose-lose vision: If it was meant intentionally, it is disingenuous at best. If it was not meant intentionally, well, who wants someone that thoughtless in control of the government?

All governments have slip-ups, I know, such as Bushie Jr. sending out Hanukkah cards with a Christmas image, and there was one recently with the Obama administration that I can’t remember off-hand, but this is something that seems occasional with the liberals, but pretty consistent with conservatives. They are so focused on themselves and how to crush anyone they deem under them that they lose sight of what they are doing, and how they are achieving it. Liberals (Democrats in the US; NDP in Canada) seem to want to focus on spending for social programs and physical infrastructure, but conservatives (Republicans in the US; Conservatives and Liberals in Canada) want instant bottom line everything, make monuments to themselves (stadiums in New York, for instance; River Landing in Saskatoon), and create a caste system between wealth and poverty (when the liberals try to make it more level, the conservatives cry “socialism!” and try to scare everyone).

[Nancy Heppner]
Another part of this situation I don’t understand is why Picciotto is still showing up, as both he and the Fire Department of New York have both publicly denounced the use of 9/11 imagery for political purposes (hear that Giuliani? Oh, yeah, that’s right, you stated that no terrorism occurred on U.S. soil during Bushie’s administration, even when you practically use “9/11” as your phone number). This Saskatchewan Party is the same group that demanded the resignation of a NDP staff member for referring to Bushie Jr. as “Shrub.” Reminds me of how many Republicans called for Bill Clinton’s resignation after the whole Monica debacle, though many were caught with their own peckers where they didn’t belong (right, Giuliani?).

The province of Saskatchewan is equivalent to New York state, in that the majority of the people seem to vote against their own self interests, in fear of liberal social programs, and would rather see the money that would have served them go to commercial organizations and corporations that wouldn’t give a sou about their own workers, let alone the rest of the population.

Perhaps next time I’ll discuss a Saskatoon / Humboldt Minister of Parliament (U.S. equivalent is local Senator) who wants to end all funding to Planned Parenthood because he is against abortion (like that is all PP do). But again, I digress… Now back to the topics at hand.

The First Nations Leader for National Socialism

[David Ahenakew]
Recently, it was announced that David Ahenakew passed away in Saskatchewan, about an hour north of Saskatoon. The 76 year old was / is certainly a controversial figure. The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) has been lauding him for the good he has done in his life, and it is quite a lot, such as being in the army for 16 years (including serving in Korea), being elected Chief of the FSIN (serving 10 years), helped establish the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural College and the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College (now called the First Nations University of Canada, which I pass nearly every day), and helped bring updated technology to many of the poorer areas. Ahenakew even received the Order of Canada distinction in 1978. All well and good, and he should be noted for that. But some of his other stances should not be passed over, including his statements that Jews are a “disease” who started World War II, and that Hitler helped "clean up Europe" when he "fried six million of those guys.” He then stated that the Israel was going to help start a new world war (in a joint effort with Bushie Jr.). These comments were physically recorded with his knowledge, not in some ambush taping. His Order of Distinction, I should note here, was stripped from him in 2005 in disgrace.

So, here is a man who had spent his life helping out the needy and oppressed First Nations, who have been mistreated by the majority, stripped of rights, placed into ghettos, and scapegoated for the ills of the nation, and yet has a problem seeing the connection between the treatment of the First Nations and the Jews at the time of World War II of, well, everywhere.

What especially amazes me is the shortsightedness of the topic of the Holocaust. During WWII, the Arab nations sided with the Nazis in the destruction of Jews. If the Nazis had won, after the Jews were gone, next would have been the Arabs. And if they made it here to the North American continent, the First Nations would also have been exterminated as being non-Aryan (as would the Latinos, the Blacks, the Catholics, and the list goes on).

The WASPs of the 19th Century did their best, as it was, to rid this continent of First Nations people in their march towards “Manifest Destiny.” And what do you think the Jews contribution to that was? How many Jewish homesteaders were there then? Jews were certainly not allowed in the Army at the time, and certainly not allowed to own land in the New West. And yet Ahenakew defends the Nazis, representing the very people who would have sought to wipe his people out, and blame a minority that was as oppressed as his own. Yet another tale of voting against one’s self interest.

Jews have a history of support for those oppressed, such as participating in the Civil Rights marches of the early ‘60s, and helping to start the NAACP; if there was a positive cause, there were Jews backing it, and sometimes leading the charge. My mother would have mah jongg games with all the winnings going towards some social cause; this was common practice in the period of time when Ahenakew claims the Jews were a “disease.”

Some people, such as Ahenakew’s lawyer Doug Christie, is saying that Ahenakew’s comments should not be held against that many years of dedication. Well, I’m mixed about that, because he was not just a person spouting a misguided belief; rather, he was in a leadership position, and his opinion is the equivalent of inciting a riot. He was initially found guilty of hate speech, but was then exonerated in court in appeal, because they said it was just an opinion. However, he was in no less power than James Keegstra, the popular teacher from Eckville, Alberta (near Red Deer) who was a staunch Holocaust denier in the classroom, and who was consequently found guilty of that same charge.

I am not saying that Ahenakew should have been thrown in jail, but his comments should stick like the stigma it should be, as rightfully so with Jesse Jackson’s “Hymietown” statement, or John McCain’s “Bomb, bomb Iran” ditty. These are leaders, and should be held accountable. If it was some shmoe living down the street, I’d tisk and be done with it. I know people who have jokingly made racist jokes and statements, but they were not in a position of power and influence. There comes a point when one must realize that everything they say will have some import to someone.

Another point is that this lawyer, “Christie,” said that he only said this once, and under dire circumstances (new medication, being in a press conference, etc.). But this comment is much like seeing a single cockroach in a kitchen. If you see one, there are many more hiding out. If the man said this statement once, then the odds are there is a lot of ice under the surface of the water, and we’re only seeing the tip. This can effect this person’s decisions in his power-position, and it is important to note that, and not to sweep it under the carpet of the good the person has done. It should be like a pile of shit that sits on top of the carpet, for all to know. Let the people judge how they like the carpet, but know that the pile of shit is there.

[Sources: TheStarPhoenix.com, Wikipedia.org]

MARC H. ELLIS Lecture: Does Judaism Equal Israel?

Text and photos by Robert Barry Francos
Book cover image and video from Internet

Earlier in the week, I was told about a coming evening lecture at the university, which was to feature historical theologian Marc H. Ellis discussing Israel.

On November 19, 2009, in the afternoon of the presentation, while I was on the phone with my good pal, Alan Abramowitz (who is historically knowledgeable about Israel and its neighbors), I looked up Ellis on the Internet. There I saw that he has numerous books and articles about the Holocaust, Israel, and Christians (he teaches at Baylor in Waco, TX, a heart of Born Again fundamentalism), but mostly it was pretty clear that he was an apologist for Israel, and in favor of a two-state solution. At that point I knew that (a) he would be interesting, (b) I would disagree with him, and (c) I would need to keep my temper wholly in check.

This is not exactly a town full of Jews (there are two synagogues for a population of 250,000), and during a march against George Bush recently, there was someone with a scarf covering his face carrying a sign which read, “Bush is a Zionist Patsi” [sic]. The overfull room reflected many more of Muslim faith than of Jews, and I certainly knew which side they were on. That is the problem with the Middle East, as it is hard to be centralist; it’s usually either “them or us,” depending on your stance.

Let me start out by stating clearly, Marc Ellis is an excellent speaker. Scheduled to go on for 45 minutes to be followed by 30 minutes of questions, he talked for well over an hour and was never boring, was often charming and humorous, and especially self-deprecating in a culturally European Jewish way. He is someone you would meet at a dinner party and probably enjoy spending time with. In mild mocking tones, he said that traveling around the world was difficult with Bush Jr. being president, but now it’s easier with Obama (he admits he loves Obama, but doesn’t believe he will do anything to solve the Middle East issues), especially in Canada with the prime minster, Stephen Harper, being “right of Bush.”

Ellis started by positing that he is proud to be a Jew, but does not like how Israel is (re)acting. He brought up what he called the “prophetic,” meaning that it was Jewish culture, specifically the Exodus story with Moses bringing down the commandments, which is the basis of the entire Jewish-Christian-Muslim culture. As he spoke, a PowerPoint presentation flashed overhead, initially including the covers of some of his tomes, which seemed a bit disingenuous to me (but I feel that way about any author who lectures and pushes more than the present book, Judaism Does Not Equal Israel: The Rebirth of the Jewish Prophetic).

His essential argument is that the Jews of Europe, who migrated to the Middle East after World War II, basically used the Holocaust as a tool and justification for taking over the land, and treated its inhabitants poorly. Ellis used images of the walls built in Israel and especially the West Bank, and compared them to the walls built around the Warsaw Ghetto. What he left out mostly was why both these walls were built, and the difference between the motivations. The Warsaw wall was built to keep the Jews in for extermination purposes, whereas the walls in the West Bank are to keep the threat of violence to the Israeli citizens out. Ellis referred to “a few crude missiles” lobbed over to Israel so the wall is an overreaction, but in fact it is thousands of missiles every month that fly into Israel. As I’ve stated before, if Hamilton, Ontario, started lobbing bombs into Buffalo, NY, within a week the US would be attacking and sealing off Hamilton. Meanwhile, Israel is told by everyone else to just say, “Oh, well.”

He also discussed the “Nakba” (Arabic word for catastrophe) which is the “Palestinian” word for their being kicked out of Israel at its formation in 1948 by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). This is a misnomer, however, and what Ellis did not address at all that “Nakba” is a word created as a tool for something that pretty much never happened on a large scale. What actually occurred was when Israel was formed, the leaders of the neighboring Arab states declared that if any Arabs stayed in the territory after Israel was created, then when the neighboring Arabs destroyed “the Zionist entity,” then they would be tortured and killed as collaborators, so most Arabs left their homes of out fear from other Arab states. When these “refugees” moved out and to what was to be safe havens in their threatening neighbors, they were ostracized and placed instead into miserable ghettos and mistreated worse than anything done by the Israelis. No one has been crueler to the “Palestinians” than their own brother states. This is never addressed by apologists.

Ellis declares that he is in favor of a “two-state” system, with the West Bank and a large part of Jerusalem becoming a home-land for the “Palestinians.” However, what he does not mention is that when the British left Palestine, the UN split Palestine into two parts, a tiny percentage to the west went to become Israel, and the rest became an Arab State of Palestine, which became annexed by Jordan shortly later. But when the Arab people who were living in the territory to become Israel were forced to leave by other Arab states under threat of death and thereby losing their land that way, that is what became known as Nakba.

As for Jerusalem being bi-owned, this will not solve the problem of the Wailing Wall and the adjacent building, a holy Muslim site. After the Six Day War in 1968, as is stated in Wikipedia, “Jews could visit the Old City of Jerusalem and pray at the Western Wall to which they had been denied access by the Jordanians (in contravention of the 1949 Armistice agreement). In Hebron, Jews gained access to the Cave of the Patriarchs (the second most holy site in Judaism) for the first time since the 14th Century (previously Jews were only allowed to pray at the entrance).[67] A third Jewish holy site, Rachel's Tomb, in Bethlehem, also became accessible.” Since the Israeli’s took over Jerusalem, all can come to the holy sites, with the only restrictions being that a visitor must go through a check point similar to going to, say, the Statue of Liberty or the Arch of St. Louis.

Ellis claims he is glad Israel exists, but is also in favor of arming the “Palestinians” so they can fight for themselves. Che? He states that there is a “second Diaspora,” where 2 million Jewish Israelis have fled, he claims out of guilt of how the “Palestinians” are treated. That may be accurate for some, and in fact I’m sure it is, but for most Israelis in New York I have known it was for two basic reasons: first, they can make money here (like most immigrants from anywhere), and they are tired of living in fear of daily threats and bombings.

The largest question I had about what he did not talk about was why Israel has its policies, such as building walls. But he went around that by stating his talk is about Israel, “not about the Palestinians.” So he is only talking one sided, which is hardly impartial.

What would I like? I’d like to see the Arabs recognize Israel and declare (and follow through) that they will stop attacking. If that happened, I bet within a couple of years trade between all parties would start and both would benefit, then the walls would come down, and a second Palestinian statehood would probably emerge. Most of the world just wants Israel to give and give, and not get anything, especially safety, in return. While I certainly do not necessarily agree with all of Israel’s policies about the “Palestinians,” on the other hand I understand the reaction to them. Sure it is sometimes harsh, but it is a country that was built by the survivors of the Holocaust, was attacked by all its neighbors within 24 hours of its creation, and is still under constant threats (too often one hears some Middle East head of state claim that they want to eliminate Israel).

On the part of Israel, and here is the part I actually agree with Ellis, I can imagine it becoming a secular state rather than a “Jewish State,” where everyone was equal, but be put into the charter that is especially safe for Jews and aboriginal Arabs. Theocracy as rule just does not work, as is evident in many countries in the Middle East, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. That’s why the US has a separation of church and state (though there are those in the US who would both argue against the separation, and believe it should be a “Christian State,” and others that fight for it, such as the much-bashed ACLU).

At the beginning of the Question and Answer period, the moderator (who is a Jewish professor from another university), clearly stated she would take charge and there would be no statements allowed, only questions, and they must be respectful. In other words, one must agree. Ellis denigrated Bush, but seems to follow his questioning policies. All the questions I heard (I left after about 30 minutes of this section) clearly showed that most of the audience was behind Ellis, though one woman asked why he showed slides of walls but not of the blown up and burned bodies of babies from the suicide bombers, to which he dodged the answer to a query that I found very relevant.

The important thing to remember is that truth is like the word “objective,” as it doesn’t truly exist in a pure form. There is always bias, as Harold Innis pointed out. My truth is not necessarily “your” truth. Language philosopher Alfred Korzypski declared his Law of Non-Identification as, "Whatever I say a thing is, it is not."

This event was sponsored by the Dean’s Office of Arts & Sciences, Religion and Culture of Arts & Sciences, Sociology of Arts & Sciences, St. Thomas Moore College, the Fellowship for Reconciliation and Peace (FRAP), Independent Jewish Voices, and Near East Cultural and Educational Foundation.

Information on Ellis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_H._Ellis
Baylor University site on Ellis: http://www.baylor.edu/jewish_studies/index.php?id=33813
Some online articles: http://www.baylor.edu/jewish_studies/index.php?id=34842

A very similar lecture, given five days earlier, in Toronto: