Elements of Style

Some of the most frequent comments I receive on my papers include "too wordy", "you do not mince words" and simply "omit, omit, and omit!". Accordingly, I think I need to work on rule #17 found in The Elements of Style:

Omit Needless Words

I really need to focus on making "every word tell" and learn to discard the rest. The inclusion of unnecessary words really detracts the quality from my works and also, at times, can confuse my readers.

Another area I sometimes have trouble with is rule #20:

Keep Related Words Together

Often, due to haste, I find that my sentences are awkwardly constructed and this, coupled with submission of needless words, further serves to compromise the quality of my pieces.

The Critic As Artist

Taxi to the Dark Side

Taxi to the Dark Side
By John Flemming

It’s been almost a year to the day since film director Alex Gibney released his shockingly profound documentary “Taxi to the Dark Side”; and a year later, the film’s morally piercing content is still soaking Americans’ conscious with guilt and embarrassment.

Guilt and embarrassment, for the unspeakable atrocities committed at the U.S. facilities of Abu Ghraib in Iraq, Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, which are masterfully chronicled in the film’s unrelenting investigation into the systematic implementation of policies that have led to the widespread abuse of detainees.

The film, which won the Academy Award for best documentary, starts with a narrow focus of the issue, depicting the story of Dilawar, an Afghani taxi driver, who is mistaken for a terrorist, detained, tortured, and then killed while under U.S. custody. As the movie dives into the seemingly isolated incident of Dilawar’s death, it quickly becomes apparent that this was not the result of a few “bad apples” actions.

Rather, Gibney presents a thorough investigation that includes raw footage and photographs of abuse, interviews with other torture victims, interrogators, law makers and government officials that all serve to illustrate a larger problem affecting these detention centers.

Slowly, but surely, Gibney’s film climbs the chain of command all the way to Donald Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush, exposing damning evidence at every level of a premeditated attempt to circumvent the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration’s legal undertaking to redefine what constitutes torture, corroborated in the film with interviews of John Yoo, shows that the cancerous policies started at the top and trickled all the way down to the foot soldiers. In effect, the strategic institutionalizing of these measures reshaped the military culture and allowed for these horrific acts to be carried out in what was deemed to be a rational framework of “standard operating procedures”.

The scary thing about “Taxi” that makes it so powerful as a work of art is that, unlike most documentaries, the images and interviews used really do speak for themselves. There is no room for debate; the incidents depicted aren’t defendable, and as a form of journalism “Taxi” illuminates the truth, no matter how repulsive it may be. The simplistic nature of the documentary: its dry, non-sensationalist cinematography, minimal input by its creators (compare the filmmakers’ commentary in this movie to a Michael Moore film), and presenting a fair account, all further serve to establish this film as being a mainly indisputable, solid work of art and journalism.

After watching the movie, even through all the shame and guilt it leaves you with, even after the cruel and inhumane images are burned in your memories, even after you realize that these abuses date back to at least 2002 and perhaps are still occurring, you cannot help but to be heartened by the fact this documentary proves there are those of us who adamantly believe in the transparency, integrity, accountability, and respect for human life that made this country great and will go to extraordinary lengths to defend these ideals. And it’s great to know that with the executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay facility, there are those in power now who will work to restore the ideals of our founding fathers.

Gran Torino Review Corrections

For starters, I'd go through my review with a fine tooth comb; there were a lot of grammatical/structural errors to my piece that could have been avoided with a better editing job. Secondly, I need to delete a bunch of useless words that distract the reader's attention. I would also work on the lede making it more structurally sound and engaging for the readers.

Additionally, I made the mistake of using first person and addressing the "audience" head on. However, I think I did a fairly good job of balancing plot summary with analysis and getting my opinion of the film across. My "but" comes where I write "but instead [the movie] turns out to be a grueling and sometimes just outright awkward two-hour ordeal". I would probably give my review a B-.

Live From Baghdad

Live From Baghdad
By John Flemming

HBO’s film, “Live From Baghdad”, offers a seat-gripping and reflective dramatization of CNN’s explosion into the global scene and their emergence as a journalistic juggernaut. The movie depicts the true story of a news crew, lead by CNN producers Robert Wiener (Michael Keaton) and Ingrid Formanek (Helena Bonham Carter), as they struggle to obtain the “story of a lifetime” during the events leading up to the 1991 Persian Gulf War. That story, of course, is to be the first news network to broadcast live, around-the-clock coverage of the inevitable U.S. military intervention in the crisis.
Wiener and company (Robert Wisdom as Bernard Shaw, Bruce McGill as Peter Arnett, and John Carroll Lynch as John Holliman, to name a few) are unrelenting in securing not only critical equipment needed to broadcast live but also critical relationships with Iraqi authorities. By positioning themselves favorably with important officials such as the Iraqi prime minister of information, Naji al-Hadithi (David Suchet), the crew circumvents multiple efforts to be censored by the Iraqi government and is also granted substantial access.
Much credit is due to the cast of this movie for a very convincing performance, especially Keaton who proves he still has it in him. Each actor is able to use their strengths to make their characters part of a dynamic on-screen chemistry. The cinematography is excellent, using a very effective blend of real footage from the news coverage of the war that serves to give the movie a feel of unfolding in present time.
The film uses Wiener’s persistence and personal motivation to get his once-in-a-lifetime story to push questions of journalistic ethics: just how far should one go to get the story? Is it acceptable to publish a story that may endanger individuals? Is it possible to balance loyalty to your avenues of access with your loyalty to the public?
The relevancy of these questions today is unquestionable in the midst of another military conflict in the Middle East. Starting with the tank blitzkrieg to Baghdad in 2003, the concept of the embedded journalist has revived controversial debates on the role and ethical code of journalists during wartime.
People have argued that full coverage of military operations endangers our troops, while others claim that without the 24/7 watchful eyes of the media the military and government can go unchecked. Also, since these journalists essentially are absorbed into the military – not only going to the frontlines with soldiers but also relying on them to ensure their safety – some wonder whether their objectivity can remain intact.
The issues of integrity and transparency that the film raises are all the more important in the current age of sensationalist media, where it seems that networks like CNN itself, once pioneers of honest journalism, have abandoned their fundamental values in exchange for ratings and profits.

GT Review Research

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/453632/Gran-Torino/overview

To conduct basic research about the movie, I used the NY Times page dedicated to it that includes the NYT Review, an overview, cast and credit details as well as NY reader comments about the movie. The site is easily accessible and provides good information in a short time. The review itself offers a well structured critique from a highly regarded professional from the industry and its a good place to study the format of a critique as well as someone's take on the movie.

Gran Torino Review

By John Flemming

Brilliant. Masterful. Powerful. These are a few words I would not use to describe Clint Eastwood’s latest, overly ambitious contribution to film.

A modern Western set in an equally lawless frontier formally known as Detroit, “Gran Torino” is the story of Walt Kowalski (Eastwood), a recently widowed, burdened-by-his-past Korean War veteran with a Viagra fueled hate on for what American society has become and who seems only too eager to rot away the remainder of his life on his front porch disengaged from his demographically changing and physically deteriorating neighborhood. However, his retirement plan of PBR and cigarettes predictably changes when he is reluctantly forced to interact with his neighbors after the attempted theft of his beloved 72’ Gran Torino by his Hmong immigrant neighbor Thao (Bee Vang). The failed grand theft auto, kick starts a series of events that tries to lead the audience through some semblance of a quest for redemption, understanding, and Jesus scale sacrifice but instead turns out to be a grueling and sometimes just outright awkward two-hour ordeal.

As mentioned before, brilliant, this film is not. The movie, while listed as a “Drama”, plays more like a comedy with unexpected moments of sobering drama that surprises us much like a shart (see: "Along Came Polly" – a pound for pound better money’s worth) rather than what it is intended to be: a drama with comical relief provided by the use of “old grumpy man” clichés that, well, are old. This is partly due to first timer Nick Schenk’s epithetical carpet-bombed script that used slurs so excessively that not only should the MPAA reconsider the “R” rating but also it obscured any real substance the script might have added to the movie – if any. Mainly, however, the film was hindered by Mr. Eastwood’s inability to direct the cast around him to deliver a formidable performance. At times, the supporting cast seems camera shy or unaware that their job is to be convincing. And on the subject of acting, praise goes to Mr. Eastwood who does indeed give the best performance of the movie (though definitely not of his career), but then again, that’s not saying much when the other actors could have been effectively replaced by cardboard cutouts. That is not to say Mr. Eastwood’s acting was terrible, but his true ability only shines through in the handful of the movie’s darkest moments like the “Get off my lawn!” scene in which Walt instantly snaps into soldier mode and one wonders if the traumatizing effects of war will lead him to pull the trigger without a second thought.

Unfortunately due to the technical shortcomings of this film, what could have been a powerful force of nature, in respects to the many messages that tried to be conveyed and deep issues raised that were only scratched on the surface, is just another menacing dark cloud that passes without an inch of rain. Like Walt’s car, Mr. Eastwood’s “Gran Torino” needs polishing.