Tender Mercies: I remember Siskel & Ebert reviewing this and nearly falling asleep when they showed a two-minute clip. My dad thought it looked great, but was discouraged by the two thumbs up. Saw it when I got to be a grown-ass man, and damn it ‘bout made me weep. Great, great movie, stunning performance by Robert Duvall. Maybe the best examination of the seemingly inexplicable nature of God’s grace I’ve ever seen.

The Right Stuff: Never had I felt more suckered by a movie in my life. Argued with a former boss about it right after college. He lent it to me, guaranteed I’d change my mind about it. He was right. I’ve watched it dozens of times since, and I don’t care about the historical accuracy or lack thereof, this is a great movie. Unexpectedly funny, too; I love the scene when some of the pilots mock the astronauts for only doing something a monkey has done before them, and Chuck Yeager (Best Supporting Actor Nominee Sam Shepard) counters, “You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?”

The Big Chill: I know I’ll get slammed, but I don’t love it. Think I saw it when I was too young, and should probably see it again.

Terms of Endearment: Can’t really watch this one enough, and at the same time, when people argue that it’s overrated or that it’s not a story,  just a rambling mess with cancer thrown in for no reason, I kinda agree. But I love it.

The Dresser…

13 year-old Cam Cannon: Are you kidding me? The Dresser?

39year-old Cam Cannon: Seriously, you’re joking, right? The Dresser?!

Got us a three way (heh heh) race here, and I’m going with…the one that did win, Terms of Endearment. Great performances from Shirley MacLaine, Debra Winger, Jack Nicholson, and Jeff Daniels. A creepy one from Danny DeVito.

The opening scene, in which Aurora (Shirley MacLaine) goes to check on her sleeping baby, Emma, is brilliantly simple, a great suck’em in moment. Emma is, of course, fine. Sleeping soundly, but Aurora’s convinced the baby isn’t breathing. So, she wakes her up, the baby wails, and Aurora leaves her alone to cry.

Emma, played as an adult by Debra Winger, could not be more different than Aurora. Emma marries the ne’er do well English teacher, Flap (Jeff Daniels), moves away, comes back every now and then to fight with Aurora, discovers Flap’s infidelity, moves again, cheats on Flap, leaves Flap, reconciles with him, and then gets cancer.  This broad description shortchanges the richness of the characters, the engine driving the movie.

Aurora was, of course, against the marriage to Flap (“You’re not special enough to overcome a bad marriage.” Ouch.), against Emma moving away, against her every move, really, but holds vigil by her side as she suffers in the hospital.

Lots of little moments make this movie rise above the aforementioned nay saying. Love when Debra Winger pops a zit on Jeff Daniels’ back. Just a goofy, dumb moment that feels so real to me. Or when Aurora calls Flap to check on Emma and the kids.

Aurora: How are the kids?

Flap: I wish I were so carefree.

Aurora: Yes, well, they don’t have anything to feel ashamed about.

Aurora is, in the end, one of the oddest characters to ever carry a movie. She’s not outright mean. But she’s not nice. She’s not eccentric, but then, she ain’t normal, either. She’s just odd, thinks her way of viewing the world is the way, and lives her life constantly amazed that the world sees things differently. In a movie full of great characters, all of whom we like on some level, she is the anchor.

But my favorite thing about the movie really only surfaces during repeat viewings, but it stems from the characters and their likability. The more often we watch, the more we pull for the characters not to make the stupid decisions that they make, or to say the sometimes horrible things that they say. Especially Aurora, but even Flap – Don’t cheat on her, no, stop, awww, man! It’s not just because it’s a tearjerker, though that plays a part in it. When we know the outcome of the movie, the characters’ sometimes petty behavior becomes cringe-inducing.

But in a good way.

No kidding, professor.

No, really, they are. I don’t mean in all the right places, of course, but somewhere else, with movies, in enjoying the things we see in the movies. 

I remember seeing Gunga Din (1939) for the first time and knowing from the opening shot that this was my kind of film. This was a guy film. Not a wishy-washy movie filled up with dance numbers and kissing scenes, but a guy flick. Great guy stuff was in this movie, and I was sold on it from the first pounding of that thunderous mighty gong. When Alfred Newman’s score turned from playful to ominous faster than you can say, ‘trouble in Tantrapur’, I knew I was in for a good one. This was the kind of movie you watched on a Saturday afternoon with your dad or with your pals. This was adventure! 

There’s no way, I had always thought, that a girl can appreciate this kind of film, that she can ‘get into’ Gunga Din and get out of it what I got out of it. There’s just no way. Would she be able to feel the same way I did, the way other guys do, when watching Victor McLaglen face quickly turn from stone to fraudulent smile as he tries to trick his buddy? Can she feel the same rush of pride when hearing the trumpet scream the battle cry, or when seeing the Sikh Cavalry charge against the 400 horsemen of Kali? Does she get choked up along with Mac, Cutter and Bal when Montagu Love reads Kipling’s reflective poem in that final scene? Is modern woman capable of this? Or will she be more concerned with the sole female character in the story, trying, naturally, to relate to her instead? These things I wondered. Yet, I was as certain of the answers to these questions as I was of Sergeant Ballantine’s destiny. No woman could do these things, bridge that crevasse away from the familiar into pure guy territory, where it’s always double drill and no canteen. It just isn’t done. 

But guess what? I was wrong. Completely wrong. In fact, I’ll go out on an already shaky rope bridge here and state I’ve never met a woman who didn’t like Gunga Din. That’s right, not one.  Sure, it’s got funny and handsome Cary Grant – what woman doesn’t love Cary? For that matter, what man doesn’t want to be him, including? And it’s got the dashing Douglas Fairbanks Jr. with that infectious smile and shock of hair that falls down great when he lunges with either saber, pistol or right hook into an opponent.  I mean, let’s face it, what female doesn’t like to watch these two guys at rest or in motion? But that’s not it, that’s not the reason they like Gunga Din, well not completely, anyway. 

I believe it’s actually closer to what happens in the scene in the temple when our three British soldiers plus one, are caught and imprisoned in the confines of that locked dungeon, complete with pit of snakes. Comically, with torture and certain death if they don’t figure a way out soon, all the ‘proud ox’ MacChesney can think of is retrieving Sergeant Ballantine’s signed reenlistment form, securing his buddy’s companionship and saving him from what he believes is a death far worse than any pit of snakes could ever inflict: married life.  The means he goes about trying to get his hands on that paper is a joy to behold. His phony fear of snakes and being lashed again is, like so many other Victor McLaglen moments, lovable and priceless.  It really is, I believe, this kind of friendly sparring and not so much the looks and charm of the other two leading men, that is the key. The loyalty, friendship and devotion to one’s chums, the camaraderie replete with fun-loving jabs and good natured mocking is what wins the day for the viewer and makes these kinds of films work so well and on so many personally appealing levels.   

An equally shocking discovery I made about Gunga Din is that not only do the women I know love this movie, but that they dislike the love interest, the fiance, Emmy with equal passion. No, not for the cliched reasons like ‘she’s not a strong character’ and all that baloney. No, that’s not it. And anyway, it’s not true since, under the circumstances, she’s pretty darn strong. So what don’t they like about her? The same thing George Stevens, Ben Hecht and I don’t like about her. They hate what she’s trying to do. The women I know hate the fact that Sergeant Ballantine’s lover wants to take him away from his pals, from the adventure, from life itself, to go into the tea business, of all things. They, like Cutter and Mac, want that siren to fail.

In real life there are not many women who would give up a life of luxury, lucrative profits in a very promising business in order to let a husband run off and reenlist in the thankless job of Her Majesty’s service. Nor are there many women who want their men to go up against elephants on rope bridges or Kali worshiping stranglers as a line of work. Not many at all. Probably not even one. And that makes a lot of sense. So, why do women when watching Gunga Din want Bal to join Cutter and Mac (and Din) and do precisely that in the movie? Is the answer simply to be explained away as yet another unfathomable layer of the complex nature of woman, the incomprehensibility of the fairer sex to the brutish mind of man? 

Beats me. 

So, I asked myself, why do women want a fellow woman’s plans stopped, granted not in the same feverish way Eduardo Ciannelli’s high priest wants to stop the British Empire with his much copied crescendo-building “Kill for the Love of Killing” speech, but definitely stopped. Why do women want Cutter and Mac to succeed in their scheme to reenlist their friend and take him away from the woman in the story?  This question puzzled me. It nagged at my inner man. Then, one day, quite unexpectedly,  I had an epiphany, a stroke of genius. It was one of those ‘eureka moments’, the kind you hear about, the kind that make you jump out of the bath, covered in soapy suds and run out into the street yelling at the top of your lungs, “I’VE GOT IT!! I’VE GOT IT!!” 

For the record, I’d suggest not expressing yourself in that way, exactly. Unless, of course you have a very good lawyer or a burning desire to see the inside of a psychiatric ward.  I have neither, so it’s fortunate that I came to my senses before I cleared the door jam and therefore was not forced to scribe this article onto a thick stone wall with a dull spoon. 

What I figured out amongst the bubbles was this: Women want men. Again, no kidding. No, hold on. That’s not it, exactly. Women want other men. Wait a minute, that’s not quite right, either. Let’s try again. Women want what other women want and that includes men. Yeah, that’s what I mean, sort of. 

Or to put it another way, in the form of a question, I came up with this: What woman, besides Joan Fontaine’s Emmy, would desire a domesticated Douglas Fairbanks who does very little else aside from selling tea and reading the paper? None. What woman would want a Douglas Fairbanks riding a horse, crossing swords with bad guys, getting trapped, imprisoned, escaping “by sheer strategy alone” and saving not only his chums, but the whole bloomin’ regiment, king and country, with a little help from his friends? 

Every woman, that’s who! At least I think so. 

Because, that’s the figure of a man. A man acts. He doesn’t necessarily think. For good or bad, he just does. And then another revelation occurred to me, not at the same time, thankfully, and not involving suds, but still noteworthy. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I have a theory about men and women and it sort of ties in with all of this. I’ll restate part of it here briefly:

Men are simple. Women are complicated. 

Men live in the past. Women live in the future.  

(I have a sneaking suspicion children are the only ones who live in the present)

Here’s the big one: 

Women plan. Men dream.

When men become more like women – no not that way -  but when they stop dreaming as men dream, stop being reckless, stop living the adventure, stop thinking anything is possible (even if it clearly isn’t), stop acting, stop doing, when they cease to do these things, be these things, something has happened to them. 

They’ve grown old.

What I mean is, they’ve given up the ability to dream. They may not be old in years, but in spirit they are dusty cobwebs. They may not even know it happened to them until much later, well after the woman in their lives knows it. That’s something I’ll have to remind myself of from time to time, no doubt. 

When I think on other films that are called ‘guy flicks’ or ‘buddy movies’ there are so many that I love that I won’t even attempt to begin to list them. I will say, though, that along with Gunga Din (1939), The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), The Sea Hawk (1940), The Thing from Another World (1951), The Lives of a Bengal Lancer (1935), Sahara (1943), and Cyrano de Bergerac (1950) are some of my favorite guy movies of all time, which honor things like honor, duty and the undying capacity to dream large, even when all around them is a nightmare. These are films I never get tired of watching, nor ever will. There are others, lots more, and even some that are more recent, that have similar appeal. Braveheart comes to mind. But for the most part, these newer films are missing something that their predecessors have.  Maybe it’s the technicolor, or the monochrome for that matter, or just maybe, it’s the writing, the way in which dialogue plays such a dominant role in shaping the characters. I tend to think that’s the reason. Then again, maybe it’s just because I saw most of them as a kid. Who knows? Not me, and frankly, I don’t think I really want to know.  Because I’d rather dream. 

But, yes, these are some of my favorites, and it’s interesting that all of them, yes, all of them, are some of my female friends’ favorites as well. What does that say? That I hang around a bunch of butch chicks? No, I hope it doesn’t say that. It says that there are films about men, that don’t get all mushy, that women truly love for the same reasons men do. It says that women can sit and watch a film about men with no female character they can associate with, or even like in the story and come away thoroughly thrilled at the outcome. 

So, are these guy flicks, or not? I guess not. They’re more than that. They’re great flicks. They speak to both men and women as loud and clear as Din’s trumpeting. But how are they able to do that? What do they have in common? They were all written by people who could write. Sure they are genre, but they aren’t hackneyed, formulaic. And most of all, they weren’t supposed to appeal to just men, or just women, or just kids, or just adults. They were meant to be enjoyed by everyone. Their message however politically incorrect some may find it, is universal.  And that’s why they are hard to find nowadays. Because today, it’s all about pitching to a niche. Everything has to have a target audience, a market to aim for, a demographic to appease, please and all to often, pander to. 

Great films don’t do that. Not guy flicks, not chick flicks, not any flicks. Great is great. And great films charge ahead into the breech not caring what this or that group thinks is proper or offensive. We’re missing that kind of courage today.  And our culture is suffering because of it.  These days, we hear a lot about so-called controversial films. Yet no filmmaker seems daring enough to take a chance at being great, at dreaming large. Why should they when it’s so much easier to pander? 

There’s a scene in another great, though entirely different film that captures and defines the essence of what a man is, what he wishes he was, and what he wants other men to see him as. 

At the end of The Right Stuff, Chuck Yeager takes his Lockheed F-104 Starfighter up to where the sky ends and space itself begins. He’s so far up that there isn’t enough oxygen in the air to fully power the turbine anymore. His engine quits. He spins out of control amongst the vast stars and great heavens above, falling to earth like Icarus with melted wings. 

But unlike the Greek, there is no ocean to catch him. Only the brutally harsh and unforgiving desert of Edwards. 

With frantic eyes peering past hope at the funereal black smoke on the horizon, the ambulance driver suddenly spots a lone figure in the distance walking toward them, shimmering in the blurry heat like a mirage – or a god. We see he is burnt, bloody and limping. It’s Yeager, and he’s carrying his helmet and parachute. 

“Is that a man?”, the driver asks Ridley, fellow test pilot and Yeager’s best friend. 

Grinning ear to ear, Ridley replies, “You’re damn right it is!”

Something tells me Emmy would agree.

I can’t help but focus on the horror right now, call me twisted. Ben Shapiro, did you really suggest that the concept that “art ennobles” is a “liberal cliche”? If this is what “conservatives” actually believe, is it any wonder that liberals consistently make better films? I cannot fathom why anyone would cede such a broad truism to the “liberal” cause. Go ahead and give them Mom and apple pie while you’re at it.

In your dismissal of the brilliant film, The Lives of Others, you claim that it “goes easy on the Stasi (see some of them were really nice guys!)”. Well, Ben, some of them undoubtedly were good people, if conflicted. It is the very complexity of human nature that allows atrocities to be committed on such grand scales, and likewise, what allows goodness to somehow survive in even the darkest and most unlikely places.

The KKK member who came upon a black woman praying in a church with her child and beat her, is abhorrent. But the Klan member who could not bring himself to do so is clearly more frightening. And he is real. Without that glimmer of humanity, evil is just a dumb joke that would burn itself out rather quickly. If we cannot see ourselves reflected somewhere, if we are not made uncomfortable…if we are never made to wonder whether we would report a neighbor to the Nazi regime, for instance, in order to protect our own families, then we are only watching cartoons. And isn’t that lack of complexity one of the things that conservatives consistently (and justifiably) rail against in Hollywood?

Yes, great art ennobles! And challenges us. Those who disagree should probably not bother discussing films and their impact on society. What would be the point?

Frankly, I love the folks at NR, but Ghostbusters at number 10? Really? Because of a few sorta-kinda free-market lines? The film is fine, whatever. But hardly notable on any list of any kind. 300 at number 5? If there is a grosser mutilation of a fascinating story, I have not seen it, and I am thankful for that much.

Honestly, there are so many lousy movies on that list that it blows my mind. And if one must construct a conservative movie list (without being stoned in a dorm room), where is The Right Stuff, Lean on Me, or, my pick of the day, Remember the Titans?

This is a true story that has every element of a great “conservative” film.  It celebrates courage, hard work, redemption, and the individual facing long odds against a clear and present moral evil in society. It is family-friendly in every respect and suitable for any child 10-years or older. It’s also extremely well-executed, a pleasure to watch, and a very necessary history lesson.

Can anyone tell me why “we” aren’t claiming films like this one?