Scarface (1932) (Dir. Howard Hawks)
The Gold Rush (1925) (Dir. Charlie Chaplin)
I Am a Fugititve from a Chain Gang (1932) (Dir. Mervyn LeRoy)
The Thirteenth Amendment forbids slavery and involuntary servitude, “except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” If you were to visit Louisiana State Penitentiary today, you would see cotton fields being worked by black prisoners with guards on horseback carrying shotguns. I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang is proving to be a timeless critique of the US prison system which more than 2 million Americans are subjected to at any given time, the largest prison population on the planet accounting for a quarter of imprisoned peoples across the world.
Mervyn LeRoy's movie succeeded in drawing attention to some of the ills inherent to a punishment centered, instead of a rehabilitation centered, program, but the subsequent outlawing of leg irons was a superficial response at best. Likewise, the move away from corporal punishment like public whippings has done nothing but improved public relations. Instead of beatings, prisoners are locked in solitary until they experience psychosis. Instead of prisoners breaking rocks solely to punish them, now prisoners are exploited for labor from which private and public prisons alike can profit. Just recently, prisoners assisting in fighting California's massive wild fires as volunteer firemen were compensated with an hourly wage of $1. These men will not be allowed to take up the profession of firefighting when they are freed.
Some might be inclined to watch this movie in the context of a bygone era. That would be a mistake.
To The Wonder (2012) (Dir. Terrence Malick)
Malick is an auteur who uses symbolism moment to moment without ever entertaining extended metaphors which limit creative freedom. Denis Villeneuve's Enemy is the perfect example of a film with consistent rules which it plays by, limiting audience interpretations to a "correct" and "incorrect" state thus invalidating the experience of some and vindicating the experience of others. At a distance, To the Wonder is generally about crises of faith and the folly of looking for God in institutions or others instead inward. Beyond that, Malick uses his cast as representations of smaller ideas which exist in the moment are never intended to apply to the film as a whole.
Is Affleck the savior and the son as sick townsfolk flock to him? Is Affleck the indecipherable god distinct from its human extension in Jesus when he exerts his wrath and struggles to forgive? Surely you would contend that he can encapsulate both as the trinity, especially when his lover admits she can almost reach out and touch him even in his absence, but her story is reconciled in nature, not in the company of man. So is Affleck the golden calf, the false prophet who people mistakenly look to for answers? The answer is that Malick isn't interested in exploring one or a few ideas at the expense of exploring spirituality as a multi-faceted experience thus subjecting his serendipitous visual style to rigid, inorganic guidelines.
I've seen this movie 3 or 4 times now, and I'm still climbing the steps to its wonder. I don't have to wish I could experience this film for the first time again. It changes alongside me. Evergreen. Everflowing.