Jeff_Jewell's Blog

Like a lot of people, I stood in line this past weekend to revisit a happy chapter of my youth in the form of movie hero Indiana Jones.  I was full of reservation, since I've been burned before (ahem, Star Wars), but I thought it would be fun to see the character on the big screen again, doing what he does best.  I wondered going in if Harrison Ford would seem too old to be playing the wisecracking adventurer, but to my surprise, he appeared more than game for both the smart remarks and the physical demands of the genre.  But...

What felt old to me was the genre itself.  I was only five when Raiders came out, but when I finally saw it on t.v. a couple years later, all I could talk about for days were the melting faces.  The movie was unlike anything I'd ever seen, and it remains one of my favorites.  But today, special effects like melting faces are available to anyone with a computer, and since the premiere, we've been treated to nearly 30 years of Indiana Jones knockoffs.  The original is still great, but adventure films like this are admittedly getting a little stale.  And you know what?  The new Indy chapter is no different.  It has the air of something we've seen before, many times, and it's kind of, a little, well, boring.

It's time for a change, right?  Right?  Something fresh?  So then why is almost every big movie coming out this summer a retread?  We've got another Batman, Sex and the City (based on a t.v. show, and already getting tepid reviews), another (another!) Hulk movie (wasn't the first one DOA?), another Narnia movie (so now we've got two boring installments, and another five to look forward to, if we keep shelling out money for this stuff), Iron Man (based on a comic book, and while it's not terrible, "not terrible" is not a good enough justification for a multi-million dollar budget), and, of course, Indiana Jones. With an abundance of original ideas presented on shows like Big Love, The Wire, Lost, and The Office, I think next summer I'll just stay home and watch t.v.        

The Free Press is reporting that Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick hired at least 29 friends and family members to city posts since taking office.  Some are arguing that the number is excessive, and that the news just adds to the perception that this administration has not always acted in an ethical manner.  But Kilpatrick spokeswoman Denise Tolliver points out that the practice is not illegal and that there is a long tradition in Detroit of hiring relatives of city employees.

What do you think?  Does this further sully Kilpatrick's reputation, or were the hirings appropriate?

It's been a rough week for the mayor of Detroit.  First, he took a late-night drubbing from Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.  Then, a national news source published a picture of him in a red dress in a middle school play.  Adding fuel to the already burning fire, Mayor Kilpatrick initially denied that was him in the photo.  But after several people came forward saying it was indeed him, he did an about-face.  Some would say that's more proof of how this mayor operates.  What do you think?

As if the city of Detroit didn't have enough going on to damage its reputation, members of city council resorted to childish arguing and even name-calling during an OPEN hearing.  The entire exchange was captured on camera for all to see and hear.  So what do you think about it?  Who's at fault?  Does this hurt the council's credibility?  Add a comment below and let us you know your thoughts...

Like many people, I was saddened by the news of Charlton Heston's death.  I was raised on films like The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur and Touch of Evil, and I still enjoy Heston's over-the-top performances in several meaty roles.  As I got older, I saw more ham than anything else, but his characters are indelible, and the impact of his films cannot be measured. 

However, like many people, I was troubled by his politics in the late period of his life, and like many people, I let that color my perception of his character creations.  I began to hear in his Moses the same bellowing windbag that loudly proclaimed the evils of gun control, even as innocent people continued to die because of the ready availability of firearms.

But it's easy to forgive a once-honored public figure after he dies, and to remember all the good things he accomplished.  Once we have a reason to look back at the entire spectrum of a person's career, it seems fitting to focus on the positive, and to gloss over the events that caused controversy.  As a result, we have been treated to retrospectives overflowing with goodwill, and celebrations of a body of work many consider among the best the movies have to offer.

And I think this is right, specifically when it comes to actors.  Actors' personal lives and philosophical ideas are of little interest to most reasonable people, and I think they should have little bearing on the enjoyment of the movies.  Heston's political life, including his disastrous appearance in Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, doesn't take a single thing away from the supremely entertaining Planet of the Apes, or the masterpiece that is Ben Hur. 

So here's my question: If we can remember Charlton Heston, or any controversial figure, with fondness, isn't it right to ignore the obnoxious antics of someone like Mel Gibson?  Here's a guy whose reputation lies in ruin, yet his Hollywood persona is similar to Heston's.  Tough action heroes and epic historical figures are his bread and butter, and he's played several iconic characters, from Mad Max to William Wallace to Martin Riggs.  I really like him as an actor and director, and I'd never let his behavior keep me from seeing one of his films.

What do you think?