THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY: The West's Bridge to the Islamic World?

by Andrew Patterson

As a developing country, Turkey has a fairly unique political history, especially for a country in the Middle East. Most Islamic countries in the Middle East are known for being heavily fundamentalist, theocratic, traditionalist and anti-West. However, the modern Republic of Turkey is a stark contrast to many of its neighbors. Previously ruled for over 600 years by the Ottoman Empire, the Turkey the world recognizes today began in 1923 when political leader Mustafa Kemal, later known as Ataturk, abolished the Ottoman Empire and installed new forms of government. Since then the country has gone through a vast array of changes with steady success but with its fair share of problems (McNamara, 2009, para. 2-4). Ultimately, however, what stands out about modern Turkey is that it is remarkably secular and modernized. Additionally, Turkey’s modern day political system features an executive, legislative and judicial branch. It has a constitution and it is considered a republican parliamentary democracy. This is a similar structure to the United States’ government, though Turkey’s legal system takes more influence from Europe (CIA, 2013). This begs the question then – should Turkey serve as model for other developing Islamic countries in the Middle East? Is Turkey the bridge, if you will, that the West needs to reach the Islamic world? To help answer these questions, one should examine the Republic of Turkey’s use of forced secularization and modernization through autocratic rule, how it affected women, and how it ultimately enacted a slow, gradual transition to democracy.

Initially, once the Republic of Turkey was formed in 1923, Ataturk became an autocratic ruler of the country (Handleman, 2011, p. 109). Ataturk’s biggest political change from the previous Ottoman Empire was initiating an immediate separation of church and state (Handleman, 2011, p. 109). Ataturk removed the rule of the caliphate (Turkey’s supreme religious leader) and the Islamic courts (Cagaptay, 2007, p.7). In addition, Ataturk also went beyond mere secularization of government by also instituting forced secularization of Turkish society. For example, “the government westernized the alphabet, clothing and nation’s legal code” while also restricting religious political groups for running for office (Handleman, 2011, p. 109-110).  By 1928 Islam was not even declared as Turkey’s official state religion (Cagaptay, 2007, p.7).

              According to author Soner Cagaptay, Turkey’s secularism differs from the United States’ form of secularism, and it is more modeled after Europe (2007, p.8). Cagaptay described this, writing, “Unlike American secularism, which has historically provided ‘freedom of religion’ to and for people fleeing religious persecution, European (French and Turkish) secularism (laicite), born in reaction to the domination of the political sphere by one faith, has promoted ‘freedom from religion’” (2007, p.8). This form of secularism created a “firewall between religion and politics” (Cagaptay, 2007, p.8). Author Yesim Arat expanded further on this, writing: “The secularism of the Republican state [of Turkey] has traditionally meant not merely the separation of religion and state but also state control over religion. Imbued with the conviction that the state represents the best interests of the people despite the people, the Kemalist reformers have aimed to confine religion to the private realm” (1998, p. 123).

            This drastic and autocratic forced secularization of Turkey’s government and society is perhaps the biggest thing that makes Turkey unique among developing Muslim nations in the Middle East. Typically a major source of oppression for Muslims in the Middle East has originated from theocratic government policies, such as the theocratic monarchy in Saudi Arabia or the ruthless Taliban in Afghanistan. In Turkey, on the other hand, Muslims arguably received oppression from a secular, autocratic government. While “urban middle class” citizens tend to support this secularization and modernization, citizens from rural areas have often opposed it (Handleman, 2011, p. 110).

            This issue is made even more complex and intriguing when one examines women’s rights in Turkey since the secular reforms of Ataturk. On the one hand, one can make the case that women’s rights have greatly increased. For instance, women were given voting rights after not having them previously under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Contrary to this, however, Ataturk’s secular reforms have also arguably oppressed women in other ways; most notably, by banning the wearing of headscarves in public. Because of this, any woman that wants to attend university or work for the government cannot wear headscarves. However, by removing their headscarves women would also be going against their religion (Handleman, 2011, p. 109-110). The result of this government policy continues to marginalize women in Turkey instead of empowering them. Furthermore, although the policy is secular in nature, it also ends up persecuting citizens because of their religion. Additionally, although these reforms were designed to empower women, the standards for how women should dress and act were still being created by men; most notably, the standard set by Ataturk and the state (White, 2003, p.145). Author Jenny White described this, writing, “The Republican state determined the characteristics of the ideal woman and set up a monopolistic  system to propagate this ideal in a population that held often quite different values and perceptions of ideal women’s behavior” (2003, p. 145). Again, here lies an inherent contradiction of the secular reforms. The state simultaneously works to empower women, but it is dictated on the state’s terms, so any misgivings from the female population are suppressed.

Ataturk

Despite this, the autocratic nature of these secular reforms perhaps had a similar effect as autocratic economic reforms in other developing nations (though the key in all of these autocratic reforms is that power always needs to be eventually given up).To explain, although some women’s rights were suppressed temporarily by these reforms – a short term cost in rebuilding the structure of a society -- in the long run women’s rights and opportunities increased because of them. In addition to voting and civil rights, women were open up to educational, economic and political opportunities and power (White, 2003, p. 150-151). Author Jenny White even went as far to praise Turkey’s reforms as breakthrough for women across the world, writing, “The state feminist model … despite its authoritarian rigidity about what constitutes a modern woman, was groundbreaking and successful in allowing Turkish women to participate in society at all levels to an extent that unheard of in Europe or the United States at the time” (2003, p. 158).

            Furthermore, over time Turkey has become increasingly democratic.  Despite his initial autocratic rule, a major part of Ataturk’s plan for Turkey involved democracy (Cagaptay, 2007, p. 8). The only caveat to this was that Ataturk demanded Turkey to achieve secularism prior to achieving democracy (Cagaptay, 2007, p. 9). Author Yasim Arat expanded on this, writing: “A solidarist collectivist ethic served as a tool for modernizing reforms when appeals to individualism could not be effective as a means to [secularization and democratization]. … Interests of the community and the nation would come before the interests of the individual” (1998, p. 118). However, starting in the 1950s the government began allowing participation of religious political groups into politics, although at first they received heavy opposition and even suppression from secular government forces (Handleman, 2011, p. 110). Because of this, progress for religious political groups was slow, but in 2002 the religious political group known as AK was victorious in the 2002 national election (Handleman, p.110).

            Perhaps in the long run forced secularization and westernization through autocratic rule was what Turkey needed. In a region where religion and government have been so intrinsically linked – and where civil rights and educational, technological and economic progress has been suppressed in the name of religion – perhaps forced secularization was the essential first step in advancing Turkey as a freer society. This returns to the notion of a painful short term cost, but with eventual rewards in the long run. The key for Turkey, however, has been its slow, gradual transition from autocratic rule to democracy. For example, there have been three military coups since the government has started to have open elections in the 1950s (Lewis, 1994, para. 20). In fact, the Turkish military is strictly dedicated to preserving the constitution and by extension the continuing secularization of Turkey (Cagaptay, 2007, p. 9). However, according to author Bernard Lewis, Turkey’s history of military interventions is unique, writing, “What is remarkable is not that these interventions took place--that is, after all, the norm in that region and political culture--but that after all three, the military withdrew to its barracks, and allowed, even facilitated, the resumption of the democratic process” (Lewis, 1994, para. 20). Again, this highlights a gradual, if not occasionally painful transition.  

Compare Turkey then to countries in the Arab Spring, who through revolution launched their countries from autocratic rule straight into democracy.  While the Arab democratic uprising was initially endorsed by many, there is now arguably some serious worry in the West over the stability and legitimacy of the democracies in some of the countries where revolution took place. In Egypt, for instance, the religious political group the Muslim Brotherhood has risen as the major party of power, but unlike the AK in Turkey there is not a secularist military to keep the Muslim Brotherhood in check. The question then is will there be continuing protection of religious and civil liberties in Egypt for minority groups and women?  Furthermore, countries in the Arab Spring might want democracy, but do they actually want full secularization, westernization and all that it has to offer (Bloomberg, 2012, para. 26)? Is democracy out of sudden revolution sustainable? Author Bernard Lewis further explained the success of Turkey’s gradual transition to democracy, writing:

“Specifically, the Turkish experiment in parliamentary democracy has been going on for a century and a quarter--much longer than in any other country in the Islamic world--and its present progress therefore rests on a far stronger, wider, and deeper base of experience. The vicissitudes of democracy under the late Ottomans, under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and under his successors would seem to confirm the belief that democracy is a strong medicine, which must be administered in small and only gradually increased doses. Too large and too sudden a dose can kill the patient” (1994, para. 27).

            With this in mind, it is perhaps impossible to fully secularize nations in the Middle East. For better or worse, Islam is tied very closely to government and politics.  Despite many Muslims wanting democracy and modernization, there is still an apparent desire to keep religion and politics linked. This is also illustrated in Turkey with the election of the religious AK party. Even in the United States, which is deemed secular and representative of Western culture, there has never been a President that has not been Christian. In fact, there was controversy over President John F. Kennedy being Catholic, with Republican 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney being Mormon, and then the ridiculous (and bigoted) rumors of President Barack Obama being Muslim. The point is that, whether from the Middle East or the West, people often wish to bring their religious values into politics, because it is – again, for better or worse – arguably what gives nations a considerable part of their identity.

Furthermore, arguably what has made the West and Turkey successful as democracies (despite their shortcomings) is their prioritizing of secularism and safe-guarding against theocratic upheavals. Turkey’s use of forced-secularization and modernization through autocratic rule has allowed for gradual transition to democracy. As evidenced by the formation of the religious political group the AK, religion may never be able to be taken entirely out of Turkish or Middle Eastern politics – just like it may never be taken directly out of the United States’ politics – but if there is enough safeguards of secularism intact (even if it suppresses the wishes of people), then society has a better chance to prosper, making Turkey a fine model for developing countries in the Middle East.

Works Cited

Arat, Yesim. (1998). Feminists, Islamists, and Political Change in Turkey. Political Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 1, p. 117-131.  Published by: International Society of Political Psychology. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3792117

Cagaptay, Soner. (2007). Secularism and Foreign Policy in Turkey: New Elections, Troubling Trends. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. P. 1-32. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/PolicyFocus67.pdf

CIA World Factbook. Turkey: Government section. Last Updated: 29 March, 2013. Retrieved from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html

Gaouette, Nicole. (2012). ‘Arab Spring’ stirs U.S. Worries After Year of Turmoil. Bloomberg. Retrieved from:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-13/arab-spring-s-enthusiasm-gives-way-to-continuing-crisis-for-u-s-allies.html

Handleman, Howard. (2011). “Religion and Politics.” The Challenge of Third World Development. Pearson Prentice Hall. Special Edition for Penn State 2011. P. 109-110.

Lewis, Bernard. (1994). Why Turkey is the Only Muslim Democracy. Middle East Quarterly. P. 41-49. Retrieved from: http://www.meforum.org/216/why-turkey-is-the-only-muslim-democracy

McNamara, Melissa. (2009). History of Turkey. CBS News. Retrieved from: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-2213120.html

White, Jenny B. (2003). State Feminism, Modernization, and the Turkish Republican Woman. NWSA Journal , Vol. 15, No. 3, Gender and Modernism between the Wars, 1918-1939, p. 145-159. Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4317014

THE NAKED SPUR (1953, Anthony Mann)

This is my second viewing of this psychological western, and it holds up just as well as it did the first time. This is the third of five westerns in director Anthony Mann's pairing with the legendary James Stewart, and it is simply a terrific film. Like with perhaps his most famous film, Winchester 73, Mann takes to the Western genre to tell stories of men struggling to maintain morality in a lawless region of the world. This theme continues here with this film. It is simple and straight-forward story-telling, but done very effectively.

In The Naked Spur, Stewart's character, Howard Kemp, is a bounty hunter who is tracking down a wanted murderer, deep in the Colorado Rockies and wilderness. The film opens with an outstanding action set-piece -- Kemp, by the help of two men whom he stumbled across along the trail, attempt to capture the wanted killer who has himself held up atop a cliff. The sequence is remarkable in how effective it is in its simplicity, slowly building suspense and portraying a genuine feeling of danger, all with epic shots of the Colorado Rocky mountains in the background. It's one of the best scenes in any Western I have ever seen, and it is arguable that the film may actually peak at this point, but luckily the rest is a largely satisfying experience.

Furthermore, upon capturing the wanted criminal -- played by the deliciously sleazy Roberty Ryan -- and his girlfriend Lina, Kemp now needs to transport the two out of the mountains. However, the two men who helped Kemp, a gold prospector and discharged military soldier, are not willing to leave so easily. And once they come into knowledge that Kemp is not a Sherriff but instead a bounty hunter and that there is a considerable reward for the criminal, then the real conflict of the story presents itself, as the two men demand that they come along to transport the wanted murderer and thus get a fair share of the reward. Trudging through the wilderness on horse-back, Ryan's character begins to manipulate the three men against each other so as to scheme and plan for his escape.

The characters in the film all come with a troubled or dirty history. Ryan's character is of course a wanted killer (although it is not known if he is actually guilty). The gold prospector is an older man who has never had any luck, yet he also makes a living ripping off Indians in unfair trades. The military officer was discharged with dishonor for reasons that are initially unknown. Lina has never lived a good life, and she clings to
Ryan's character, always denying any accusations of him being a murderer. Then finally there is Kemp. Stewart gives an effectively conflicted and distraught performance of a man who is on a determined quest for redemption of a tragic past life, but yet has to battle with the idea of profiting from another man's death, one whose guiltiness is questionable. There is an ambiguity to it all which I really dig. And as the story progresses and the men reach closer to their destination, the tension increases. It isn't merely greed which drives this tension, but something even more powerful -- fear. The three men, unable to trust each other as they each know their questionable pasts, continually get egged on and manipulated by Ryan's character. The ultimate struggle for these characters is to survive while trying to maintain some kind of moral integrity in such a lawless, unforgiving wilderness.

And what a wilderness it is. Despite being a film which is largely built around character interactions, what makes The Naked Spur a unique film is that there is a large emphasis on landscape. The technicolor is beautiful, and the on location, epic scenery of the Rock Mountains is at times staggering, which ultimately truly elevates the film as a whole. A landscape that is vast and menacing and lawless as it is beautiful. Order and sanity seems to hang by a thread. During the middle of the film, the group engages in a nasty fire-fight with a group of Native Americans. After the fight has subsided, there is a brief but subtley powerful shot of Stewart's character examining the carnage of the dead Indians lying on the ground, perhaps a simple, passing commentary on the violence against the Native Americans and just the barbarity of it all in the region.

Overall, The Naked Spur isn't a perfect film. There are some clunky pieces of expository dialog, which are at times really unnecessary (although at other times effective). Additionally, some of the romantic bits I found a bit cheesy. That said, I liked the ending much more this time, and even found it surprisingly moving, with the film effectively coming full circle. It's by and large a truly great film. Great acting, great character interactions and development, effectively intense, some outstanding set-pieces, and tremendous scenery. This is a classic, and one of the best westerns I have seen.

9/10

Lessons of Darkness (1992, Werner Herzog)

I think I am starting to get Herzog. Aguirre: The Wrath of God left me very underwhelmed and I didn't like it for some inexplicable reason, but his documentaries (if you want to call them that) seem to really click with me. And Lessons of Darkness is the best film I have seen from Herzog yet, an incredible masterpiece and true visionary film.

Simply put, Lessons of Darkness is one of the most spectacular goddamn things I have ever seen.

Running at only a brief 54 minutes, Herzog presents a highly unconventional experimental documentary, loosely structured with chapters, of the after-math of the Gulf wars and the occurring oil fires. The film is one of the most amazingly audacious and bombastic apocalyptic visions I have ever seen. Herzog edits the film together like some maniacal maestro, with his sparse narration never better, carrying with it an at times biblical presence, as he quotes from the Book of Revelations. So cold and raw and amazing. There are only two (brief) interviews in the film; one where a woman tries to recount the torture and death of her son, but she is so traumatized that she literally cannot speak; and the other between a young mother (a widow) and her young boy, who tells how her young son was stomped on and traumatized so harshly that he won't speak. Whether these interviews were staged or not is not really important to me. In Herzog's visual poem, words cannot describe the destruction and despair, so fittingly it is told through images and sound. The rest of the film, apart from Herzog's occasional narration, is played with silence, save for the booming classical music and the droning noise of oil and water and flames and bubbling oil. The mostly faceless engineer workers, trying to put out the oil fires, at times look like some kind of extraterrestrials standing amidst the geysers of flames.

Additionally, what makes Lessons of Darkness unique is that it refuses to make any cheap political statement. Others have described the experience as like being an alien staring down in bewilderment of the perplexing and reckless nature of the human species, our tendency towards demise, destruction, and death. I suppose some might find this as too overly arty and heavy, but I personally eat this shit up.

Furthermore, it is an unbelievably insane film, with Herzog's depiction of this wasteland being haunting and unforgettable, both staggeringly beautiful and frightening at the same time. It is a hypnotizing experience as you get lost in the chaos of it all. And there are so many images I won't forget. There really aren't many films, if any, that I have seen like this. At only 54 minutes, it left me perhaps wanting even more, but I can't fault it for that. I think Herzog told us all he wanted to tell. I loved this even more than Grizzly Man, which is another masterwork documentary.

10/10 

Sidney Lumet RIP (1924 - 2011)

A legendary American director (and a favorite of mine), Sidney Lumet, has left us today, dead at age 86. Making his departure even more saddening is the fact that, even at his older ager, he was still directing new films, including most recently the much acclaimed heist film of Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, released in 2007.

Despite having an extremely prolific career, his best film is perhaps his feature debut, the classic court-room drama, 12 Angry Men, a film which is amazingly cinematic and transcends its genre and becomes an extremely intense and profound exploration of group interaction -- an endlessly fascinating film which only gets better each viewing and is in my top 5 films.

Network, my second favorite film of his, is a masterpiece in outrageous satire, extremely compelling and brilliantly acted, one of the greatest scripts ever. I have also seen Fail-Safe, Serpico, and Dog Day Afternoon, each very good films and well worth seeing. But alas, there is still so much more to see, so I look forward to exploring more of his work.

RIP

SEVEN SAMURAI (1954, Akira Kurosawa)

I first began to dabble into Akira Kurosawa (and classic world cinema, in general) over a year ago. Despite being the world filmmaker titan that he is, my first encounters with Kurosawa didn't go over as smoothly as expected. But perhaps my tastes are changing, or I am simply becoming more in tune with his style (probably both), but upon revisiting his perhaps most major classic, Seven Samurai, a film which initially underwhelmed me, I can now unequivocally say it is a great film and truly worthy of its mega-classic status.

I'm sure most know or could recognize its plot-line -- after-all, it's been used in remakes such as the western The Magnificent Seven (which admittedly I am not too fond of) and the adequate Pixar remake A Bug's Life. During the 1500s in Japan, a peasant village is continually robbed and brutalized by bandits. When one of the villagers hears that the bandits will return again, this time possibly taking everything, the desperate villagers seek help from seven skilled samurai, whom they can't pay with money but have to instead offer food. Seven Samurai's high popularity isn't surprising, given the fact that the story is remarkably accessible, especially for western audiences like myself. To put it simply, it's basically a Western but with samurais instead of cowboys.

Even with its nearly 3 1/2 hour running time, the film is remarkable entertainment from start to finnish, and most of the time simply flies by. Each of the samurai characters are well-drawn, interesting, and outstandingly acted, with classic Japanese actors Takashi Shimura and Toshiro Mifune being even bigger standouts. Much of the film is a build-up to the long extended battle sequences in the end, yet perhaps the most fascinating section of the film for me is watching the interaction between the samurais and the peasant villagers, where Kurosawa takes time to address the class system. We watch as the villagers amusingly cower away from the samurais, but it is also revealed some of the samurais mild (but still present prejudices), all leading to Mifune's character's powerful, impassioned speech. And yet underneath all that is a tender love-story between the youngest, most inexperienced samurai and one of the daughters of the villagers, a plot-line which could have been cheesy but is instead handled quite effectively. When the villagers and samurai finally gel, it feels real. Through all the character-development and other small details, it has been earned. So while some may say that the build-up is too long, I feel it is perfect and essential to the success of the film.

I would reckon that for about 3/4 of the movie, it is essentially FLAWLESS entertainment. Gripping story, excellent character interactions, great moments of humor, and brilliantly photographed. Kurosawa really knows how to position the camera, actors, and stage the action. Some of the epic shots are masterful, and his use of weather, landscape, and simply the geography of the village is at times incredible. That said, like with his major American influence in John Ford, I feel that pacing wasn't always his strongest suit. And, don't get me wrong -- the film is fast-paced and doesn't have any major issues at all, yet I do find some nearly inexplicable lags in the latter stretch of the film. I feel that it is in the climax of the subplot between the young samurai and the peasant girl, for while it is perfectly developed and essential to the film, it's placement right before the climactic battle strikes me as awkward, and I feel it slightly  drags the film down a tad.

That said, that seriously is my only complaint which, considering its 207 minute running time, is pretty damn impressive. And really, the final battle scene, soaked in rain, mud, and blood, damn near makes up for it. Better yet, the film showcases one of the greatest bitter-sweet endings I have seen in all of cinema. The villagers sing on in celebration from a distance after defeating the bandits, while the remaining alive samurai stand from a far and look on in grief. Even more tragically, the young samurai looks on in the distance as he watches the young girl he loves celebrate with the villagers. Nothing has to be said, their love will be no more, their fleeting romance is over. Both the samurais and villagers, despite living and fighting and dying together in the past month time, will go on their separate ways, and it will be accepted without having to say a word. Kurosawa's masterpiece shows us the power of a united people, how under harsh conditions these social barriers can be shattered, yet in the end we are given a sobering reminder of what powers these barriers still hold.  I find it to be a subtly powerful ending to a great film.

9/10

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE (2002, Michael Moore)

Being the cliche college leftist that I am (well, really, I am too apathetic anymore to have any true political standing), I should gladly embrace Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. I have seen it before, but many years ago, yet I liked it then. I still like it now, but my feelings are definitely mixed. 

Moore essentially takes the horrific Columbine tragedy, but doesn't really focus on it, and instead uses it as a branching point to explore America's gun-violence problems, giving him the opportunity to rant about media-indoctrination, corporatism, and of course FEAR MONGERING. You know, his favorite stuff. And that's okay, but it does get a bit redundant during the film. I imagine there are other good documentaries which strictly cover the tragedy in Colorado that I might prefer more, because while I do enjoy the rather large scope of the film, I have to say that its focus (to me anyway) seems to wander at times.

And of course any time you see a Michael Moore film you have to deal with Moore himself. The way he imprints himself on his films gives it most of its style, for better or worse. I can see this being better on personal projects, but here he can obviously be quite of intrusive, and he a lot of times overshadows the film's content, no surprise. I suppose it comes down to what style of documentary filmmaking do you prefer or find more effective? The one where the filmmaker puts his or herself out in the spotlight with the subject; or films like Hoop Dreams and Harlan County USA where the filmmakers work quietly in the background, letting their subjects tell the story? I think both have their place, and I have to give credit to Moore, because "Bowling for Columbine" is entertaining and well-made, and the satirical approach is fun. However, you could argue that he puts entertainment in front of insights and true journalism. 


It seems that Moore always nukes himself in the final stretches of his films -- where he basically does something that is just too sensational. It's like he lacks confidence in what he is presenting, so he has to bring out the sledge-hammer to make his "point" across. Instead of just making a documentary to explore a subject, he has to provide an artificial climax. It's like the point I made about him putting entertainment in front of journalism. In Fahrenheit 9/11 you have the horrendous scene that essentially exploits a distraught, grieving mother of a fallen soldier; in Sicko you have a ridiculous scene in Cuba, where Moore laughably paints it as some paradise; and here in Bowling for Columbine you have a nasty final scene with Charleston Heston, where Moore becomes an outright bully.

In fact, Moore spends the bulk of the film hammering away at the point that it's FEAR which drives the country to be so violent, stating how in Canada they own as many guns, yet there are no gun-murders to speak of. Yet, then at the end, why go after Heston and the NRA? What's the point if we know that simply owning a lot of guns isn't the cause? Moore sees Heston as an easy target to start a fight with and he ends up essentially bullying him. The whole interview was pointless to begin with, and it ended disgracefully. Sure, Heston and the NRA can be insensitive, as rightfully pointed out by Moore throughout the film, but going after them served no other purpose other than to create some theater. Moore is just needlessly confrontational at times,  often with it going nowhere. Some of it was successful, like the amazing turn-out with the two poor guys who were wounded from the Kaymart bullets -- while some of it was pointless. I often don't feel an angst or passion within these films, but rather a childish, mean-spiritedness -- Fahrenheit 9/11 especially, but also here in this film as well. 

That said, there are some really outstanding interviews, two big highlights for me are the ones with Matt Stone (co-creator of South Park) and Marilyn Manson. There are some great sequences, and there are definitely things in the film which I could get behind. I wonder just how cosy the portrait of Canada truly is, but it wouldn;t surprise me, and the statistics of murder in the US is still appalling shocking, regardless.

So I suppose I am pretty indifferent to the film, but I wouldn't say it wasn't enjoyable, nor was it a waste of time. Moore has a talent as a filmmaker, but unfortunately his egotism and drive for needless sensationalism overshadows genuine journalism which is what is truly needed.

6/10

THE THING (1982, John Carpenter)

As a remake of Howard Hawks' 1950s sci-fi B-movie The Thing From Another World, John Carpenter's The Thing, while initially dismissed by critics upon release, has over the years bettered its reputation and is now rightfully considered the sci-fi horror masterpiece that it is.

Opening with a stunning shot of the frozen Antarctic tundra, Carpenter immediately establishes a sense of place in the desolate and isolated frozen land, as the film begins with a mysterious sequence of Norwegian men flying on a helicopter trying to snipe at a snow dog running towards an American scientific research base. Seeing this, the Americans at the base believe the men are deranged and eventually the Norwegian men are accidentally killed, with the Americans rescuing the chased dog, which they then take under their care. Little do they know, this snow dog has been over-taken by an alien creature which has complete consumed and imitated the canine's body -- a creature we'll call "the thing". An alien organism which, if left alone (in any shape or form) with another living organism, can in fact consume and imitate said organism, without it being remotely apparent to any outside party, making it nearly impossible to determine if the person or animal has been infected. When the "the thing" starts infecting members of the American scientific research base, paranoia, distrust, and chaos ensues.

Perhaps nothing profound, yet the film does an interesting job of exploring group dynamics. As isolated as this small group of men is, everything relies on mutual trust between each and every member, and when that trust is fractured, the cohesiveness that glues this group together now crumbles. Despite the vile nature of "the thing", most of its damage is caused by just sitting back and letting other uninfected individuals destroy each other in reckless mistrust and paranoia. This is an organism which is only bent on survival; it keeps quiet, lurking in the shadows. Carpenter works heavily in ambiguity. More questions are left open than those that are answered. Instead of utilizing dramatic irony in showing us, one by one, who is infected, information is purposefully left out or vague, keeping the audience always guessing if any character at any given time is infected or not. Notice how characters consciously withdraw and avoid each other out of fear of having no one to trust. The audience as well becomes isolated and paranoid, for even the traditional hero character (played by Kurt Russell) is still left ambiguous for much of the film as to what his condition is. The film perfectly puts the audience in exact same position as the characters in the film. And as the film progresses, it becomes clear what kind of world-wide implications the characters face if they cannot destroy this "thing". This is a very bleak and grim film, from the very beginning up until the ambiguous end.

In addition to its psychological aspects,  The Thing of course is famous for its outrageous gore, which is indeed fantastic. Despite approaching 30 years in age, the film and its special effects remain as fresh as ever. Yet is a horror film which works on even more levels as well. Legendary composer Ennio Morricone supplies a wonderfully minimalist musical score which, in combination with the brilliant use of setting and amazing lighting, helps create a thick atmosphere. Working in more subtle ways, perhaps the most deeply unsettling images are the striking shots of the souless eyes of the alien "possessed" dog, as it quietly wanders around the base, the shots so (relatively) simply composed, yet carry so much impact. Carpenter's skill in story-telling and technical mastery elevates what is essentially a B-movie remake into high art -- a brilliant blend of mainstream and art-house sensibilities. This is perfect cinema.

And yet, beyond all that, what is ultimately so remarkable about The Thing is how refreshingly clear and to the point it is. It is neither profound nor shallow -- neither pretentious nor mindless. There are no extraneous subplots, no distractions. You get what you sign up for -- a sci-fi horror/mystery of the highest order. Slow-burning, visually stunning, and atmospheric -- yet also fantastically gory and bad-ass. The performances are perfectly adequate from the whole cast, if not at times particularly impressive. The tension in some of the scenes is incredible. It walks a fine line between "serious" and campy horror to perfection -- enough so that the film always remains intense and frightening, yet it never loses its B-movie charm.

To put it simply, I would rank The Thing easily amongst the finest films I have ever seen.