And why not? There’s something pure and simple about the style; and while there’s always room for innovation (as the Beatles’ later records proved, of course), there are some things that simply can’t be improved upon. It’s not necessarily the fastest way to win awards, but it’s probably the best way to get a crowd on its feet.

As a child of the 1980’s, I’ll probably never quite understand what it was like to see John, Paul, George and Ringo play “I Want to Hold Your Hand” on the Sullivan Show, but I got what might have been a very small glimpse Saturday night at Cain’s Ballroom when the Chicago-based quintet Plain White T’s performed. Their guitar rock has been described as “emo-pop” and “pop-punk,” but when the played Cain’s, the emphasis was decidedly on the “pop” end of the spectrum, with radio hits like “Hey There Delilah,” “I Will Write You a Song,” and “Hate (I Really Don’t Like You)” featured prominently.

Dressed in cheeky three-piece suits (yes, they’re ironically named—did I really have to point that out?), the T’s played a set of love and breakup songs for a crowd that consisted mainly of high school girls. They didn’t miss a beat, and they nailed every harmony. It was somewhat akin to watching the British invade all over again. Except they were Americans, and they weren’t really invading. And…well, um, yeah.

Those who still maintain that guitar bands really are dead—and who are looking for something a little different than three chords and tight harmonies in their music—found some ammunition two nights later when the Boston-based septet Dropkick Murphys took the same stage. Playing everything from electric guitar to banjo to bagpipes to bouzouki to tin whistle (band members traded out instruments on nearly every song), the group drowned the crowd in a cacophonic mixture of oi! and Celtic folk music.

When you think about it, it’s a combination that makes sense—both styles of music grew out of the working class of the British Isles (albeit with centuries in between their respective advents)—and the Murphys have been around long enough (twelve years!) to prove that it works. And while the Irish influences in their music sound a bit stereotyped—something like what you’d expect from a punk band who had stayed up late last night to watch Darby O’Gill and the Little People seven or eight times—their energy and musical ability are hard to argue with. The crowd (many of whom were wearing leprechaun hats—I think that says all you need to know about the Murphys) cheered loud and moshed hard; one particularly inebriated fan even rushed the stage to propose to her boyfriend (he said yes, for the record).

It was a set-up that I have to admit was a bit more interesting than the standard lead guitar/rhythm guitar/bass/drums arrangement that we’ve all been taking in since the 1960’s, and I’m sure the crowd (which was very appreciative) would agree with me on that. Still, it’s hard to imagine that guitar bands will ever be “dead”—especially considering how heavily the Murphys depend on guitars for their brash, working-class sound. After all, is there anyone still snobbish enough to claim they don’t love a good guitar band?

And as long as it sounds good, who’s complaining?

A graduate of the University of Nebraska, Luke Harrington currently resides in Tulsa and works in the aerospace industry–but, at any given moment, would probably rather be reviewing movies and music.  In his spare time, he’s off playing blues piano, pretending to be Assistant Editor for MovieZeal.com, or reviewing the many musical events in Northeastern Oklahoma for Tulsa Today.

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas
United Kingdom, 2008
Directed By: Mark Herman
Written By: Mark Herman, from the book by John Boyne
Starring: Asa Butterfield, Jack Scanlon, Amber Beattie, David Thewlis, Vera Farmiga
Running Time: 95 min.
Rated PG-13 for some thematic material involving the Holocaust
3 out of 5 stars

Making a World War II-themed film is a prospect fraught with peril, in no small part because filmmakers have been churning them out since the moment World War II began. It’s hard to imagine that there’s really that much left to say about the conflict, and while the occasional film (Saving Private Ryan and Life is Beautiful come to mind) proves me wrong in this respect, most ultimately fail.

Compounding the problem is the fact that the war is one of the few moments in history that is seen by most in stark shades of black and white. The Holocaust, along with other atrocities committed by the Axis powers, was a purely evil thing, and regardless of whatever failings can be ascribed to the Allies, it’s hard not to love them for putting an end to it. In other words, it’s not a very nuanced time of history, unless you’re ready to say that mass genocide can sometimes be justified (and five bucks says you’re not).

Such clearly defined good guys and bad guys should, I think, illustrate why the war is so popular a subject for films, but so difficult a subject to make a great film about.  “One-note” and “overdone” is not a good combination (as any quick listen to your local “Pure Rock” radio station will prove), but of course, filmmakers keep trying.  The latest entry, Mark Herman’s The Boy in Striped Pajamas tries to shake things up a bit by telling its story from the perspective of the family of a German soldier—and specifically his eight-year-old son Bruno (Asa Butterfield), who unknowingly befriends a Jewish boy interned at the concentration camp his father is charged with running. It’s a valiant effort, but ultimately one that fails to impress, primarily because it can’t think of anything new to say. The result is a beautiful piece of art that’s disappointingly hollow.

The failure here isn’t a problem with the filmmaking. Every shot in the film gorgeous and meaningful (the stark, gray, art deco house into which the family moves in Poland; the mass grave of dolls Bruno’s sister creates in the cellar when she decides to “grow up”); the characters all put in solid, believable performances; the dialogue is all spot-on (Bruno’s character treads just the right line between naïveté and denial). The trouble is the story, which hits all the notes you expect it to, and nothing more. Herman works hard to make the family sympathetic, but he ultimately can’t side with them since they’re perpetrators of—or at least accessories to—the Final Solution. Ultimately, everyone in the family must learn they were wrong and pay for their mistakes.

From the moment Bruno first discovers the internment camp (which he calls “a farm run by people in striped pajamas”), the film runs out of surprises and becomes a slow, sad march toward the inevitable tragic end.

In this sense, the deck was really stacked against the film in the first place. The simple story, which worked well as an allegory in the novel on which the film is based, becomes a bit too real on screen, and the viewer keeps waiting for something surprising to happen. Nothing does. The friendship between Bruno and Shmuel continues its uneasy growth, Bruno’s mother (Vera Farmiga) finds out what her husband is up to and is appropriately horrified, Bruno’s sister Gretel (Amber Beattie) hangs pictures of Hitler on her walls to impress the soldier she’s crushing on. The devastating end feels far too contrived on screen, and it feels like the movie is beating you over the head with THE MORAL (“Genocide is bad!!!”).

Of course, it’s not that we disagree.  One of the major lessons of the Second World War is that genocide is an ugly, terrible thing that should be stopped at any cost.  This is an important lesson, and I hope we never forget it.  The real question, though, is do we need another patronizing movie to tell us this?  Well—no, and certainly not yet another one set during World War II. The reason that great evils like genocide still occur is not because their perpetrators haven’t seen the misery it brought on Germany (a misery that is particularized quite well in the film); it’s because (among other things) they see their situation as fundamentally different.  Of course it’s not—it never is—but making more and more WWII dramas about it just serves to distance its evil further for a modern audience. 

The Holocaust was a terrible time in human history—in some ways the worst ever—but to dwell on it when genocide, slavery, and all sorts of other inhuman atrocities surround us would be just as big a mistake as forgetting it entirely.  In other words, the lessons of the Holocaust are invaluable, but we should put them into practice today, rather than merely parroting them and then patting ourselves on the back for doing so years ago.

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas opens today at the Circle Cinema. Call 592-FILM for showtimes and tickets.

---

About the author:

That 1 Guy, a.k.a. Mike Silverman of Toronto, opened the evening with a great set of experimental and comic songs, which he played solo, joined only by his homemade instrument, the “Magic Pipe.”  The apparatus is something of a cross between a harp, a string bass, and a Theremin, but mainly it’s just a couple of lengths of pipe with a snare drum, a couple of strings, and some buttons and pedals attached.  When manipulated by That 1 Guy’s deft touch, however, it becomes an orchestra unto itself—call it a “1-Guy-band” if you will.  By smacking, plucking, and stroking the pipes and strings in various places, That 1 Guy is able to conjure all manner of sounds from the instrument. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t impressed.

This decidedly out-there music is paired with equally out-there lyrics that bring to mind everyone from Frank Zappa to Weird Al Yankovic to They Might Be Giants—albeit with an Orwellian sense of paranoia underlying it all.  Dressed in his trademark Amish-style felt hat, Silverman sang songs like “Buttmachine,” “Weasel Potpie,” and “The Moon is Disgusting (It’s Made of Cheese)” (which he described as “a pro-cheese song, and a pro-moon song”), all of which fell somewhere in between children’s nonsense rhymes, horror movie dialogue, and Freudian free-association.  He played his Magic Pipe with everything from a credit card to a drumstick to a violin bow, and only stopped a few times—once to pound on an electrified cowboy boot (the “Magic Boot”), once to play an electric musical saw (the “Magic Saw,” of course), and once to do some impressive card tricks. (Yes, card tricks.)

 One audience member (who was standing a several yards away from me) put it best: “That’s so cool! Goddammit, that’s so cool!”

It was an impressive set, and one that was going to be hard to follow. Fortunately, headliner Buckethead had a slew of supporters in the audience—there were a handful of people wearing chicken masks, and at least one bartender in the room had a KFC bucket on his head. (Buckethead’s personal mythology claims that he was raised by chickens and has made it his mission to warn people of the evils of KFC—until recently, the bucket on his head was a KFC bucket.) Buckethead took the stage, wearing his trademark character mask and bucket, and played a rocking set of his guitar virtuoso songs that had the crowd cheering.

It was a set that focused primarily on his heavy metal influences (which wasn’t surprising, given that that’s the direction his albums have been going in recent years), and while it made for a solid performance, it felt a bit monotonous, particularly after That 1 Guy’s decidedly eclectic set. Fortunately, the monotony was broken up a bit when various members of his crew entered the stage wearing Halloween masks to dance to his virtuosic riffing, and later when he handed out toys to the audience members and wowed them with his formidable nunchaku skills. (Yes, nunchaku skills.)

Toward the end of the evening, Buckethead was joined onstage by That 1 Guy, and the two dueted on several songs—including a suite of musical numbers from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, which they performed over a hip-hop beat. The pairing was one that felt natural: That 1 Guy added color to Buckethead’s guitar, and Buckethead’s powerful chords added depth and resonance to That 1 Guy’s bleeps and bloops.

Toward the end of the set, the crowd was thinning out, and I couldn’t really blame them: it was a long show (right around four hours, including both sets), and this sort of music isn’t for everyone—still, it provided insight into what music can be when performers are willing to innovate and not just maintain the status quo. It’s not that I blame anyone for going to see the Eagles instead, but if it’s a question of originality, they don’t know what they’re missing.

---

About the author:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced legislation to amend Section 115 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) to require an affirmative vote on the part of Congress to approve Treasury’s plan for the remaining $350 billion and require a freeze on any remaining funds of the first $350 billion, stating, “It is imperative that we not allow that amount of money to be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion this year without any input from the legislative branch.”

In a speech on the Senate Floor, Senator Inhofe went on to say, “Congress completely abdicated its responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary.  However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it.

“Though there are still significant challenges in financial markets, it appears that the threat of financial crisis spinning so out of control that we face another Great Depression—which was the original justification for the grant of such sweeping authority—has subsided.  Has the need to allow one person to control hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and spend as he sees fit subsided as well?  I’ve never seen in my entire career of public service anything like the spectacle we are now witnessing.  Is it unreasonable to ask whether or not the additional $350 billion should not be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion?  Congress should have a debate.”

Full Text Of Senator Inhofe’s Speech

Given the recent news about Secretary Paulson’s execution of the TARP program, I firmly believe action is required by Congress. This morning I introduced S.3683, legislation that will freeze any remaining funds from the first installment of the $700 billion and require Secretary Paulson’s plan for the remaining $350 billion in authorized TARP funds to be ratified by an affirmative vote in the U.S. Congress.
 
When Secretary Paulson fist came to the Senate and explained his plan in a conference call on September 19th, I asked a few questions about his proposal. How are you going to determine which assets to buy? At what price? From which institutions? In what manner? Secretary Paulson didn’t have any answers to those questions at the time, and they were never satisfactorily answered throughout the entire debate, if one can call it that, of the bailout bill.
 
In my statement opposing the Paulson Plan last month, I laid out three primary reasons why I voted ‘no’.  The first is that I wasn’t convinced that the asset purchase program was the right way to do this. The second is that it would lead to increased lobbying for handouts and bailouts by any industry facing financial trouble. And third, that we were handing over $700 billion to essentially one man to spend as he sees fit, something that has never happened before in American history. It’s not the way our government is supposed to work.
 
I stated at the time that my vote was against the Paulson Plan – not against taking extraordinary action to provide necessary confidence to financial markets. As I said, “The Paulson plan would have Washington take $700 billion worth of toxic Wall Street assets from financial firms’ balance sheets and put them on the balance sheet of the federal government…. I’m not confident in its success.”   
 
The critics were right. On October 14th, in a significant shift, Treasury outlined a plan to directly purchase equity stakes in major financial institutions. The Wall Street Journal noted “critics…say Treasury should have formulated a comprehensive plan earlier in the crisis.” This past week, Secretary Paulson announced that he has completed a remarkable about -face, as summarized by November 13th Investor’s Business Daily front page headline, which read, “In Major Reversal, Treasury Won’t Buy Bad Mortgage Debt.” This is a complete reversal. Why did Paulson reverse course? Last Thursday’s Los Angeles Times provides the answer: “Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson’s decision to abandon plans to buy troubled bank assets shows that he has come to two conclusions about what was once the chief focus of the government’s $700-billion bailout: The first is that it wouldn’t work.”

I know many of you have serious concerns about how Secretary Paulson has executed the financial rescue program and I share them with you. Congress completely abdicated its responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary. However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it.
 
During the lame duck session, if Secretary Paulson submits his plan to Congress in order to access the remaining $350 billion while we are in session, a doubtful prospect, we could immediately introduce the disapproval resolution pursuant to Section 115 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and push for its enactment. This is unlikely to happen, however. Furthermore, the experts on the matter tell me that the law is ambiguous as to whether Congress would be forced to return to Washington for consideration of a disapproval resolution if Treasury submitted his plan while Congress is adjourned and avoid debate.  I have therefore introduced S.3683, legislation to do two things: First, it will amend Section 115 of the EESA to require an affirmative vote on the part of Congress to approve Treasury’s plan for the remaining $350 billion, instead of the current statutory process which gives the Secretary far too much latitude. Second, it will require a freeze on any remaining funds of the first $350 billion. It is imperative that we not allow that amount of money to be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion this year without any input from the legislative branch.  
 
Secretary Paulson stated in a CNBC interview at 2:00pm on Friday, November 14th “the financial markets have been stabilized.” If that is the case, it is Congress’s duty to have a say in what happens with the remaining authorized amount of $350 billion. Paulson came to us in September and said that if he didn’t get $700 billion there was no telling how bad things could get. It was a panic scenario. Now that there is no longer an all-out panic in the financial world, it seems to me that the original rationale for the blank check no longer applies.
 
It is clear that it was a mistake to sign a blank check to one man for such a tremendous amount of money. Though there are still significant challenges in financial markets, it appears that the threat of financial crisis spinning so out of control that we face another Great Depression—which was the original justification for the grant of such sweeping authority—has subsided. Has the need to allow one person to control hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and spend as he sees fit subsided as well? I’ve never seen in my entire career of public service anything like the spectacle we are now witnessing. Is it unreasonable to ask whether or not the additional $350 billion should not be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion? Congress should have a debate.
 
I fully understand the severity of the ongoing financial crisis that erupted this past year. I am also fully aware of the need to take extraordinary action in such situations. From the rescue of Bear Stearns in March to the announcement of the bank equity purchase program in mid-October, the U.S. government has indeed undertaken an extraordinary effort to calm financial markets. In addition, it is likely that the country is about to endure a recession that, though the severity of it is unknown at this point, will likely be more severe than the last two. However, it is clear to me and many of my colleagues that Treasury accessing the remaining $350 billion will do little to avert or ameliorate what is to come. 
 
It is time for the U.S. government to cease announcements of new programs or plans designed to inject confidence in markets. Moreover, I think confidence would be better instilled by halting the capricious manner in which the rescue program has been executed. I understand the need to move in accordance with changing conditions. I simply think the time has come to stop.
 
One of the major causes of this crisis was the accumulation of far too much debt on the part of some financial institutions. The U.S. government can make the same mistake. We are now anticipating an astounding $1 trillion deficit for this year alone. This truly massive debt accumulation poses a serious inflationary threat to future stability and economic growth. It too needs to stop.  
 
By far the greatest threat to economic growth and prosperity in the years to come is the extent to which the government has recently entangled itself in the marketplace. The government must immediately begin the process of extricating itself from the financial sector of our economy. Many very smart people made some very poor decisions that will continue to cause economic hardship for some time. It is my firm belief, however, that more government attempts to prevent that hardship will not only be futile, but will also move this country further from those first principles which have made us the great nation we are today.
 
In the meantime we are doing the typical bureaucratic Washington things, such as arguing over whether the Senate banking or Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction and discussing confirmation of an inspector general who we will need to debate and confirm. I would note that Senator Grassley is calling for investigations right now, so there are clearly others who are concerned about transparency and accountability while we are thinking about appointments and confirmation processes. I would also note that the current inspector general of the US Treasury, Eric Thorson, was quoted in a Washington Post article saying this program is “a mess” and went on to say “"I don’t think anyone understands right now how we’re going to do proper oversight of this thing." There isn’t time to do these things the way we usually do them. We have got to stop the bleeding now and the way to do that is S.3683.

               Senator Inhofe Discusses Bailout on Glenn Beck

               Senator Inhofe Discusses Bailout on Fox News

Senator Inhofe’s notification letter sent last week.

Dear Colleague,

I stated at the time that my vote was against the Paulson plan – not against taking extraordinary action to provide necessary confidence to financial markets. I stated that "The Paulson plan would have Washington take $700 billion worth of toxic Wall Street assets from financial firms’ balance sheets and put them on the balance sheet of the federal government…. I’m not confident in its success."   

The critics were right. On October 14th, in a significant shift, Treasury outlined a plan to directly purchase equity stakes in of major financial institutions. The Wall Street Journal noted that "critics…say Treasury should have formulated a comprehensive plan earlier in the crisis." This past week, Secretary Paulson announced that he has completed a remarkable about face, as summarized by November 13^th Investor’s Business Daily front page headline, which read, "In Major Reversal, Treasury Won’t Buy Bad Mortgage Debt." This is a complete reversal. Why did Paulson reverse course? Thursday’s Los Angeles Times provides the answer. "Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson’s decision to abandon plans to buy troubled bank assets shows that he has come to two conclusions about what was once the chief focus of the government’s $700-billion bailout: The first is that it wouldn’t work."

I know many of you have serious concerns about how Secretary Paulson has executed the financial rescue program and I share them with you. Congress abdicated its Constitutional responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary. However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it.

During the lame duck session, I will be taking the following actions. First and foremost, if Secretary Paulson submits his plan to Congress in order to access the remaining $350 billion while we are in session, a doubtful prospect, I plan to immediately introduce the disapproval resolution pursuant to Section 115 of the EESA and push for its enactment. I will also introduce and actively pursue enactment of legislation to do two things: First, it will amend Section 115 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) to require an affirmative vote on the part of Congress to approve Treasury’s plan for the remaining $350 billion, instead of the current statutory process which gives Secretary Paulson far too much latitude. Second, it will require a freeze on any remaining funds of the first $350 billion. It is imperative that we not allow that amount of money to be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion this year without any input from the legislative branch. 

Secretary Paulson stated in a CNBC interview at 2:00pm on Friday, November 14^th that "the financial markets have been stabilized." If that is the case, it is Congress’s duty to have a say in what happens with the remaining authorized amount of $350 billion. It is clear that it was a mistake to sign a blank check to one man for such a tremendous amount of money. Though there are still significant challenges in financial markets, it appears that the threat of a catastrophic financial crisis, which was the justification for the grant of such sweeping authority, has subsided. Perhaps the additional $350 billion should not be added to the deficit. Congress should have a debate.

I appreciate your time and attention to this matter and look forward to working with you in the coming week.

Sincerely,

Senator Jim Inhofe

In the new film, "Quantum of Solace," there is a brief scene involving British secret agent 007 in the lobby of a cheap hotel in Haiti. It is a half hour or so into the story. Daniel Craig, as James Bond, has a brief exchange with the receptionist at the desk, before retrieving a brief case that belongs to someone else (a crucial moment in development of the plot).
 
Before and after this chat between the girl at the desk and Bond, the camera provides brief glimpses of a fellow sitting in an easy chair near the front desk, reading a newspaper. The second sighting seemed to last a bit longer than the first. I whispered to my wife, with me at the film’s showing on a big screen here in Oklahoma City, "I think that is Sean Connery" — who created the first cinematic interpretation of Ian Fleming’s enduring character.

As has been the case after initial release of many films in the series, critics are having fun with the recurring debate about whose Bond is best. A strong case can be made for Craig, who has performed stunningly in both of his appearances as Bond. But Connery deserves praise for his magnificent combination of grit and grace as the original.

For me, the moment sketched above was a "Hitchcock"-like moment (Alfred Hitchcock repeatedly did uncredited cameos in his own films) in a motion picture I liked better than Tulsa Today’s film critic, Evan Derrick (click here for that review).  

If a Connery cameo has been reported already somewhere in print on the Internet, I’ve missed it completely (that’s certainly possible). I have thus far one other person who concurs with my Connery sighting, and two brief online references to the lobby scene, but I’ve not seen anything in the advance publicity to indicate the director/producers incorporated Connery into an uncredited moment in the film. 
 
I’ll be doing my own favorable review of the film shortly (I liked it more than Mr. Derrick), perhaps after a second viewing. Meanwhile, I invite readers to share their assessments: Is that Sean Connery, or merely a remarkable look-alike? Email me your answer at: pmcguigan@cox.net, and copy Tulsa Today editor/publisher David Arnett at editor@tulsatoday.com.