Mr Smith Goes to Washington Review

Number 107 on the top 1000 films of all time is Frank Capra's political comedy drama Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939.)

James Stewart plays Jefferson Smith, the young, naive head of the Boy Rangers, is chosen to be a U.S Senator  He is chosen by State Governor Huburt "Happy" Hopper (Guy Kiblee) as he believes that he will be easy to manipulate.  Smith proposes a bill to purchase land to create a National Boy's camp.  However, when this land is revealed to be part of a proposed campsite, Smith finds himself fighting corrupt politicians to ensure he gets his voice heard.

The conflict of the film lies with Jefferson Smith and his struggle with overcoming his own naivety.  James Stewart did well to make the character sympathetic and likeable.  And he did this through how he portrayed Smith, as the only honest man in a house full of crooks.  The themes of political corruption, in this film, are as relevant now as they ever have been, and Jefferson is the underdog to root for.  When Smith is framed for trying to profit of his bill, he fights tooth and nail to prove his innocence.  The last act of the film sees a raggard Smith appeal to the hearts and minds of the people who rally to his defence.  The film ends on a happy note, as Smith proves his innocence.  Smith's transformation from a naive young man into an impassioned U.S senator was great to watch.

What was also interesting to see is what Jefferson Ford wasn't the only victims of corruption.  The governor who selected him was actually under pressure from his own boss to pick somebody else, but opted for Smith.  Smith's mentor is Senator Joseph Paine (Claude Rains) who whilst crooked himself is under pressure from his boss to frame Jefferson Smith.  It was interesting seeing how corruption can affect those at different levels.  For example, at the film's conclusion, Paine comes clean in his attempt to devalue Smith, which is what leads to his exoneration.

I understand that most of this film is set in Washington D.C, in particular the senate, so there would be patriotic imagery used.  But I think they seriously overdid it.  There was montage after montage of the Stars and Stripes, Uncle Sam, eagles, white picket fences and other American symbols, and it got a bit tiresome after a while.  In fact, I think it even diluted the message it was trying to convey.

Nonetheless, Mr Smith Goes to Washington is an interesting film that has a lot of to say about political corruption.

What about those who have never heard? Why does suffering exist? Is everything fixed in advance?

How do Women and animals fit into the bible? Why do evil and viruses exist?

How big was the flood and why doesn't God intervene?

What is the Trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? What's the deal with Predestination?

I continue my dissection of Richard Bewes' book: The Top 100 questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions," by trying to respond to the following questions: What about those who have never heard? Why does suffering exist? Is everything fixed in advance?

37. What about those who have never heard? What is the fate of heathen people who have never heard the gospel?

I admit that when I first read this question, I saw red. I absolutely hated how “non-believers” were described as “heathens.” I know that in the olden times, “heathen” was nothing more than a reference to pagans or those who believed in polytheistic beliefs, but now it is regarded as a deeply derogatory insult. I've said it before that Richard Bewes, at times, come off as downright offensive to “non-believers,” and this evidences that claim. Through how he describes “non-believers,” as heathens, all he is doing is confirming the very wrong misconception that all Christians are too close-minded to believe anything other than their monopolies of truths.

Anyway, personal feelings aside, Bewes answers this question by arguing that those who ask it have a “view of sin that is not deep enough.” They believe that they are deserving of salvation just because they believe in God, and anyone who doesn't is automatically a heathen. However, Bewes criticises this by asserting that it is too much of a dualistic way of thinking of things. He thinks that absolutely nobody has an automatic right to be saved by God. It doesn't matter whether we believe or don't, nobody has the right to be saved. I quite like this idea, as it argues against how there are some people who think they're entitled to certain privileges, because of their beliefs. Of course, I'm not exclusively referring to Christians, but to anyone of any belief that fits this idea.

Bewes also argues that those who ask this question don't see the Gospel with enough urgency. If you don't believe, then your only chance of salvation is through sincerity and good deeds. But Bewes responds by saying that this undermines missionary work. It is through the work of missionaries in Europe, India, China and Africa that resulted in the spread of Christianity, not just through their charity work, but also by their faith in Jesus. I would agree with this, as Bewes isn't saying that belief and charity work are mutually exclusive, rather they're deeply interrelated with each other. It is the opposite of the notion of the self-entitled believer who think he'll achieve salvation, through pure belief. It is not enough to do good things, you need to believe in God as well. It is akin to doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. 

38. Why does God allow suffering? There is so much suffering in our world. Why does God allow it?

This is yet another age-old question that is asked of Christianity and is quite similar to the earlier questions Why do Evil and Viruses exist? If God is omnipotent and omni-benevolent, why would he condemn his followers to suffer? Bewes' answer to this is similar to how he answers why Evil exists: it teaches us humility. He refers to Luke 13: 1-5, where a tower collapses killing 18 people. Jesus explains that these people died, not because they were “no more 'guilty' than anyone else, but rather as a reminder of our own mortalities. The people that died could have just as easily been one of us and we should take comfort that we are still alive now. I've argued before that this argument could be regarded as cold-hearted, particularly by those suffering or their loved ones, so I won't rehash it here. See my article on “Why Evil and Viruses Exist?”

What I do want to discuss is how Bewes argues that suffering gives us perspective on our own lives. Not in the sense of mortality, but rather how suffering cannot exist without glory. Bewes asserts that:

“its only through the Cross, that we can make sense of our sufferings. (1 Peter 4:12, 13) We learn the paradox that suffering and 'glory' run side by side – you cannot have the kingdom without tribulation (1 Peter 5:10; Revelation 1:9) Affliction can then lead to spiritual growth and our own good.”

Our suffering is fundamental to our own personal growth. We learn and develop from every mistake we make, and from every tragedy we experience. And I think this makes perfect sense. Suffering gives people motivation to change their lives and to make something of themselves. There are infinite stories of business-men who have become billionaires by starting from something. If we spend our lives in comfort, then we will never feel any desire to change. Take for example, the peasantry of the French or Russian Revolutions. If their suffering wasn't as terrible as it had been, would they have felt any desire to overthrow the monarchy? Naomi explained that the suffering that Christians experience is nothing compared to knowing God.  The pain is worth it, if you get to experience the love of God, as well.  Suffering is a testament of our faith as well.  It is easy to believe in God when things are going well, but not so easy, when you're experiencing hardship.  The book of Job discusses this idea in detail where Satan makes a wager with God that he can make Job forsake his faith by making him suffer.  God condones this, as he knows that Job will never betray him, even after his wife dies and his crop fails and Job doesn't.  There are times where he questions what is happening, but he never outright rejects God.

39. Is everything fixed in advance? I'm trying to get Predestination worked out. Were my marriage, my becoming a Christian, my job, my clothing all decided before birth?

As I discussed in my first article on Religion, that I have never been comfortable with the idea of Predestination. I, and I don't think I'm alone, dislike the idea of my destiny and life being in the hands of anyone but myself. I also think that Predestination is a way of encouraging people to escape accountability for their actions. “Oh if I'm going to go to hell when I die, there's no reason for me to do anything good.”

Bewes argues that Predestination has been wrongly confused with Determinism or Fatalism. Although God may have already decided our destinies, he doesn't determine every single aspect of our lives. This idea undermines the notion that God gave us free agency. He acts in some ways as a mysterious guide who works to deliver us all to the same destination, but gives us the freedom to take different routes. In short, no, not everything is fixed in advance. God may have decided where we may finish, but it is our choice how we get there. Predestination works in conjunction with free agency. We are free to make our own choices and own mistakes.

Whilst I still don't like the idea of my destiny being in the hands of God, I can respect Bewes' argument. If God is in control of every aspect of our lives, then why would he guide some people to reject him? Why would he have allowed Judah and Israel to constantly worship other gods? Why would he allow the Israelites to worship the Golden Calf on Mount Sinai? Why would he allow Kaleth, Tor and the 500 Israelites to rebel against him in the Book of Numbers? To me, it doesn't make any sense that he would create somebody whose sole destiny is to deny his existence. The fact that he almost strikes down the Israelites on Mount Sinai, allows the earth to swallow Kaleth and the other rebels, and allows the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires to destroy Israel and Judah, demonstrates how he is willing to punish those who disobey him. To create someone for the sole purpose of rebelling against you and then killing them seems like a petty, violent thing to do, which is also highly contradictory of the notion of an omni-benevolent God. What is more logical is that free agency drove these people to do these things, and not some predetermined plan.  

Naomi had a different idea about predestination.  She believes that God is completely lord of all and only he can decide who's worthy of becoming a Christian.  She argued that God controls destiny in passive and active ways.  He has a plan for all of us and sometimes takes action to ensure we fulfill this plan.  For example, it has been argued that Jesus' death and crucifixion was part of God's divine plan.  This meant that Judas, who betrayed Jesus, was nothing more than a pawn, to be possessed to ensure that God's plan was carried out.

Despite having written a few articles about Christianity, I don't claim to be an expert and therefore I welcome all criticisms, comments and contradictions. Just keep it mature, intelligent and respectful.

Full Metal Jacket Review

Number 106 on the top 1000 films of all time is Stanley Kubrick's simple yet powerful Full Metal Jacket.

I've seen detractors of the film say that it is a film of two halves with little narrative in either.  I beg to differ.  I think it is this exact lack of narrative that makes the film so compelling.  Take, for example, Apocalypse Now, which is also about the Vietnam War.  Whilst Apocalypse Now is a great film, I did feel that as the narrative become more complicated that the focus on the characters progressively declined.  However, the stripped-back narrative of Full Metal jacket allowed the audience to see the psychological trauma that Vietnam Soldiers experienced in brutal, unflinching honesty.

The first half focuses on Privates James T. "Joker" Davis, (Matthew Modine,) Leonard "Pyle" Lawrence (Vincent D'onofrio) and Robert "Cowboy" Evans (Arliss Howard) as they navigate the gruelling Marine bootcamp.  Lee Erney puts in a terrifying, yet hilarious performance as the psychotic Drill Sergeant Hartman.  He chastises the recruits with the utmost of ridiculous of insults and takes a particular dislike to the overweight, dim-witted Private Pyle, whom he starts bullying.  It is difficult not to pity Pyle, who is obviously not fit for the Marines, no matter how hard he tries to succeed.  D'onofrio did well to make him pathetic, but endearing.  In one particular scene, Pyle is beaten by the other private, after they are all punished for Pyle's mistake.  His howls of pain and confusion were tragic to watch.

Pyle's transformation was also interesting to watch.  With a lot of help from Joker, we see Pyle begin to improve, which even Sergeant Hartman acknowledges.  In this half, Joker is more of a passive character, who witness how Pyle is psychologically broken, but also how he begins fixing himself.  Yet, we also see, through Joker's eyes, that Pyle's mental state is still very fragile, and he isn't far from snapping.  I feel that this is painfully true to real life, as not everybody would be able to withstand the psychological and physical strains of bootcamp.  I sure as hell wouldn't.  Just as all of the recruits graduate and it looks like Pyle has succeeded, he shoots Hartman and then commits suicide, all in full view of Joker.  This as a tragic end to a tragic character, but it also felt appropriate.  Pyle would have never lasted in Vietnam and it was a suitable, if distressing end, for his character.

Although the first half focuses on Pyle, it did well to show the effect this was having on Joker.  it obvious that he really cares about Pyle and wants him to improve.  He does beat Pyle with the other cadets, something which greatly disturbs him, as does Pyle's suicide.  This accentuated the camaraderie that all soldiers experienced, which was borne out of their collective suffering.

The location of the bootcamp was also done well, making it seem that the soldiers were being brainwashed to become nothing more than killing machines.  They are made to have the same haircut, the same clothes and made to recite the Rifleman's creed in unison.  The fact that the soldiers are portrayed as robots, makes it even more important that the narrative focuses on the very human story of Private Pyle.

The second half of the film takes place one year later, where Joker is now working in Vietnam, as a journalist, to write pro U.S propaganda.  The Vietnam war was not a popular one and the government needed everything they had to convince the public otherwise.  Joker, unsatisfied at being stuck behind the lines, is sent to the front with photographer Rafton.  I've seen other reviewers say that any narrative falls apart in this half, but I would disagree.  Whilst there might not be a traditional Voyage and Discovery or Overcoming the Monster narrative, what we receive is an intense character on soldiers in the Vietnam War.  The narrative lies in how each character reacts to the horrors that they experience.

We see many of these horrors through Joker's eyes, including a gunner indiscriminately shooting Vietnamese civillians, to dead Vietnamese dressed up as a soldiers and put on display.  I even read on IMDB that there was a deleted scene, which saw U.S soldiers playing football with a human head.  Joker and Rafton are sent to join the Lusthog Squad, where Cowboy is now a sergeant.  During a routine patrol, the squad's commanding officer is killed and two more men are wounded by a sniper, leaving Cowboy as the uneasy leader.  As well as Joer and Rafton, Cowboy also commands Animal Mother (Adam Baldwin.) Out of all the soldiers, Animal Mother is the most damaged, firmly believing that you have to fight to survive. Baldwin gave a great performance, portraying Animal, as deeply traumatised.  Whilst Cowboy is dithering over a plan, Animal leads a one-man assault to rescue his fallen comrades and to kill the enemy sniper, inspiring the rest of the squad to follow him.  The fallen soldiers die, as does Cowboy, leaving Animal to assume control.

Animal Mother leads the assault on the sniper's hiding place.  However, it is Joker that discovers the sniper is a 12 year old Vietnamese girl.  This emphasised the unflinching horror of a war that was so bad, it inspired children to fight.  Going to shoot him, Joker's gun jams and instead the girl fires on him.  Joker is only saved by Rafton gunning the girl down, although I found it a bit implausible that the girl missed Joker.  As the rest of the squad rendezvous, Joker requests that a mercy killing is performed on the dying girl.  The staunch Animal, who is content to let her bleed, says that Joker must perform it, which he does.  This kill marks Joker's first and leaves him with the 1000-yard stares, and also the first signs of his psyche deteriorating.  This brutal scene demonstrates just had damaged these men are, especially Animal Mother.  The film ends with the squad returning back to their base singing the "Mickey Mouse March."

You could certainly argue that this is a film of two halves, with two separate narratives, and little overlap between the two.  I did find it a little weird that Joker never spoke of Pyle, despite the effect he had on his life.  Yet nonetheless, Full Metal Jacket brilliantly demonstrated the dehumanising effect that war can have on soldiers.  After I finished watching it, I was lost for words, a feeling I've not experienced, since I watched Requiem for a Dream.  Although this film focusses on the Vietnam War, its timeless appeal means that it could apply to any of the wars that ravage today's society.

The Miserable Mill Review

The Bad Beginning Review

The Reptile Room Review

The Wide Window Review

Dear Reader,

if you are reading this review, then I have the dreaded fear that you are still refusing to heed my warnings. For I write these reviews, not to document the happy times of the Baudelaire orphan lives, of which there are few, but because they have to be told. Yet they are so Very Frightently Disastrous, that I am almost too afraid to release them for the general public, as they are so upsetting. Therefore, if you have the moral disposition to read this review, I congratulate you for finding it on the deep web, but I also urge that you tell nobody what you read, as this fourth installment of the Baudelaire lives is too sad to be read.

Before we get into the main content of this week's episode, let's jump straight to the main subplot and biggest mystery of the series thus far: who are “Mother” (Cobie Smulders” and “Father,” (Will Arnett.) Reason stood that they were initially the Baudelaire parents who had actually survived the fire and were looking to get back to their children. Personally, I thought that they were Kit and Jacques Snicket, which I was terribly wrong about. Yet this episode we find out that they are the parents of Quigley, Duncan and Isadora. Book readers will know instantly who these characters are, but for those who don't, I won't spoil it for you, as we fail to discover anything else out about these characters. There was a little misdirect that could have fooled some people into thinking that they were the Baudelaire parents, but this seemed like too much of a deviation from the source material to actually be the case. Whatever the signficance of these characters, they soon meet a sticky end as their home is burnt down. We see two of the children at the end of the episode, but not their parents or sibling. Did they perish in the fire? We'll have to find out next time.

Now onto the meat and gravy of the actual episode – an expression which here means, the most significant piece of this episode of the Baudelaire lives, and has nothing to do with “meat or gravy.” The episode picks up where the last one picks off. The Baudelaires have snuck away from Mr Poe, hitchhiking in the back of the van heading towards Lucky Smells Lumbermill. Mr Poe is besides himself with panic, decrying that this is a catastrophe and, hilariously, “off-book,” which is a reference to how the source deviated from the canonised material. I'm loving all of these intertextual jokes, which keep the show refreshing. Intertextuality isn't a device often shown on television and it doesn't always work, but when it does work, like on this show, it works brilliantly.

We pick up on the Baudelaires who have just made their way to the Lucky Smells Lumbermill, which is where we see more deviations from the books. Upon entering the mill, they are found by Charles (Rhys Darby) who runs the mill and takes them to see his partner Sir (Don Johnson), who is the opposite of Charles. Charles is the latest in the longline of adult characters who despite being well-meaning are incapable of doing anything useful, whereas Sir is grumpy, strict and ruthless. He immediately puts the Baudelaires to work for trespassing in the Lumbermill, despite how they are just children. He also reveals that the reason that the town of Paltryville, where the Lucky Smells Lumbermill is based, is so run down is because the Baudelaire parents burnt down the town. The only buildings to survive are the lumbermill and Dr Georgina Orwell's Optometrist's office, which I'll discuss later.

The Baudelaires are sent to the dormitory where they meet their coworkers who are all downbeat, depressed and hostile to the Baudelaires, because of how their parents burnt down the town. This is all but Phil who is an optimist, who always finds a way to look on the bright side of life – a phrase which here means that can he always see the good side of everything. For example, if he had been tied to a cross with a young man called Brian who had been mistaken for Jesus, he would start happily singing, instead of crying, which is how most people would react.

Meanwhile, we find out that Count Olaf is hot on the heels of the Baudelaires, having tracked them down to the Lucky Smells Lumbermill. We also find that he is working in cahoots with Dr Georgina Orwell who is just as evil and ruthless as Olaf. It's revealed that Orwell and Olaf were once lovers, and I quite liked how their relationship was fleshed out like this. In the books, it's not always entirely clear, why the two are working together, but I feel that the TV series clears this up. It was also nice seeing Olaf interact with an evil person who isn't part of his theatrical troupe, but actually an equal of his. Sure, the Hook-Handed man is disguised as Foreman Flacutono, but it was nice to have a break from the rest of Olaf's henchpeople. Georgina Orwell was played by Catherine O'Hara, who played Justice Strauss in the Series of Unfortunate Events film and I think she's great in this. In the film adaptation, she didn't really have any time to develop or work with the character. However, with Dr Orwell, she received two episodes to really flesh out the character.

Olaf and Orwell's past relationship is shown in a black and white flashback, as well as are some scenes where Lemony Snicket is doing his usual dissection of popular expressions, and I loved the monochrome filter. It really helped to accentuate the noir tone of the TV series, which I've also adored.

Although the Baudelaires' labour at the lumbermill is difficult, they run into trouble when Foreman Flacutono trips Klaus over, causing his glasses to break. This is when he has to be taken to Dr Orwell who hypnotises him. Lemony Snicket takes us on another aside, as he explains how hypnosis works. However, what is more interesting that in the background, the film Hypnotists in the Forest is playing, which stars Jacquelyn, Mr Poe's secretary and assistant to the Baudelaires. Seeing her on the screen made me realise that she's not had any substantial role in the last couple of episodes, which I find highly disappointing. Her addition was also novel to the TV series and it looked like it would be another interesting mystery to solve, yet it completely fizzled out into nothing. What is her signficance? I hope we find out later on.

When Klaus is hypnotised, he causes an accident which leads to Phil's leg being broken and the Baudelaires being warned that if another accident is caused, they will be sent away from the mill to live with Shirley, which is Count Olaf's latest disguise. In another flashback, we find out that Shirley, who is acting as Dr Orwell's receptionist, has brokered this deal with Sir. After Klaus is unhypnotised and Violet informs him what has happened, the three decide to sneak into Dr Orwell's office and discover her evil plot. I'm also really enjoying how resolute and stoic the Baudelaire orphans are. I said it in my last review, they don't complain, they don't go around in self-pity, but rather they take it upon themselves to try to change their situation. We saw it at the end of the last episode, where they hitchhike to Lucky Smells out of their own volition, to try to find some answers the mysteries that are surrounding their lives.

However, when spying on Dr Orwell, the Baudelaires find that she is hypnotising Charles to poison him against the Baudelaires and convince him to send them to Sir. This made little sense to me, as Sir has already been established as a ruthless, cruel character. I don't think he needed any motivation to send the Baudelaires away, especially since the motivation comes from Charles, whom is much friendlier to the children. Honestly, it would make more sense if the cruel-hearted Sir was trying to convince the kind-hearted Charles to send the children away.

Also, the Baudelaires realise that Dr Orwell is also hypnotising the employees at the Lumbermill, which explains why they haven't left, despite being paid in coupons and fed with gum. This does clear up a plot hole that the book leaves, but it doesn't explain why the Lumbermill workers are so miserable. We see that they are immensely downtrodden, especially in a scene when they bitterly explain how they are paid in coupons to the Baudelaires. Surely if they're being hypnotised to remain in the Lumbermill, they'd be hypnotised to remain happy there.

Anyway, whilst Charles is hypnotised, he is tied to a log, which Klaus, also under hypnosis, is commanded to send into a sawing machine. Violet intervenes in time, finding the correct words to unhypnotise Klaus, Charles and the Lumbermill workers. In the ensuing chaos, Dr Orwell accidentally falls into the incinerator, Count Olaf and the Hook-Handed man escape, the workers revolt against Sir, who also has a narrow escape. Finally, Mr Poe catches up with the Baudelaires, due to his wife's experience as an investigative journalist. He takes them to the boarding school: the Prufrock Prepatory School, where we also see two of the children of “Mother” and “Father.” This is a return to the established canon, and I'm not sure I like it. When the Baudelaires ran away from Mr Poe, I thought that this would be another subplot, which would take a few episodes to resolve. However, Mr Poe's wife finds the children with the utmost of ease. I do realise that the writers were seeking to lampoon this exact point, but I don't think it worked. It felt like an obstacle for the sake of an obstacle. It bore no significance on the plot and just felt quite forced.

Yet the ending of the episode made up for all of its shortcomings. The episode concluded with a brilliant musical number titled That's not how the Story goes. It was absolutely hilarious, as we saw Lemony Snicket, Count Olaf, the Baudelaires and Mr Poe, singing in tandem about how we should never expect happy endings, as that's not how life works. It ties in brilliantly with the pessimistic tone of the series. However, I am afraid that now I have to end this review with some unfortunate news. I have to wait a whole year for season 2.

VFD and Literary References

Verified Functional Dictionary

Very Fancy Door

Vigorous Fire Defence

The letters on Dr Orwell's eye exam sign read VFD

At the beginning of the episode, Snicket dissects the expression “we're not out of the woods,” by referring to Hansel and Gretal, Little Red Riding Hood and also Henry David Thoreau's novel Walden.

Dr Georgina Orwell is an obvious reference to George Orwell.

Klaus says Samuel Beckett's quotation: “I can't go on. I will go on.”

Klaus also takes note at how the eyeglass logo of Dr Orwell's office looks similar to a symbol within the Great Gatsby.  

Some Like it Hot review

Some Like It Hot Review

Number 105 on the top greatest films of all time is Billy Wilder's 1959 Some Like it Hot

Set in 1929, Jerry (Jack Lemmon) and Joe (Tony Curtis) are two musicians who are down on their luck. Working to pay off their debts, the speakeasy they are playing in is raided by Prohibition Agents. A talent agent finds them work in Illinois and when they go to a garage to borrow a colleague's car, they bear witness to “Spats Columbo” (George Raft) massacring “Toothpick Charlie,” and his men, for betraying the location of the Speakeasy to the cops. To escape detection, Jerry and Joe take a gig in Florida, but the catch is that the band they're playing with is all women, meaning they have to dress up and act like women. Things get more complicated when both men become attracted to Sugar Cane (Marilyn Monroe) the ukulele player of the band.

Some Like it Hot has come to be known as one of the greatest comedies of all time and it was very easy to see why. There were some genuinely moments within the film, which is partially due to Jack Lemmon. Lemmon is a great comic actor and this really shone through, especially in the moments when both Lemmon and Curtis were in drag. Here we got to see how much trouble they were going through to avoid detection from the mob. From trying to walk in heels, to Joe disturbing Jerry's carefully placed brasserie and fake breasts, it was one laugh after the other. It also helped that both actors were incredibly charismatic, which also shone through. Jack Lemmon always ended one of the punchlines to his jokes with a very cheeky smile. Tony Curtis' character Joe was the straight man of the two and the pair bounced well off each other. These qualities also made the characters quite endearing and sympathetic. They're a little goofy, but ultimately good-hearted, which also left them plenty of room to develop. They begin as irresponsible womanisers, but transform into men who begin taking life more seriously.

As for the conflict that the two experienced, I read on IMDB that Billy Wilder wanted the film set in Prohibition to give the characters adequate motivation to dress in drag. Columbo's killing of Toothpick Charlie was a reference to Al Capone's orchestration of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. I think the name “Columbo” could be an allusion to Columbo family of New York. At the end of the film, Columbo and his men attend Florida, not because they've tracked down Jerry and Joe, but because of a meeting with the other mob bosses. However, this was a trap, as the bosses ended up killing Columbo for causing too much noise. Although, of course, this isn't how Capone died, but it's no secret that he did generate a lot of unwanted attention with the press. As far as villains go, Columbo was a bit “run of the mill,” but he didn't need to be anymore than this and Raft played him, as he needed to.

If the film falls down anywhere, it would be the more romantic sections. Whilst Jerry and Joe both initially compete for Sugar Cane's affections, Joe eventually comes out on top. And it is the scenes with Joe and Sugar together that, I felt, bogged down the film. I feel that things became overly-sentimental, especially when Sugar was speaking about how all of the men in her life let her down. For me, the main conflict was with Joe and Jerry trying to outwit the mob and the scenes with Sugar distracted from this. Also, Marilyn Monroe's performance didn't help either. From what I read on IMDB, she was a nightmare to work with, from how she would turn up to set hours late or continually fluff her lines, making her quite deserving of the title: “the Blonde Bombshell.” Her performance of Sugar felt quite forced.

What is the trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? Does purgatory exist?

Where do animals and women fit in? Why do evil and viruses exist?

The next twenty questions of Richard Bewes' book focusses on the Truth We Believe.

Q.22 The Trinity to other religions?

As a student, I get so frustrated when talking with non-Christian groups at my campus, about the Trinity.  Your help, please.

Richard Bewes' response hinges on the omnipresence of Jesus, and by extension, God.  He highlights that as a corporeal being, Jesus, only came into existence in 4 or 5 BC.  However, on a spiritual level, he has existed as part of the Trinitarian God throughout the whole of history.  Allusions to the Coming of Christ exist throughout the Old Testament, particularly in Isaiah and the Minor Prophets:

"I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me.  Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,' says the Lord Almighty." Malachi 3:1

Bewes then references Exodus 33:20, which tells the story of the Angel of the Lord.  Moses is communicating with God, who is shrouded in darkness, on Mount Sinai.  When Moses asks to see God, God replies "you cannot see my face for no one may see me and live." Bewes continues by arguing that this is a common pattern throughout the scripture: God - the father, unseen by his people facilitates in his domain, Jesus, the son, acts out his work on Earth (and I personally think that the Old Testament Prophets and leaders e.g Moses, Isaiah, Joshua play a similar role) and the spirit exists internally within us.  We find salvation with this Trinity through the "will of the Father, the saving work of the Son, and the indwelling witness of the Holy Spirit."

Bewes is arguing that the three elements of the Trinity are simultaneously interrelated, but are also independent of each other.  My friend Naomi explained the Trinity in a similar way: God, the father, created the world and also judges it, God the son, aka Jesus, who is God incarnate and lived the perfect live that we all should've lived, and the spirit which is what leads to people believing in Jesus and becoming Christians.

Other religions and even other denominations don't believe in the Holy Trinity.  One of the core differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is that the latter doesn't believe in the Holy Trinity.  Judaism and Islam don't like the idea of the Trinity, as to them it looks like they're worshipping three separate gods.  This idea isn't compatible with their monotheistic beliefs.

24. Where does Jesus fit in?

I can under God, but I can't see where Jesus fits into the picture.

When I initially read this question, I was baffled by its inclusion.  Surely everybody knows the significance of Jesus Christ? Then I realised that I had made the fatal mistake of over-simplifying religion.  Naomi told me that in the past she has wondered about Jesus' place, when she was having doubts about her faith.

Richard Bewes quickly points out that we can understand how Christ fits in, when we realise that everything begins with Jesus.  Just like I was discussing before, he has existed since the beginning of time.  Through his role as a mediator between us and God, can we achieve salvation.

Bewes' argues that "Christ's name claims supreme recognition in all the areas of life that matter most:"

The World of Worship where Paganism and polytheism gave way to the monotheistic Christianity.

The World of Suffering, where the suffering of the leaders of history and thought is nothing compared to the suffering of Christ or God.

Christ has also inspired a World of Creativity, due to his influence on paintings, literature and architecture, which would be meaningless without his presence.

Finally, his life is supreme in the World of Eternity.  His longevity of his significance.  I am just the latest in a long of writers who love to discuss Christ.

I can definitely agree with Bewes' World of Worship and Eternity arguments.  To think about how polytheism was subordinated by the monotheistic Christianity is evidence of its power.  Although, whether this was more of the result of Emperor Constantine or the power of Christ is up for debate.  Classicists, please correct me in the comments below.

It is the World of Suffering and Creativity arguments that I take issue with.  Bewes argues that when we put the leaders of history and of thought together, it is evident that none of them suffered as Jesus did.  My question is, how could you argue that one person's suffering is greater than another's? What measurable scale is there for that? Yes, Jesus was crucified and died for our sins, but the Romans executed scores of Christians who refused to abandon God.  Nero tied them to stakes, covered them in tar and set them alight.  The vast majority of Jesus' disciples were martyred.  Peter was crucified upside down by Nero.  Fast forward to the Tudors and Mary I burned countless Protestants at the stake.  Was Jesus' suffering any worse than these innocent Christians?

Onto the World of Creativity, I'm not denying that Christ and religion hasn't had a considerable influence on art and literature.  Just look at the roof of the Sistine Chapel, Dante's The Divine Comedy or John Milton's Paradise Lost. What I don't like is how Bewes concludes by arguing that "atheism, by its very nature could never have this impact, for atheism has no wings." As I have said before, Bewes is offensive to non-Christians, and by doing so, is perpetuating the misconception that religious people are too close-minded to deviate from their monopoly of truth.  Atheism has been just as influential as Christianity.  It was the questioning of these beliefs that led to the Age of Enlightenment, which in turn, led to secularisation.  I don't think that people would be asking questions like, "where does Jesus fit in," if it wasn't for Atheism shaking their faiths.  And as for literature, I'd like to just mention one book you may have heard of, Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion.

30. Does Purgatory exist?
What is purgatory, and how should we think of it?

Richard Bewes argued that the notion of purgatory, that is a waiting place between heaven and hell, where a person's soul is judged and cleansed, emerged at the end of the second century AD and eventually became fully accepted by the Greek and Latin churches at the church of Florence in 1439. However, Bewes then categorically states that "purgatory does not exist."  He asserts that its very notion undermines what Jesus died for.  We all know that Jesus died for our sins and upon his death, all of our sins were forgiven.  Purgatory implies that his sacrifice was in vain and it was imperfect.

 Furthermore, Bewes argues that purgatory shouldn't be regarded as a waiting room for the next life.  We should aim to use our current lives to prepare for the next, not wait around until we reach purgatory.  Naomi similarly argued that the whole notion of purgatory diminishes God's grace.  She said it doesn't exist, as Jesus died for our sins.  I find myself agreeing with both Bewes and Naomi.

 The whole idea of purgatory makes no sense, as it is completely contradicts some of the most commonly-held beliefs of Christianity.  It also serves to undermine God's divine authority.  Why would he allow his own son to die for our sins, if we are to be cleanse by them in purgatory.  Also I think that the absence of purgatory encourages people to do good in their current lives.  Rather than trusting their sins will be washed away in purgatory, they will work hard in their present lives to ensure that they go to heaven.

Comment your own thoughts, comments and criticisms.  Just keep it respectful.

The Wide Window Review

The Bad Beginning Review

The Reptile Room Review

Dear Reader,

when we like to read reviews of our favourite television shows or movies, we like to see what others think.  However, I find it difficult to believe that A Series of Unfortunate Events is anybody's favourite television show, as it focuses on the Baudelaire orphans who encounter much misfortune in their lives.  In this challenging chronicle, they meet a relative who's scared of everything, Violently Ferocious Dreadful leeches, a powerful hurricane and peppermints.  I have no idea why would you want to read a review of such thing, so I implore you to be please click off this screen now.

The Wide Window begins in classic A Series of Unfortunate Events form with a parody of a news report informing the viewer of everything that has happened so far.  The news anchors then hand over to Lemony Snicket, (Patrick Warburton) who introduces the current story to the audience.  The Baudelaire orphans have arrived on the shores of Lake Lachrymose to stay with their latest relative, Aunt Josephine (Alfre Woodard.) Aunt Josephine has a nervous disposition - a phrase which here means that "she is absolutely afraid of everything, from being electrocuted by the telephone to having the stove burst into flames if it is turned one." Aunt Josephine is also a complete grammar Nazi - a phrase which here means "somebody who takes complete delight in correcting somebody's grammar." I'll discuss Woodard's excellent performance later, but for now, I'll just say that she did a great job as Aunt Josephine.  She was hilarious without being over the top.  All of her little nervous ticks and twitches did well to enhance her character.

Whilst the Baudelaires are becoming acquainted with Aunt Josephine, we also learn much more about "Mother" (Cobie Smulders) and "Father." (Will Arnett) We find out that they are indeed husband and wife, proving my theory that they were Kit and Jacques Snicket, unquestionably wrong.  However, beyond this, we don't know much.  They are no longer in Peru, but ready to fly a Cessna back home.

At the same time, we also find out that the Baudelaires have an unknown friend in the form of Larry the Waiter who works at the Anxious Clown restaurant.  He also appears to be part of the mysterious organisation that the Baudelaire parents and Uncle Monty were part of.  The scenes with Larry contain important world-building, as we find out that he has deep ties to Count Olaf (Neil Patrick Harris) who has tracked the Baudelaires to Lake Lachrymose and has set up base in the Anxious Clown restaurant.  Whilst Larry was in the books, he was nothing more than a waiter, so I am interested in how he has been elevated to such an important role.  I am also intrigued at the further development of the secret organisation V.F.D.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Baudelaires also discover that Aunt Josephine is also connected to V.F.D, having known the Baudelaire parents and Uncle Monty for a long time.  However, we don't find out anymore, as Aunt Josephine refuses to speak anymore about it.  Instead, she goes shopping, to ensure that her and the Baudelaires have enough food to last Hurricane Herman.  Whilst she is away, the Baudelaires sneak around and find a photo of Uncle Monty, "Mother" and "Father," another couple next to them, Aunt Josephine and Larry the waiter, all standing in front of Lucky Smells Lumbermill.  I think that the unnamed couple standing next to "Mother" and "Father" are the Baudelaire parents and "Mother" and "Father" are simply red herrings.

Aunt Josephine returns to the house bringing back none other than Captain Sham, whom is really Count Olaf in disguise.  Whilst the Baudelaires instantly see through his disguise, Aunt Josephine falls for him "hook, line and sinker" - a phrase which here has nothing to do with fishing, but means that Aunt Josephine was completely fooled by Count Olaf.  Here, I find myself agreeing with Zach Handlen of A.V Club's comments concerning Aunt Josephine being so utterly tricked.  He argues that "the death of her beloved husband, Ike, has made her a shell of her former self," which I think makes sense.  It was odd that Uncle Monty was fooled by Count Olaf's disguise, despite how he was well-trained in espionage and secret disguises and codes.  

However, Ike's death has left Aunt Josephine so hurt and lonely that I think it makes perfect sense that she would fall for Captain Sham, in spite of how she received similar training to Uncle Monty, to the extent that she knew Olaf in a past life.  This also goes back to Woodard's great performance who portrayed Josephine as sympathetic, but also quite pitiful.  It's easy to feel sorry for her.  What I find is a bit weird is that Captain Sham, uses a lot of nautical slang, which Aunt Josephine doesn't seem to have a problem with.  Sure, she corrects the "it's/its" error on his business card, but she is perfectly okay with the rest of Captain Sham's grammatically incorrect speech.

However, Aunt Josephine doesn't live long to realise her mistake, as she kills herself, leaving the Baudelaires in the care of Captain Sham, which she writes in her suicide note.  SPOILER ALERT: she's not actually dead.  "Not Yet," anyway, as Lemony Snicket states, concluding the first part of the episode.  As far as first parts go, I'm not sure how keen I was on this one.  A lot of it seemed like just set-up and preparation for the second half.  Maybe it'd've been nicer, if we actually saw more things occurring.

Anyway, moving onto part 2, which opens on the hapless banker Mr Poe (K. Todd Pressman) coming to collect the Baudelaires to take them to brunch with Captain Sham, so that they can finalise the adoption proceedings.  As usual, Mr Poe refuses to believe the Baudelaires when they state that Captain Sham is really Count Olaf in disguise, and takes them to the Anxious Clown for lunch.  This is where we get one of the funnier scenes of the episode, as we see Larry the Clown desperately trying to help the Baudelaires, whilst Count Olaf's troupe keep a watchful eye on him.  Even though they don't really do too much in this episode, it's always great seeing them as an ensemble, which is where they work best.  Having said that, Larry is about as much use as Jacquelyn really.  He buys the Baudelaires sometime through feeding them peppermints, which they're allergic too, but doesn't do a whole lot else.

Whilst Mr Poe and Captain Sham stay in the Anxious Clown, the Baudelaires return to Aunt Josephine's home to figure out the real mystery that is happening.  A task not made easy by the fact that Hurricane Herman is now in full force.  However, this does little to deter the savvy Klaus, who soon deduces that Aunt Josephine left a secret code in her suicide note, revealing that she is alive and is hiding in Curdled Cave.  Klaus determines this just as Hurricane Herman begins to buffet the house and I'd agree with Zach Handlen, that this was one of the more unbelievable moments of the show.  

Yes, I know that a Series of Unfortunate Events is supposed to be Absurdist fiction, but when you see Klaus doing a ridiculous feet and the house rocking back and forth on its foundations, the boundaries of this genre are pushed a bit far.  Aunt Josephine's house is built on the edge of the cliff, which Hurricane Herman threatens to topple, before conveniently righting it, allow the Baudelaires enough time to escape.  All a bit too much for me.

Anyway, the Baudelaires then steal a sailboat to sail across Lake Lachrymose to rescue Aunt Josephine, leading to another great scene, involving Lemony Snicket.  In a brilliant lampooning of the "don't try this at home," messages, Snicket implores viewers to "don't steal sailboats and sail them across a lake in a hurricane," yet Warburton's voice is so full of exasperation, that it's implied that anybody who is stupid enough to do this, deserves any consequences they receive.

The Baudelaires reach Curdled Cave, where they find Aunt Josephine who reveals that Count Olaf forced her to write that note and told her to kill herself.  However, two things here don't match up for me.  Firstly, why would Count Olaf rely on Aunt Josephine to commit suicide, and not do the job himself? We know that he is perfectly capable of killing, so it is a bit strange that he wouldn't murder Josephine and have everyone else think it was a suicide.  Secondly, it is also a bit odd, that a woman too afraid to use a telephone, in case she is electrocuted, would be brave enough to defy a villain like Count Olaf, by faking her death and leaving a hidden code.

As the Baudelaires and Aunt Josephine are returning over Lake Lachrymose, they are attacked by the Lachrymose Leeches.  They escape their near predicament through Violet's ingenuity, but also by "Mother" and "Father" who happen to be flying their Cessna over Lake Lachrymose.  Violet has the idea of signalling for attention by creating a fire.  She tries to light a scarf on fire by refracting the beam of the Lighthouse through a spyglass, but the angle is wrong.  As "Mother" and "Father" fly past and observe what is happening through a pair of binoculars, the light first hits the binoculars, before hitting the spyglass, which is enough to set the scarf alight.  I didn't like this, as it is reminiscent of Deux Ex Machina - a Latin phrase which translates as the Machine of God, and has gone to signify an external device, which saves the protagonist at the last minute - a writing device that Snicket lampoons heavily in the later books.  I think it very much undermined Violet's Fabulously Delightful inventing ability.  It would have been better if she had set the scarf aflame without any external help whatsoever.

Anyway, the Baudelaires' signal attracts the attention of Captain Sham who rescues them in his signal boat.  The Baudelaires confront Captain Sham on his nefarious plot, claiming that they went to rescue Josephine, so that she can tell everybody the truth about what happened.  Josephine then exhibits incredible bravery by standing up to Captain Sham, confronting him on all of the evil he has committed.  However, this is all to little avail, as Captain Sham pushes her overboard to the leeches.  I have less of a problem with the courage that Josephine exhibits here, as it isn't as nearly sudden or abrupt.  It is made obvious that she has been inspired by the bravery of the Baudelaires.

Captain Sham takes the Baudelaires to shore, where they meet Mr Poe.  Just as it looks like the orphans will be adopted by Captain Sham, Sunny bites through his wooden peg leg, exposing him as Count Olaf.  As Mr Poe begins arguing with Count Olaf, the Baudelaires sneak into the back of a truck which is heading towards Lucky Smells Lumbermill.  This is another major deviation from the book series, but it is an intriguing development, and I look forward to seeing where the series goes from here.

V.F.D and Literary References

1. One of the News Anchors is called Vincent Fig Demetrios.

2. Damocles Dock, which serves Lake Lachrymose is named after the figure in Greek Mythology.

3. The taxi driver that takes the Baudelaires to Aunt Josephine's house espouses a literary analysis of Herman Melville's Moby Dick, and of course, Hurricane Herman, is named after Herman Melville.

4. When Aunt Josephine is shopping for food, we see one market trader crying out "Very Fresh Dill."

5. Aunt Josephine admits that her choice to leave the hidden code and fake her own death was a "Very Frightening Decision."

6. The Baudelaires quote Haruki Marukami concluding the second part of The Wide Window:

“And once the storm is over, you won’t remember how you made it through, how you managed to survive. You won’t even be sure, whether the storm is really over. But one thing is certain. When you come out of the storm, you won’t be the same person who walked in. That’s what this storm’s all about.”