michaelintp-88272

"Lessons in Chemistry" ... the book ... was outstanding, as was the audiobook. It had a strongly feminist theme (addressing the mistreatment of women in the 1950s and 60s, sexual harassment and abuse, and spousal abuse) mixed with the fanciful (a talking dog). In contrast, the Apple TV dramatization was mediocre, with racial themes and issues injected out of thin air to replace meaningful themes already in the original book. It seems that through these plot changes the producers and screenwriters were hoping to enhance their Emmy chances in today's climate. Particularly absurd is the repeated portrayal of the fight against the Interstate Highway System and particularly against the building of the I-10 Freeway, not in the book. Were the protesters against all freeways, or did the protesters just want them to go through someone else's neighborhood? None of that was made clear in the show, though it seems their immediate goal was to block completion of the I-10 Freeway. The screenwriters would have done better to stick to the feminist themes and creativity of the original book.

Brie Larson was well suited to the role of Elizabeth Zott, and could have done an outstanding portrayal of the character from the book had the book been more closely followed instead of butchered.

Jon Hamm is great as hard-boiled anti-Communist FBI Agent Jack Bergin. The drama is most nuanced and fun to listen to if you perform a thought experiment: assume it is true that some Communist operatives had infiltrated the entertainment industry, academia, the media and government. In other words, assume the "Conspiracy So Immense" was real. Soviet and FBI documents made public in the 1990s support that the Soviet-sponsored "International Communist Conspiracy" was not a figment of the imagination of "Red Baiters." But whether you agree or disagree, it is really fun while listening to assume this is true, as this provides incredible (unintended) nuance and suspense to the production. Will Agent Jack Bergin fall for the appealing spin of the Communists, or will he remain true to his anti-Communist principles? You will need to listen to the whole production to find out. The story's portrayal of attitudes and beliefs in the early 1950s was well done. This adds to this suspense, once you embrace this thought experiment.

I saw the film "Elie Wiesel: Soul on Fire" at the Museum of Tolerance. It was well done in conveying the essence of the man, with a revealing mix of narration (much Wiesel's own words) and animation. The film was not without bias, however, as where it played a clip of Wiesel speaking in the 1990s about the rights of the Palestinians, at a time when many felt peace was at hand, before Arafat rejected a peaceful resolution and launched the Second Intifada. This context was missing from the film, and thus Wiesel's words drew an ignorant smattering of applause from a few people in the audience. The film also dedicated much attention to Wiesel's dispute with Ronald Reagan over the President's intended visit to the Bitburg Cemetary in Germany when it came out some SS soldiers were buried there (for Reagan, his visit was obviously driven by geopolitical considerations in the cold war against the Soviets, intended to solidify the U. S. partnership with modern post-Nazi Germany). Treatment of this issue in the film, showing the interchanges between Wiesel and Reagan, was interesting, however.

The Q&A with director Oren Rudavsky, on the other hand, was disappointing. As is (seemingly) mandatory in Hollywood, his comments had a decidedly partisan spin. At one point he even said he misses Jimmy Carter. But more troubling was the "lesson" he claims the film imparts, that the film is intended to move beyond the Holocaust to validate the pain caused by the individual traumas we all have experienced. NO. He is terribly wrong. There is no comparison between the horror and scope and magnitude of the Holocaust and the individual "traumas" we may experience. This is comparing apples to oranges. The individual or group need to see one's self as a "victim" and the demand that one's pain must be validated sometimes comes from a place of narcissism and self-obsession, wholly different from the intense pain caused Wiesel through his experience of overwhelming catastrophe. Rudavsky's attempt to make Wiesel's Holocaust experience relevant to our individual personal "traumas" was horribly misplaced. Despite this, "Elie Wiesel: Soul on Fire" is a film worth watching.