Film Noir Favorites, Summer 2020

Ava Gardner in The Killers

Dark themes, stark camera angles, and high contrast lighting are the characteristics of films of the 40s and 50s that were later called called "film noir" by French film critics who fell in love with them after WWII. These films tell realistic stories about crime, mystery, femme fatales, and moral conflict. Most were originally conceived as low budget “B” movies but many are now regarded as ground-breaking suspense classics with great acting, writing and directing.                                             

The Maltese Falcon. Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor star in this 1941 film that some consider the best detective drama ever, as well as the first true film noir. Sidney Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre are the criminals who will stop at nothing to get their hands on a priceless, jewel encrusted statuette. John Huston directed and wrote the screenplay based on the Dashiell Hammett story. 

Mystery Street.  Ricardo Montalban stars in this 1950 crime drama as a Cape Cod police officer who turns to a Harvard forensic expert to identify and track down the murderer of a skeleton washed up on a dune. Elsa Lancaster, Jan Sterling, and Sally Forrest are featured in one of the first films to employ forensics. Directed by John Sturges with famed cinematographer, John Alton. 

Sorry, Wrong Number. Barbara Stanwyck stars as a wealthy, bedridden woman who dials a telephone number one night only to overhear two men plotting to murder an unidentified woman. This 1948 film is a classic example of suspense and terror. Stanwyck received an Oscar nomination for her performance. Burt Lancaster co-starred. 

Touchez Pas au Grisbi. After WWII, French filmmakers discovered American films that they labelled "film-noir." They appreciated and admired these dark films and began to produce their own. In this 1954 film Jean Gabin stars as an aging gangster who comes out of retirement when his best friend is kidnapped for ransom. 

The Killers. Two hit men gun down a gas station attendant for no apparent reason. An insurance investigator tries to get to the bottom of the story with tragic results. Robert Siodmark directed this 1946 classic based on a story by Ernest Hemingway. Burt Lancaster stars in his film debut along with Ava Gardner and Edmund O’Brien. 

The Strange Love of Martha Ivers. Barbara Stanwyck stars as the wealthiest and most powerful woman in a Midwestern factory town. However, she shares a dark secret with her unhappy, alcoholic husband played by Kirk Douglas in his film debut. When an old acquaintance comes to town, things fall apart. Directed by Lewis Milestone, this 1945 film also features Van Heflin and Lizabeth Scott. 

Force of Evil. John Garfield stars as an unscrupulous lawyer who helps a syndicate take over the numbers racket in New York City. Abraham Polonsky directed this 1948 film that was filmed on location. Thomas Gomez plays his brother who falls victim to the syndicate. Marie Windsor plays a sultry temptress.

Classe Tous Risque. After hiding out in Milan for over a decade, a fugitive gangster chief, played by Lino Ventura, returns to Paris even though a death sentence hangs over his head. He is accompanied by a young Jean-Paul Belmondo in a role that makes us see why he became such an international star. Claude Sautet directed this 1960 French noir classic. Click on this link for trailer or see the video clip below. 

### 

    

Democratic Party Racist Heritage

FDR Statue

I do not believe that "systemic racism" exists in the United States today but no one can doubt that racism has existed in the past. The following guest post by Rudy Costello, a friend and long time student of American history, demonstrates that it has long been associated with the Democratic party.

***

Democratic Party Racist Heritage
by Rudy Costello

In the hysteria of defacing and tearing town historic monuments, name changes, charges of systemic racism; and the mob violence associated with the movement, certain historical facts are conveniently obscured. Trying to revise and rewrite history by going back centuries to Columbus, or to the arrival of the first slave ships to colonial America; then to the rise of the slavocracy and the Confederacy does not relate the whole story.

A tragic Civil War and 600,000 lost lives later, the scourge of slavery and those who perpetuated it were defeated. What ensued during the years afterward became the real causes of racism and its lingering effects which can still raise its ugly head. As the reconstructed former Confederate states were brought back into the Union and as their leaders gradually returned to political power, the freed former slaves found themselves at the mercy of their former masters. Thus would begin the history of the type of racism which can still be felt in our society.

Despite winning civil and political rights through the passage of the 13th,14th and15th amendments to the Constitution, African-Americans in the South soon found themselves in a new form of bondage. Now under the rule of the Southern wing of the Democratic party, these state governments chipped away at the newly won constitutional rights of the former slaves and their descendants. The infamous "black codes" and Jim Crow laws, which included restricting the right to vote, created stereotypes of blacks and established an institutionalized racism. The Democratic Party, devastated by the Civil War, needed to regain power which was threatened by "Black Republicans". Much of the hope the freedmen had was taken away from them. Segregation, discrimination, intimidation, and violence became the norm for African-Americans.

The most notorious example of the treatment of blacks in the South was the practice of lynching. According to the Tuskegee Institute there were 4,700 lynchings between 1882-1951, two-thirds of which were black victims. This became the favorite tool of the KKK. Numerous anti-lynching bills during this same period were introduced in Congress only to be defeated by the filibusters of Southern Democratic senators. In 1920 the Republican Party platform called for anti-lynching legislation. President Harding supported a bill which passed the House in 1922 but was blocked again by Southern Democrats in the Senate. Even as late as 1934 the liberal icon, FDR, refused to push for such a bill for fear of losing the crucial support of Southern Democrats for his New Deal legislation. No civil rights legislation came out of the New Deal.

Finally, in 1957 President Eisenhower worked with both parties to get a civil rights act passed, the first in over eighty years. Though it did not go far enough, it laid the foundation for the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964. President Eisenhower also defied the Democratic governor in Arkansas and sent in federal troops to enforce school integration mandated by the Supreme Court.

So the history of the two political parties on race has been distorted. The history of the Democratic party shows a de facto racism by its southern base and a political compliance by the national party. While the political landscape has changed, the present Democrats can't deny that they are heirs to this once racist party. They can't deny that their success throughout most of the twentieth century depended upon a strategy that prolonged de jure racism in our country. Kamela Harris even hinted at this in a challenge to Joe Biden during one of the debates this year.

In addition, over the same period of time, the Democratic Party has controlled the governments of our largest cities where a de facto racism has long existed. Irresponsible fiscal, economic and social policies have resulted in high rates of crime, violence, broken communities and poor schools. These situations have weighed heavily on African-American communities.

Removing or tearing down statues of defeated Confederate soldiers, or an explorer who happened to come upon the shores of the New World, or of Presidents Washington and Theodore Roosevelt can be disingenuous at the least and quite hypocritical at the worst. A Senate office building is named after Richard Russell, one of the most racist members ever to serve in that body, and his statue graces the entrance. Are there any plans for its removal and a name change?

Witnessing our present civil disorder and the politicians caving into it for political advantage, I am reminded of a quote from JFK's inaugural that may be quite appropriate : " ... those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside."

###

Coronavirus News: July 2020

Dr. Marcus Zervos

The impact of the coronavirus has been dramatically different in the four most populous states in the USA. Here are figures as of July 12 showing the number of reported cases and deaths, as well as the percentage of deaths to reported cases. I also include the number of deaths per Million in each state. 

                      Cases           Deaths        Death%        Death/1M  

                        

 California:  320000         7030            2.20%                       178

 Texas:          259000         3228            1.25%                       111

 Florida:        255000        4197            1.65%                       195

 New York:   427000        32393           7.59%                       1665

It is obvious that New York, the fourth most populous state, has been hit the hardest so far. Deaths exceed the combined total of the three largest states. The death rate per million is about 10X that of the other three states. Only neighboring New Jersey exceeds New York with a death rate of 1757 per million. Even tiny Connecticut, the other state in the tristate area, had the third highest death rate in the country at 1220 per million.  

Recently, however, the trend seems to have reversed. The coronavirus has practically disappeared in the tristate area while headlines indicate record numbers of new cases in the sunshine states.  Before trying to explain the spike in numbers in the sunshine states, we should try to understand what happened in New York and its neighbors.

From the first onslaught of the coronavirus medical researchers have warned that there were many more people infected than reported. I have seen estimates (guesses?) that we should multiply the number of reported cases by anywhere from 3 to 100 to get the actual number. As the virus spread over the past few months, the latest estimates are anywhere from 22 to 28. 

In the United States so far there have been 3.248 Million reported cases. If we multiply that figure by 25 we can estimate that over 80,000,000 Americans have been infected. Since there have been 137,429 deaths so far, we can say that 99.9% of those infected have survived. 

My scientific advisor suggests that by now New York and it neighbors have achieved a kind of herd immunity due to the severity of the early onslaught. Even protestors and looters running amok and un-masked in the streets of New York City have not led to a spike in coronavirus cases. I have been tracking the coronavirus in Great Britain and Italy since March because the virus hit them before us, and hit them harder. Recent reports indicate that the virus has for all events and purposes disappeared in those two countries.

I recall that when I visited California in February the virus had just begun there but as can be seen from the figures it did not take hold there. My scientific advisor believes that sunshine producing Vitamin D was more important than lockdowns in high sunshine states in flattening the curve. Millions of people in California, Florida, and Texas were infected but their immune systems, fortified by Vitamin D, fought it off so that most did not even get tested for the virus.

Speaking of testing, in the beginning tests were only administered to people with symptoms like coughing, fever, and fatigue. Back in March and April only 15 % of those tested had the coronavirus. The other 85% had something else. Now tests are being conducted on anyone so that while the number of those testing positive has grown, only 6% of those tested in June have been positive. 

The number of tests in the USA is approaching 40 Million. California with so few reported cases now leads the nation with over 5 Million tests. Obviously, most of these people who are now testing positive had the virus and have gotten over it. Moreover, they are now probably immune.   

In an op-ed entitled “The Coronavirus Credibility Gap” that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on July 2, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, an Associate Professor at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, discussed immunity.

And while there is more to learn about immunity, there has not been a single confirmed case of reinfection among the 10 million cases of Covid-19 world-wide, according to a May report in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Until the data say otherwise, people who have recovered from Covid-19 should be exempt from restrictions.

In its last weekly report my home town of Fairfield, CT reported that only two cases of coronavirus have been reported in the past week, and that there has been only one coronavirus related death in the past month. Moreover, the state of Connecticut “currently has very low numbers of new cases and hospitalizations, as well as the lowest transmission rate in the country.” 

In more good news a July 2 report from the Henry Ford Health System indicates that a new study shows the effectiveness of low-cost hydroxychloroquine in saving lives. Here is the headline:

DETROIT--Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19--and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by the Henry Ford Health System.

I reproduce the news release below and you can judge for yourselves. Of course, those who opposed the treatment because of its endorsement by President Trump have already tried to poke holes in the study.

###

In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.

The study was published today in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org).

Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at Henry Ford met specific protocol criteria as outlined by the hospital system’s Division of Infectious Diseases. The vast majority received the drug soon after admission; 82% within 24 hours and 91% within 48 hours of admission. All patients in the study were 18 or over with a median age of 64 years; 51% were men and 56% African American.

“The findings have been highly analyzed and peer-reviewed,” said Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of Infectious Disease for Henry Ford Health System, who co-authored the study with Henry Ford epidemiologist Dr. Samia Arshad. “We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring. Our dosing also differed from other studies not showing a benefit of the drug. And other studies are either not peer reviewed, have limited numbers of patients, different patient populations or other differences from our patients.”

Zervos said the potential for a surge in the fall or sooner, and infections continuing worldwide, show an urgency to identifying inexpensive and effective therapies and preventions.

“We’re glad to add to the scientific knowledge base on the role and how best to use therapies as we work around the world to provide insight,” he said. “Considered in the context of current studies on the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, our results suggest that the drug may have an important role to play in reducing COVID-19 mortality.”

The study also found those treated with azithromycin alone or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin also fared slightly better than those not treated with the drugs, according to the Henry Ford data. The analysis found 22.4% of those treated only with azithromycin died, and 20.1% treated with a combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 26.4% of patients dying who were not treated with either medication.

“Our analysis shows that using hydroxychloroquine helped saves lives,” said neurosurgeon Dr. Steven Kalkanis, CEO, Henry Ford Medical Group and Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer of Henry Ford Health System. “As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight. And the data here is clear that there was benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.”

Fascism in America

In a recent letter in my local newspaper a Professor at Southern Connecticut State University gave a textbook definition of Fascism and applied it to President Trump. He believed that the President was as much a Fascist as notorious dictators Hitler and Mussolini. However, he overlooked aspects of Fascism in America right under his own nose.

When I saw images of rioters and looters smashing store windows along New York City’s posh Madison Avenue, it brought to mind Kristallnacht, the most famous window smashing in modern times. On the night of November 9, 1938 bands of Nazi thugs smashed the windows of Jewish owned businesses all over Germany. Police looked on but did not interfere.  

The windows were smashed not just to harm the business owners but also to strike fear into all Jews in Germany. More than that, mob violence was a tactic used to cower an entire population into silence. Nazi party members never made up more than 10 percent of the population in Germany but mob violence was one way to gain control over the majority.

The Nazis have been branded as Fascists but Fascism began earlier in Italy as Italian strong man Benito Mussolini rose to power. Mussolini admired ancient Rome and took from Rome a symbol of power and authority. Years ago in first year Latin class, I learned about the fasces, the symbol of Roman police authority. 

In Latin fasces just means a bundle of sticks tied tightly together. Alone, a slim stick had no power. It could be easily snapped or broken. But a number of sticks held or bound together tightly could not be broken and could be a powerful weapon like a rolled-up newspaper.

Fasces

Mussolini’s message to his followers was clear. Working alone, they had no power but if they banded together, they could be formidable even if only a small minority. Working alone a protestor or activist could be easily handled by the police, but a mob was a different story. Extremists, whether Fascists, Nazis, or Communists have used mob violence to gain power over entire populations.

What other tactics do Fascists employ? They limit or restrict the dissemination of ideas that they dislike. Fascists are not supporters of free speech. What is it but Fascism when newspapers, websites, and TV news channels will not broadcast opinions with which they disagree? During the recent riots prominent editors of large newspapers were dismissed because they allowed opinion pieces on their op-ed pages that differed from the prevailing politically correct orthodoxy. 

Originally, Op-Ed pages were designed to carry opinions that disagreed with the opinions on the editorial page, but no more. My local newspaper repeatedly urges readers to let their voices be heard but conservative voices are routinely censored out. 

What is it but Fascism when gangs of protestors on college campuses band together to shout down invited speakers whose views they will not even hear? In Nazi Germany renowned Jewish professors were dismissed from their positions. Many were forced into exile or worse. How many conservatives are on the faculty of Southern Connecticut State University? Is it possible for a conservative to even be considered for a position no matter what their qualifications?

### 

Declaration of Independence

 

Every July 4 we celebrate Independence Day, the anniversary of the promulgation of our famed Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Most of us have heard the famous opening lines of the document, 

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

However, few have ever read the entire Declaration and even fewer have any understanding of the nature of the actual grievances that led the colonists to sever their ties with England and seek independence. Most readers don’t get past the following words.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

King George III of England was one of the nicest, most benevolent rulers that England ever had, but the Declaration portrayed him as a tyrannical despot. However, the real conflict between England and her American colonies was not between Monarchy and Democracy but between the rights of the British people represented as they were by their own Parliament, and the rights of the American colonists represented as they were by their own colonial assemblies. In this conflict no one was a greater supporter of the rights and authority of the British Parliament than the King.

For the most part the Declaration of Independence does not complain about violations of individual human rights but concentrates on what it claims has been a systematic attempt on the part of the government in England to violate the rights and privileges of colonial representative assemblies. 

The founding fathers believed these assemblies that represented the leading citizens and property owners in the various colonies were the sole bulwark against monarchical tyranny on the one hand, and democratic anarchy on the other. They claimed that the King and his colonial governors have repeatedly refused to put into operation laws passed by these assemblies.

•He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

•He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operations till his assent should be obtained;

•He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature,…

•He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

In some cases the English government has even gone so far as to dissolve some of these representative assemblies and leave particular colonies without any form of self-government. The legal system, military defense, and tax collection have been taken out of the hands of the colonial representatives. Here are some examples:

•He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

•He has made the judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

•He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

•He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

• He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.

In the end the Declaration claimed that it came down to a contest between their own local representative assemblies and a faraway legislature that did not represent them. Because they had come to deny the authority of the British Parliament, they never used the word Parliament in the document. 

There are elements in the Declaration that might seem offensive to modern ears. Jefferson and others in America opposed the efforts of a reforming British government to permit religious toleration of the large Catholic population in newly conquered Canada. For them Catholicism went hand in hand with despotism. The Declaration also complained about attempts on the part of the British government to prevent colonization of Indian territory. Indeed, it claimed that England was encouraging the native tribes.

Nevertheless, the leaders assembled in Congress insisted on their rights as Englishmen to govern themselves. They wanted government to be as close to home as possible. They would make their own laws, vote their own taxes when necessary, and be responsible for their own legal and military systems. They did not want to be governed by a faraway government that had little concern for their interests or welfare.

It was true that the founders were men of property and status. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Franklin were not common men. Democracy would come later. For the present they wanted to protect their right to self-government. The British government had declared itself “invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” To resist, they were prepared to risk all that they held dear.

•“And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” 

###