GOLDEN OLDIE 10: The Hunt for Red October

 

 You tend to forget just how good Sean Connery was.  As the first James Bond he set a mark that has never been approached, in my opinion.  He acted in many other movies, some quite popular, and no one, not even our supercilious film critics, ever could detect even a miniscule flaw.  As Harrison Ford’s dad in one of the Indiana Jones movies he all but stole the show.  So, I’m a fan, and I like his role as the defecting Soviet submarine captain in The Hunt for Red October best.  He is simply magnificent.

You know the story, because you saw the film 31 years ago.  I hope you saw it in a theatre with a good sound system, because the Russian men’s chorus providing background music at crucial intervals is wonderful.  There are excellent performances by quite a few well-known actors (Alec Baldwin, Scott Glenn, James Earl Jones, Sam Neill, and others) but the movie totally belongs to Connery.  See it when you have several hours to kill, and don’t expect to “finish it in the morning”.  It is far too exciting to let you sleep!  A-

 

GO9: Moneyball

Well, so I lied.  I warned you that my next four Golden Oldies would be sport-related, but I also said that three of them would star Kevin Costner.  Well, that part is wrong.  The movie here is Moneyball, and it stars somebody even better looking (and perhaps even richer) than Costner – Brad Pitt.  It was released ten years ago and, wonder of wonders, the critics liked it.  It relates the semi-factual story of Billy Bean, general manager of the Oakland A’s baseball and his inspired efforts to take his chronically impoverished baseball team to the top of the heap.  He did so by adopting a novel approach to assembling players, involving statistics (baseball fans will recognize this as sabermetrics), rather than the hunches of a bunch of good-old-boy scouts.  Billy hasn’t quite succeeded (“in winning the last game of the season”), but he has made progress.  I root for him.

It’s funny how baseball sagas so greatly dominate the category of sporting movies, considering how slow and boring real baseball tends to be.  How many good football movies can you name (The Replacements, for one)?  Golf?  Tennis?  Maybe, because baseball is so slow and tends to be dominated by arcane strategy, it lends itself to human-interest-type drama. But anyway, you might find that Moneyball is a reasonable good, and totally harmless, way to waste a little time.  C+

 

GO8: Chariots of Fire

 

This is my favorite sports movie of all time, by a huge margin.  If you haven’t seen it, you are in for a great treat! 

Chariots of Fire is the almost-factual history of the Brit involvement in the 1924 Olympics.  (With embellishments: The director is quoted  as saying “never let facts get in the way of a good story”).  The principals are two sprinters,  Harold Abrahams and Eric Liddell, respectively a viscerally driven Jew and an incredibly pious Christian missionary.  Both guys are legitimate: Liddell won the Olympic 400 and placed third in the 200, and Abrahams won the 100.  Not so authentic is the contribution of _Lord Andrew Lindsay" who, in the movie, is instrumental in getting Liddell a shot at the 400.  Actually, the character of Lindsay is based somewhat loosely on the career of David Cecil, 6^th Marquess of Exeter, who in fact did compete in the 1924 Olympics as a hurdler, but failed to place.   (Happy to relate, in subsequent Olympics Cecil did win several medals.)  Finally, the scene wherein Abrahams successfully challenges for the Caius College run is non-factual; Cecil accomplished it several years later and his run has never since been duplicated!

 The two Americans who appear in bit parts are real:  Charlie Paddock and Jackson Schultz were leading sprinters of the day, with Paddock holding the world record of 10.4 for 100m. 

Finally, even if you aren’t a track and field fanatic, as I tend to be, you will enjoy this movie for the love stuff, the scenery, and the Cambridge ambiance.  Be sure to look it up.  It is free on Amazon Prime for the time being.  A    

MUSINGS ON FLAT SLAB SUBDUCTION

 

More antique musings: 

What is this thing we call subduction?  Well, at its simplest, subduction arises because what we call the lithosphere becomes “negatively buoyant”. That is a fancy way of saying that it becomes more dense than the stuff it has been ‘floating” on, hence sinks under its own weight.  Such action actually will pull a plate along; in other words, it is a positive driving force.  Subduction zones bordering the northern and western Pacific basin are examples of this kind of behavior. 

So, then, why does an oceanic plate become negatively buoyant?  Cooling, that’s why.  When such a plate-edge is created at a spreading center it is thin and hot.  As such its overall density is lower than that of the stuff it over-rides, hence is buoyant – it “floats”.  However, as it ages it cools and becomes negatively buoyant – that is, it wants to sink.  Voila!  Subduction!

So why, then, are there situations in which the subducting slab is essentially plastered along the base of the over-riding plate – known as flat-slab subduction (FSS).  This condition generally arises in circumstances in which the over-riding plate is advancing rapidly toward the spreading center, thus narrowing the subducting oceanic plate and assuring that it will be forced down, regardless of its buoyancy.  In effect the over-riding plate forceably shoves the subducting plate below.  This situation naturally constitutes a negative driving force for both plates involved.  The Nazca plate grinding its way beneath the central Andes often is cited as an example.

Another way that FSS can come into play is the arrival at the trench of a thickened, relatively cool chunk of stuff – what we have come to regard as a terrane.  This can cause at least a temporary reduction in subduction angle – and may result in an “outboard leap” of the subduction zone itself.

So, who cares?  Well, FSS has been proposed by many – especially by Bill Dickinson and acolytes – as the reason we have the Rocky Mountains.  I have always been skeptical of this, mainly because I was puzzled by the reason for the subduction angle to shallow so abruptly at just the right time.  Now, maybe, I can convince myself that the arrival of the Stikinia at the trench was the culprit.  But I am still skeptical.

GOLDEN OLDIES 7: For love of the game.

 

Warning:  For lack of anything useful to do in the geology line, and in view of the fact that it is too gloomy outside to do much of anything there, I plan to while away a few hours doing Golden Oldie reviews – and the next four of them will be sports related and, moreover, all but one star the same guy.  So, if you are bored by sports and/or are put off by Kevin Costner, go read something, play cards, or enjoy a good nap – because, here goes. . .

Of the three Costner baseball movies I think I like For Love of the Game best.  It has a nice love story, some wholesome family stuff – and some seriously captivating baseball.  Moreover, these disparate elements are artfully interwoven (think: flashbacks) to tell a tale that, although totally predictable, sucks you in all the same.  Costner is spot on as an aging ace pitcher, John C. Reilly is excellent as his catcher, and Kelly Preston is appealing as the inevitable love interest.  The movie was directed by Sam Raimi and released in 1999 – to a chorus of boos and rotten eggs from the critics.   However, as I frequently say – what do they know?  Critics go to theaters to see films with vital social content presented as art, whereas I go to the movie to see pictures that are fun to watch.  Big difference, if you think about it.

Also, I don’t get why so many people dislike Costner.  Sure, he’s rich and famous and, as an actor not in the same league as, say, Tom Hanks or Russell Crow, let alone Marlon Brando,  As an actor he is, shall we say, adequate .  But as a presence he has few equals.  If you were bullied in high school (I was not), Costner is the kind of guy you would have wanted as a best friend.

So ignore Roger Ebert and see this movie, again.  B+

 

GOLDEN OLDIE 6: Amadeus

 

Well, my first priceless piece of advice is to view this movie using the best sound system available – because the real star of the show, of course, is the music of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. 

Amadeus was directed by Milos Forman and released in 1984.  It “stars” Tom Hulce (whom I found quite annoying), F. Murray Abraham (wonderful; got an Oscar} and Elizabeth Berridge (cute, and quite competent) - and some damned fine sets and, of course, music.  As history the film isn’t much; for instance, Saliere (played by Abraham) apparently was no mediocrity but rather a highly respected composer whose operas are sometimes performed even today.  Sure, as a contemporary, Saliere was a rival of Mozart and, unless he was a saint, must have been jealous of him (who wouldn’t have been?), but there seems to be no evidence that he did the great man in.  Nevertheless, the rivalry and associated skullduggery makes for a gripping story line.

So, like I said:  Find a “device” with excellent sound, then enjoy this blast from the past for the magnificent acting of Abraham, the striking scenes of old Vienna – and, of course, the music of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.  A-

golden oldie 5: A River Runs Through It

 

I announce the grade (A) right up front, and will brook no back talk!  As a movie this may not be so hot, although at the very least it is pretty damned good, but as a story it, as they used to say, takes the cake.  The movie, directed by Robert Redford, is based on a book of the same name, written by Norman Maclean, a University of Chicago literature professor.  Maclean published the book in 1976, when he was 74 years old.  As far as I can ascertain, it was his first book – he published two others subsequently, neither nearly so good but certainly worth reading just the same..

In my admittedly unsophisticated opinion, A River Runs Through it is one of the finest pieces of writing ever to grace the English language.  I must have read it a half-dozen times, and each time as I finish I experience a strong gush of salt water rolling down my cheeks.  At one point I wrote a letter too Maclean, taking him to task for waiting until he was such an old fart before sharing his life and thoughts with the rest of us.  Naturally, I tore it up.

But this is about the movie.  You probably know most of the plot.  It is based rather loosely on Maclean’s real life as a kid and avid fly fisherman in western Montana.  All of the principals are excellent, especially the pair playing Norman’s father and mother.  Brad Pitt does a fine job as Norman’s reckless, doomed younger brother.  The fly-fishing sequences are beautiful; awe-inspiring to a none-to-skillful fly caster like myself.  The film certainly is sad, but ultimately uplifting in a strange, inexplicable sort of way.  If you can watch it and not cry at the end, your heart is indeed constructed of well-compacted quartz-rich terrestrially derived stone!

You’ve probably seen A River Runs Through It at least once already.  See it again.  Have some tissue handy.