What Happened to Jimmy Hoffa?

---

---

"He knows the words, but he don't know the music."

Jimmy Hoffa (Jack Nicholson)

---

What became of Jimmy Hoffa?

We all know he disappeared in the summer of 1975, and he is presumed dead. He was 62 when he disappeared so that is a reasonable presumption; if he is still alive, he would be well over 100 years old.

It's pretty safe to presume he is dead. The courts declared him deceased more than 35 years ago, and there has never been a credible account that he was still alive in all the years since. No Elvis sightings for Hoffa.

But it is still the kind of thing about which people like to speculate. In some circles it is like a parlor game. In others it is the inspiration for movies — one of which, "Hoffa," premiered on this day in 1992. Jack Nicholson played Hoffa, and Danny DeVito, who also directed the movie, played a character that merged several Hoffa associates from over the years.

The movie told Hoffa's life story in flashbacks, primarily in the form of thoughts DeVito had as he and Hoffa waited to meet with organized crime leaders in the summer of '75.

---

---

That infamous meeting was supposed to take place at a roadside restaurant in a Detroit suburb in July 1975.

Jimmy Hoffa was long before my time, but from what I have learned Nicholson's portrayal was spot on.

I knew little about Hoffa's personal life before I saw the movie, and I knew little more than that after I saw the movie. And that, it seems to me, is appropriate. Hoffa was obsessed with the union. It was his whole life. Everything else came second.

To keep those and other matters in perspective, it was necessary for the story to have DeVito's character. Clearly he had to be created specially for this movie; if a person like that really existed, he wasn't willing to go on the record. And while the law frowns on fabricating witnesses, in Hollywood it is called poetic license.

So the audience had to accept Bobby Ciaro (DeVito's character), whose name fit the part and whose flashbacks filled in most — but not all — of the gaps in Hoffa's life story. Make no mistake about it. That is what "Hoffa" was. It was a biopic, not a theory about what happened to him.

I wouldn't recommend that a student doing research for a paper on Hoffa's life use the movie as a resource, though. At least, not as an unbiased one.

The movie did seem to provide faithful, albeit slanted, looks at Hoffa's well–known feud with Bobby Kennedy and his less–recognized conflicts with his successor as Teamsters president, Frank Fitzsimmons.

And I have no doubt that whenever and however Hoffa died, his last thoughts and acts were about the union.

The movie made a suggestion about how Hoffa died, by the way, but it didn't seem plausible to me. It didn't fit any of the facts with which I was familiar.

Then again it wouldn't be surprising to have witnesses go silent and physical evidence disappear in a case that might just involve organized crime. Would it?

---

---

So maybe things did go down the way the movie suggested.

I don't know. And, after more than 40 years, I doubt that anyone will ever know the truth.

But I didn't get the feeling that "Hoffa" was really about a search for the truth — or, at least, the specific truth about Hoffa's disappearance. Unlike "JFK," which premiered about a year earlier, it didn't explore suspects or motives or anything much, just gave a brief dramatization of what could have happened — but didn't seem likely, given how randomly it was presented — and concentrated primarily on the events of Hoffa's life.

I would have preferred a movie that examined the known facts about Hoffa's disappearance and offered suggestions about what could have happened. But I suppose that would have deprived audiences of Nicholson's portrayal of Hoffa.

And I will concede that Nicholson gave a great performance. His appearance was startling, like every photograph I have ever seen of Jimmy Hoffa brought to life. I haven't heard many recordings of Hoffa's voice, but Nicholson's voice was more gravelly. The real Hoffa's voice was a little higher pitched.

But I suppose that is a minor thing.

While the movie tended to be sympathetic to Hoffa, I thought it was well done but not necessarily Oscar worthy.

---

---

"Hoffa" actually was rewarded with two Oscar nominations, though — for Best Makeup and Best Cinematography. It won neither — understandably. Best Makeup went to "Bram Stoker's Dracula." In such a category, you can't beat vampires.

And Best Cinematography went to "A River Runs Through It." How could any movie compete with the Montana landscape?

Money Makes the World Go 'Round

---

---

"You measure yourself by the people who measure themselves by you."

Carter (Morgan Freeman)

---

Some titles become cliches almost from the start — like "Catch–22" and "Groundhog Day."

And Rob Reiner's "The Bucket List," which premiered in Hollywood on this day in 2007.

Edward (Jack Nicholson), a billionaire, and Carter (Morgan Freeman), a blue–collar mechanic, had nothing in common — until they found themselves sharing a hospital room after being diagnosed with terminal cancer. They gradually got to know each other, and one day Edward saw Carter writing on a notepad. He asked Carter what he was doing, and Carter said nothing special, just scribbling.

Turned out Carter was engaging in an exercise in forward thinking that a philosophy professor had assigned many years earlier. It was a bucket list — a list of things one wants to do before one "kicks the bucket." In Carter's case it was more a list of things he wanted to achieve — like "help a complete stranger for the good" and "laugh until I cry." Edward's list was more about things he wanted to see — such as the Pyramids — and do — like skydiving.

I am not a linguist so I do not know how long the phrase bucket list has been in existence. Most people have always had in mind certain things they wanted to do before they died — whether they actually did them or not — compiled in a mental list. I just don't know if it had been given a name before the movie premiered.

And I have known people who really did cross off items on their bucket lists — but they did so in very piecemeal fashion as if actively crossing off items on a list was an admission that they would die. So they did things one at a time with lots of time in between.

I do know that it was on everyone's lips afterward, even long after the movie left the theaters — and today, if someone mentions bucket list, you know exactly what is meant. In the movie it required a little explanation.

---

---

But the underlying concept was easy to grasp, just as it was in "Groundhog Day." Like Bill Murray learning to function within his new reality, Edward and Carter were forced to face their mortality.

So they embarked on an adventure. It was something most people could understand even if it was impossible for them to achieve. But Edward, as I said, was a billionaire, the developer of hospitals, including the one in which he met Carter, and when he brought up the idea of traveling the world and seeing and doing things they had always dreamed of seeing and doing, it appealed to Carter, who probably never thought any of his dreams would come true.

That may have appealed to moviegoers, too, the thought of having money restrictions taken out of the equation. That can be very liberating, and the premise can be very profitable. ("The Bucket List" earned nearly four times what it cost to make.)

Thus Edward and Carter went on something of a road trip — although it is rather hard to see a skydiving interlude in a road trip context. For that matter the road trip crossed continents that were separated by oceans so the entire trip did not take place on a road.

But perhaps that is being too literal.

---

---

There were lots of contradictions in the movie, which led to a wide range of opinions about it. Some people see it as a great buddy movie while others think it was awful.

I have mixed opinions.

When I referred to being too literal, that was sort of a hint about my thoughts on "The Bucket List." While it dealt with a serious topic, I felt that the movie, like most movies that are made, should not be taken too literally. I found it worked best when one looked at it as a fantasy.

I mean, people are diagnosed with some form of cancer every year, and the daily battles that cancer victims must wage are too unpleasant to talk about. That's the reality. And another reality is that few cancer victims have the good fortune to meet someone who can foot the bill while they go chasing all their dreams.

Like, for example, seeing the Pyramids — but that was really the billionaire's goal. The mechanic was just along for the ride.

---

---

Which brings me to a point that critic Roger Ebert made: "The boys in front of the Pyramids look about as convincing as Abbott and Costello wearing pith helmets in front of a painted backdrop."

That was essentially Ebert's verdict on the movie's special effects, and it was certainly valid, as was his observation that, in this road trip, "the only realistic detail is the interior of Edward's private jet." And I could live with that.

But as Ebert went on to point out, the emphasis was largely on Nicholson's character who "throws his money around like a pig and makes Carter come along for the ride." He was the least likable of the two, and the movie probably would have benefited if Carter had been the focus, if the narration at the start and end of the movie had been Nicholson praising Freeman's virtues and how he had changed what little life he had left — instead of the other way around.

That, it seemed to me, was the statement that this movie needed to make.

But Edward was the one with the money, and money makes the world go around — and makes others go around the world.

Flying Over the Cuckoo's Nest

---

---

"If Mr. McMurphy doesn't want to take his medication orally, I'm sure we can arrange that he can have it some other way."

Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher)

---

As Roger Ebert wrote, Miloš Forman's "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," which premiered 40 years ago today, "is on every list of favorite films." There's no arguing with that, I guess. In almost every conversation I have had with people who are movie fans, it winds up on such a list — and deservedly so. The American Film Institute ranks it #33.

But, in all that time, I have found zero agreement on what the movie is. Just about as many people say it is a comedy as say it is a tragedy — and even within those two groups, there is little further agreement.

I suspect that, as it so often is, the truth is somewhere in between. As the commercial parody on Saturday Night Live used to say, "It's a floor wax and a dessert topping."

---

---

The arrival of R.P. McMurphy (Jack Nicholson), a free–spirited repeat offender, in a mental institution caused ripples in the institutional framework that had been established by the dictatorial nurse in charge, Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher). McMurphy was just trying to convince the authorities that he was suffering from mental illness, and he could do his time in a mental hospital instead of a prison, but he was interfering with Nurse Ratched's oppressive regime of degradation, drug therapy and a mind–crushing routine.

The stage was set for a battle of wills — and, for the first three–quarters of the movie, I suppose, McMurphy had the upper hand. That part of the movie was definitely comedic, with McMurphy increasingly getting the better of Nurse Ratched. That wasn't easy to do because Nurse Ratched seemed to know what each patient's vulnerable spot was, and she didn't hesitate to exploit it.

I have never read the book on which the movie was based so my next observation may be obvious, but I always felt, for example, that when Nurse Ratched advocated keeping McMurphy in the ward even though her colleagues favored sending him back to prison — and prevailed — that she was motivated by the desire to break McMurphy as a warning to the others. Don't mess with me.

---

---

Maybe the group therapy sessions she had with some of the patients gave her insights that she noted for future reference.

McMurphy seemed to outsmart her at every turn in the first three–quarters of the movie, and there are some parts that everyone remembers about "Cuckoo's Nest" — even if the viewer has only seen it once.

For example, everyone remembers the fishing trip on which McMurphy took his colleagues. He hijacked a bus, then introduced the group (truthfully) as being from the mental institution but then (untruthfully) called nearly all of them "doctor."

A part that I always remember is McMurphy's reaction upon learning that most of the patients in the ward were there voluntarily and could leave whenever they chose — but he was committed and could be kept there indefinitely. Few people seem to remember it unless it is mentioned to them.

"Jesus, I mean, you guys do nothing but complain about how you can't stand it in this place here," McMurphy said, "and you don't have the guts just to walk out? What do you think you are, for Christ's sake, crazy or somethin'? Well you're not! You're not! You're no crazier than the average asshole out walkin' around on the streets, and that's it."

I suppose, if you mention that to one–time viewers, many of them will then remember that scene — and perhaps some will also remember how it foretold what the Chief (Will Sampson) did at the end of the movie.

But, as I say, they remember the fishing trip.

---

---

Or they remember McMurphy's campaign to have the TV tuned to the World Series. That was the first significant confrontation with Nurse Ratched, and McMurphy won it by persuading the Chief, who was believed to be deaf and dumb, to vote for the World Series.

But Nurse Ratched, in her controlling way, closed the vote before the Chief could break the tie and give McMurphy his victory. So I guess it wound up being a draw.

---

---

If you haven't seen it, I won't say any more — except to observe that "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" received nine Oscar nominations and won five — becoming the first movie in more than 40 years to sweep the five major categories — Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress and Best (Adapted) Screenplay. Only one movie has duplicated the feat in the 40 years since.

I don't know if it was their first movie appearances, but it was the first time I recall seeing Christopher Lloyd and Danny DeVito in anything. A few years later, though, they would both be cast in one of my favorite TV shows, Taxi.

A Movie With No Story

---

---

"You've got a nice place. It's not every man that can live off the land, you know. You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Wyatt (Peter Fonda)

---

"Easy Rider," which premiered on this day in 1969, is part time capsule, buried in the late 1960s, and part timeless road/buddy picture.

The basic story was that Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda had pulled off a cocaine deal and were riding their motorcycles through the southwestern United States. The backstory was missing, though.

Every time I have seen it, I have thought that parts were hopelessly dated and other parts were relevant — but they haven't been the same each time. It is (pardon the pun) a moving target.

Well, I suppose the violent ending is mostly a reflection of the deep division in American society in those days and probably always will be seen that way — but, even there, one can see relevance to modern times.

While there were undeniably rough moments to get through in "Easy Rider," the flip side was the joy the lead characters — Hopper, Fonda and Jack Nicholson — experienced on their journey.

---

---

And that, to me, sums up the '60s.

There was a lot of pain and a lot of conflict. There were demonstrations against the war in Vietnam and demonstrations for civil rights.

But there were also moments of bliss and pure joy. Young people reveled in their freedom as perhaps no other generation before them. Some felt threatened by that. Others were liberated by it.

Film critic Roger Ebert wrote that people like Henry Fonda (Peter's father) — and, certainly, his more conservative friends in the movie community — were bewildered by "Easy Rider." It didn't have a story.

That sort of went against the conventional grain.

"[I]n fact, director Dennis Hopper has done an old and respectable thing," Ebert wrote. "He has told his story in cinematic shorthand, instead of spelling it out in dreary detail. Fifty years ago, Hollywood figured out that if you put the good guys in white hats you could eliminate 10 minutes of explanation from every Western. Hopper has applied this technique to the motorcycle movie."

I'm not entirely sure that is what Hopper did — at least, not deliberately.

"If you follow the story closely in 'Easy Rider,' you find out it isn't there," Ebert wrote. "The rough cut of the movie reportedly ran over three hours, and Hopper edited it to a reasonable length by throwing out the story details and keeping the rest. So the heroes are suspended in an invisible story, like falcons on an invisible current of air. You can't see it, but it holds them up."

---

---

There was a lot of talk, around the time that "Easy Rider" was showing on the big screens of America, of gaps. That wasn't really new, I guess. Five years earlier, "Dr. Strangelove" mocked the politicians and their "missile gap" rhetoric. By 1969, the culture was awash with angst about all kinds of gaps — between the generations, the races, the genders, you name it.

(Several small children could be seen in a segment of the story that took place in a hippie commune. One of those children, Henry's granddaughter and Peter's daughter, 5–year–old Bridget Fonda, was making her movie debut, about 20 years before her breakthrough part in "The Godfather Part III.")

Those gaps were becoming increasingly violent, too. So the ending of "Easy Rider," as obscene as it was, was the only way the movie could have ended — to end it any other way would have robbed the story of its meaning.

Even if, as Ebert said, the movie had no story.

'Batman' Was Entertaining, and That's What Mattered

---

---

"You ever danced with the Devil by the pale moonlight?"

The Joker (Jack Nicholson)

---

I can remember the first time I saw Tim Burton's "Batman," which premiered 25 years ago today.

I was on my way to St. Louis to visit some friends, and, en route, I stopped off in Little Rock for a few days to visit some other friends. While I was there, they suggested that we all go see "Batman," which had been in the theaters for about a week.

So we did.

My friend Steve was eager to hear Jack Nicholson deliver — in context — the line we had been hearing in trailers: "Where does he get those wonderful toys?" I was just eager to see the movie. It had been getting a lot of press, and it was shaping up to be the summer blockbuster that year.

And I liked it.

Roger Ebert didn't. He said the movie was "a triumph of design over story, style over substance — a great–looking movie with a plot you can't care much about."

Well, see, that's where we come to a parting of the ways. My friends and I enjoyed it — maybe because we didn't bring such lofty expectations to the experience.

I thought Nicholson had a blast playing the Joker. Maybe he didn't, but he certainly seemed to be having a blast. (Considering the reported terms of his contract, which insisted on a high salary and a chunk of the box office receipts — which must have been considerable, given that the movie made more than $400 million — he had every reason to enjoy himself.)

---

---

"Batman? Batman? Can somebody tell me what kind of a world we live in where a man dressed up as a bat gets all of my press?"

The Joker (Jack Nicholson)

---

I don't know if Michael Keaton had a blast playing Batman — but he must have had fun and a certain sense of satisfaction, since my understanding is that he was primarily pigeonholed as a comedic actor before "Batman" was released. He put that reputation to rest and started landing some more dramatic roles, presumably as a result.

(Ebert wrote that Keaton's performance as Batman and Bruce Wayne was "so monosyllabic and impenetrable that we have to remind ourselves to cheer for them.")

As for Kim Basinger, well, she was 35 and a darned good distraction. I don't think her performance as Vicki Vale was her best — that would probably be her Oscar–winning turn in 1997's "L.A. Confidential" — or, for that matter, her most demanding.

Basinger wasn't the first choice for the role; Sean Young was. But Young fell from a horse and broke her arm during rehearsals. Burton chose to drop the horseback scene entirely — and go with Basinger instead.

"[A]lthough [Basinger] and Wayne carry on a courtship and Batman rescues her from certain death more than once," Ebert wrote, "there's no chemistry and little eroticism."

I'm not sure I would go that far, but I must concede that Ebert had a valid point when he wrote, "The strangest scene in the movie may be the one where Vicki is brought into the Batcave by Alfred, the faithful valet, and realizes for the first time that Bruce Wayne and Batman are the same person. How does she react? She doesn't react. The movie forgets to allow her to be astonished."

---

---

Or a photojournalist.

To me, that may have been the most blatant false note. The true identity of a masked superhero is always a huge mystery, whether in a comic book or a movie — and the source of endless speculation among both those who wish him well and those who wish him ill. As much as I enjoyed "Batman," it was impossible for me to believe that Basinger, playing a photographer working with a newspaper that was eager for scoops, had zero interest in the subject, even when she figured it out.

Which she must have done. Vicki Vale was simply too sharp to miss something like that.

I saw the sequel to "Batman" — "Batman Returns" — and Basinger's character wasn't in it (except in conversation). Her almost casual discovery of Bruce Wayne's other identity was never addressed.

Maybe my friends and I didn't particularly care about the plot — but we were entertained by it.

And maybe that is all that mattered.

A Bonding Experience

---

---

Melvin (Jack Nicholson): Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here.

---

I don't know why I have always enjoyed watching "As Good As It Gets," which made its big–screen debut 15 years ago today.

Maybe because it is so in–your–face honest. I sort of think it was that quality that made "As Good As It Gets" so appealing — even if, at times, it became brutally honest.

The story dealt with an unlikely threesome — an obsessive–compulsive, a waitress and a gay artist — who shared a bonding experience.

---

---

Melvin: Carol the waitress, Simon the fag.

---

It was at a time when Hunt was a hot property in Hollywood. She had been on a hit TV series ("Mad About You"), and she had had a hit movie ("Twister") before she made "As Good As It Gets" — and she was in another hit movie ("Cast Away") a few years later. But she had never been nominated for an Oscar before.

That changed 15 years ago.

Nicholson's credits speak for themselves. He had not only been nominated for Best Actor Oscars before he made "As Good As It Gets," he had actually won one — for "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

On that occasion, he made movie history — of a sort. It was the first time in more than 40 years that a movie had won Oscars for Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Picture, Best Director and Best Screenplay.

With "As Good As It Gets," Nicholson made a different kind of history. He and Hunt both won Oscars, which isn't nearly as uncommon as a sweep of the big five, but it is still a rather rare achievement.

---

---

Of the two, Hunt's triumph may have been the more surprising. Nicholson, as I said, took home the Oscar more than 20 years earlier (and again for Best Supporting Actor in the 1980s), but Hunt, a first–time nominee, was at least a bit of a surprise, I suppose, considering that one of her rivals was Kate Winslet for her performance in the titanic blockbuster "Titanic" and three other women who were movie veterans.

But Hunt really brought qualities to her role that weren't necessarily in the script.

Everyone remembers Nicholson's lines — like his response to a fawning receptionist who wanted to know how he managed to write female characters so well ("I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability").

Or the time Nicholson told Hunt she made him "want to be a better man."

Heck, even the title of the movie comes from one of his lines — speaking to a psychiatrist's waiting room filled with patients, he said, "What if this is as good as it gets?"

But Hunt's lines were frequently the most sincere. Most likely, they were intended as setup lines for Nicholson, but so often Hunt did things with her eyes or her voice that conveyed so much more — and told the audience so much more about the character.

A Metaphor for a Generation

---

---

Jonathan (Jack Nicholson): Do you always answer a question with a question?
Susan (Candice Bergen): Do you always date your best friend's girlfriend?

---

After "Carnal Knowledge" premiered in New York City on this date in 1971, it became something of a cultural flashpoint.

I guess you have to remember what the times were like — or be told, if you are under a certain age.

It was kind of a tentative time. American society was really only beginning to re–examine itself and the attitudes that had influenced all the previous generations.

All in the Family is usually regarded as the starting point of a new kind of TV programming that, although conceived in the tradition of the sitcom, had a harder edge and was more satirical than anything that had come before.

But that show had only been on the air since January. Social satire would be the hallmark of so much of television (and everything else in the entertainment field) in the 1970s, but it was only emerging in 1971.

The tone was established, though, and all kinds of preconceived societal ideas were being exposed to ridicule so it was only natural that the movies would follow TV's lead.

Before that, prime time TV (and the movies, too, for that matter) was almost exclusively about entertainment with hillbillies, rubes, genies and witches cast in outlandish "fish out of water" situations. After that, it had more of a conscience.

---

---

"Carnal Knowledge" challenged gender roles. It didn't re–define the conversation. But it did get people talking.

To be sure, other movies in those days were doing the same thing. What "Carnal Knowledge" was doing wasn't unique, by any stretch of the imagination.

But there was clearly something about it. As a young boy, I remember hearing the men speak of it and snicker. There was nudity in it, they said. You could see just about everything that Ann–Margret had.

Even All in the Family made jokes about the movie. In one episode, I recall, Archie and Edith were shown returning from the movies, and Edith was apologizing to Archie. She told him she thought it was a religious picture — "Cardinal Knowledge."

Archie complained that there was so much activity in bed that he had to watch much of the movie with his head tilted to one side.

(I have often wished time travel was possible. I'd like to go back to those days with a video tape of "Basic Instinct" and show it to those guys who made the snide remarks. Of course, I would have to bring along a VCR, too, since such things didn't exist in 1971.

(Anyway, if those guys thought Ann–Margret showed everything she had, they should get an eyeful of Sharon Stone. But I digress.)

The images weren't as explicit as they are today so "Carnal Knowledge" often comes across as tame — if not downright boring — to the more worldly eyes of folks in the 21st century.

But why shouldn't they? "Carnal Knowledge" was the first movie to show a condom onscreen. How tame does that seem in 2011?

In 1971, a condom was the kind of thing that simply wasn't discussed outside the bedroom — at least, not in my experience — and about the only place I ever saw them was in the dispensers that were located in gas station men's rooms. But today, if your city is anything like mine, you can find businesses that cater entirely to condom buyers sitting next to fast–food joints and convenience stores.

The story focused on a couple of college buddies (Jack Nicholson and Art Garfunkel) and the age–old desire of men in that age group to make sexual conquests. Garfunkel becomes attached to an enticing coed (played by 25–year–old Candice Bergen) and pursues a chaste relationship with her, unaware of the fact that his friend has already bedded her — and developed something of an infatuation with her.

But Nicholson and Bergen go their separate ways. Garfunkel and Bergen eventually marry and embark on a rather dysfunctional marriage that eventually falls apart. Nicholson, meanwhile, breezes through a seemingly unending series of purely sexual — and emotionally unsatisfying — relationships until he finally marries his latest mistress, Ann–Margret, who is, as folks used to say, a "fun girl" but desperately, obsessively wishes to be married.

That marriage, too, is doomed, and Nicholson, later in the movie, presents a slideshow to Garfunkel and his newest significant other that bitterly lists the "ballbusters" in his life, going back to his earliest womanizing days. A slide of Bergen pops up, and Nicholson tries to move quickly to the next one, hoping that no one noticed, but it is too late. Garfunkel has already seen it — and put two and two together.

The old friends never discuss the fact that they shared a girl in college but Garfunkel apparently never suspected.

"Knowledge," in this story, was largely about sex — but it meant more than that.

It was set in a time frame that spanned post–World War II and the repressive 1950s into the sexually open 1960s, and it was an examination of the confusion experienced by both sexes as they moved into the 1970s and middle age.

Sometimes I see "Carnal Knowledge" as something of a generational metaphor.

In every generation, it seems to me, there is one aspect of life (at least) that is radically altered from what people were told when they were growing up and leaves them groping for answers.

For the generation that came of age in the mid–20th century (i.e., Nicholson's and Garfunkel's characters), it was gender roles and how they were affected by the social movements of that time.

For the generation that came of age in the late 20th century, perhaps, it has been making the transition to computers after learning to type on old–fashioned typewriters.

Who knows what it will be for those who have come of age (or will come of age) in the early 21st century?

"Carnal Knowledge" was regarded as a sex comedy at the time of its release. I remember a lot of talk about nudity and suggestive language, but when I saw the movie, many years later in college, it was more like a sex tragedy. At least, it seemed that way to me.

Perhaps that was what made it stand out from other movies of the time that had risque reputations.

It is tragic, is it not, to see a generation left on the ash heap of history for one reason or another.

'Tommy' ... On the Silver Screen

---

---

Thirty–five years ago tomorrow, a film based on the Who's 1969 rock opera "Tommy" was released in the United States.

For most people, I suppose, that isn't too significant. I mean, there have been a lot of film musicals over the years (I have a particularly vivid memory of a Thanksgiving spent with my grandmother when I was a child and being forced — in my opinion, anyway — to watch the movie "Oklahoma!" that was televised that night because my grandmother liked it).

There were even movies that were based on rock operas before "Tommy" was made ("Godspell" and "Jesus Christ Superstar" come to mind). In that sense, it can't be said to have broken any new ground — although some purists might insist that "Tommy" was different.

And, although the film was a departure of sorts for the actors in the cast, it was hardly the debut film for Ann–Margret, Oliver Reed or Jack Nicholson. I suppose the cast was adequate — Ann–Margret was even nominated for a Best Actress Oscar — but I don't remember being particularly impressed. All three had been in movie musicals before, so none could be considered a novice. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to assume that this kind of thing was their milieu.

Likewise, it may have been the first film for some of the musicians in the cast, but they must have been chosen for their popularity and/or musical talent (both, in some, but not all, cases), not for their acting. I don't think the film was the start of a new career in movies for any of them.

---

---

Even so, some of the performers — notably, Eric Clapton (singing "Eyesight to the Blind"), Tina Turner (performing "Acid Queen") and especially Elton John (playing "Pinball Wizard") — enjoyed commercial success with their contributions to the film's soundtrack.

(There is a certain irony, I guess, in the fact that the anniversary of the theatrical release of "Tommy," the story of a "deaf, dumb and blind kid," has been preceded by reports that Vatican officials, including the current pope, did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys. That priest is now deceased, but lawsuits are pending.)

I bought the movie soundtrack after I saw the movie. I liked it — but I liked a girl in school even more and I made a cassette tape of my favorite songs from the soundtrack to play for her on a portable cassette recorder when we were hanging around on the school grounds when the day was over. I knew she liked "Pinball Wizard" so I played it for her a lot — even though I preferred "Eyesight to the Blind."

That is one of the bittersweet memories of my adolescence. I felt I was making some headway with that girl that spring, but she moved away from my hometown of Conway, Ark., after school dismissed for the summer. I don't think I saw her again.

I thought about her last year when I happened to stumble across "Tommy" on a cable channel. And that struck me as odd because she and I didn't see that movie together. We just listened to that Elton John recording — and some other songs from the film — together.

Things are different in my hometown today — I'm told it has nearly quadrupled in size since I was in high school, and I'm sure it has many options for moviegoers now — but when I was a teenager, there was one multiscreen theater in town (in this case, that means two screens), and it catered to the moneymakers. The theater's management didn't seem to think there was any money to be made from showing a musical — unless it was something on the order of "The Sound of Music."

To see such a movie in those days, one had to drive to the state capital of Little Rock. It wasn't far, only about 30 miles or so, but I wasn't old enough to have my driver's license and my parents wouldn't allow me to take the car to Little Rock on a Saturday afternoon (even though I was convinced I could do it with no problem, never even considered the possibility that I might get pulled over or, worse, be involved in an accident).

As it turned out, a friend of mine named Doug wanted to see it, but he wasn't old enough to have his license, either. So his mother graciously agreed to take us to Little Rock and see the film with us.

I don't remember when we saw it, but I guess it must have been sometime that spring, not long after it was released, because the place was packed. Doug spotted three empty seats on the front row — so we made our way to the front row, where we had to look straight up at the screen for nearly two hours while the state–of–the–art sound system shredded our hearing.

Well, Doug and I were young. We could handle it.

But, now that I'm older, I am filled with admiration for what his mother did that day. She was truly a good sport to escort us to the movie and sit through it with us.