Jeremiah Johnson - a look at a movie 42 years old

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 .
.
 .
.
 .
.
.
.


At the suggestion of Mike Moore, I watched Jeremiah Johnson. It helped that Mike supplied the DVD.

When the credits rolled, I decided I did not care for the movie.

As I’ve since had time to partly digest what I saw, I am no longer certain I don’t like the movie. To be sure there are parts of the movie which I do not care for. There are parts that still have me thinking and anything that makes me think is a VERY good thing.

What makes me think:

One man, new and alone in the wild. How did he make it? What kind of challenges did he face? What was most rewarding about being alone? What did he miss? What would he change? Why did he do the things he did? What did he leave behind and why? These questions are far deeper than these simple words.

As someone who periodically wonders about moving into The Bush to live, this struck a real chord with me. There are places in this world where a determined and intelligent person can live like that. Getting away from “civilization” appeals to me immensely. Judging from the popularity of the movie, this strikes a resonant chord with a lot of people.

The depth of the character of Jeremiah Johnson in this movie leaves me not really wanting more, but yes, wanting more. I think it hit the right balance of development. Imagination can take flight. I like it.

The fights, to the death in the movie, with the Indians (Ok, Native Americans if you wanna be PC) bother me the most. I am glad the fight scenes were very brief, else I would not have finished watching the movie. Some people need to be killed, child molesters come to mind, and I’m decidedly OK with that. If necessary, I can and will kill someone in self defense. But the idea of killing in war … it’s partly the idea of war that I can’t handle and partly the idea of killing another person without good reason. The movie had plenty of killing for no good reason by my definition.

What I do like-

It was shot entirely on location in Utah. If it did not snow there, I'd want to live there.

Paints His Shirt Red had a double-barrel muzzleloader that was a shotgun on one side (smoothbore) and a rifle (rifled barrel) on the other. Such guns were actually made. I have seen pictures of them. Now, I want one.

From what I know of the clothes at the time, they are accurate.

So, what I do not like, incongruities bother me, a lot -

The firearms in the movie are supposed to be black powder. What was fired in the movie was not. A smokepole generates so much smoke from firing that you literally cannot see your target after shooting if there is no wind.

Jeremiah wanted a .50 Hawken. A fine rifle to be sure, but the most common size was .54 with rifles up to .68. Considering he planned to have a gun capable of taking out a grizzly, a .50 is marginal. However, in the movie he was also a green horn, so I can excuse part of this.

The recoil he experienced when shooting the .50 is entirely Hollywood. I’ve shot a .50 with 150 grains of powder under a 320 grain bullet. That was far more power than Jeremiah was packing and the recoil was still nowhere on the level of Robert Redford’s overacting.

With a much shooting as he likely needed to do, he needed more powder & bullets. Where and when did he get ‘em? That could be in the scenes where he met with other trappers, or understood that he did so when he traded hides. Just makes me wonder.

Blood doesn’t dry bright red on leather, to wit the hole in his jerkin after the wolf attack.

So, do I like the movie? I am not sure. Even after writing this column about it, I am not sure. What I am sure of is, I’ll be thinking on this movie for a long time to come. Very very very few movies have ever had this effect on me. Plenty of books have.

Would I recommend the movie? Without any reservation or hesitation, yes.

Taking responsibility

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This one has been jelling for a long time and, frankly, it may need to age more. If this has to be revisited down the road, then we shall do so. But I read a piece today that fanned the slumbering embers a good bit.

It is unquestionably dangerous, foolhardy and irresponsible to take a single line from such a precision essay and use that line to encapsulate the entire argument.

So, here ya go, "The price of women’s modern freedoms is personal responsibility for vigilance and self-defense."

With that in mind, witness this woman and how her image was turned into a meme.

 

Me? I'm siding with the OP in the meme. There are people among us who are sharks. Get used to the idea. There are also others, not sharks, but just as dangerous. If the shrinks and dog-slobber specialists (think Pavlov) are right, then the rest of this meme above is pretty f'dangin' shaky.

Lemme summarize: People are mean.

But to continue the fish metaphor, sharks in the ocean account for a small fraction of the total fish population. Those sharks which attack humans without provocation are an even smaller percentage. Nonetheless, a smart person is not going to jump in the ocean with Lady Gaga's formal wear from the 2010 MTV awards.  Remember there are other aquatic critters which attack people. So, when something is tearing sizable chunks out of you, does it really matter what has turned you into buffet?

If a person did take such an attired jump, we'd call said person a damfool idiot who got what he-she deserved. If the same person jumped in a regular swimming pool, there'd be plenty of eye-rolling and pejoratives slung about, but the apprised level of stupidity would be far, far below the person who jumped in the ocean.

The lady above had her picture taken in a very public place in the daytime surrounded by hundreds of other people. Lemme run back to the ocean metaphor. She wore a meat suit but jumped into the ocean surrounded by a pod of protective dolphins. Any shark showing up would be beaten to death by the dolphins.

Let's put this same lady, appearing exactly the same, walking through one of the more crime-ridden neighborhoods in her community at 1 a.m. She jumped in the shark tank at Seaworld wearing a filet mignon suit. What do you think would happen? Too easy.

The real question: Who is at fault for what happens?

Certainly her human attackers must bear the blame for their attack. But I point you back to the links above regarding the mental makeup of human beings. Human nature and all that. Educate all you want to, you will not eliminate the people who eagerly give in to "base" desires.

Point to the law? Law is reactive. In other words, the law can't do anything until she's been assaulted. Besides which, making things illegal doesn't deter everyone. Lemme also beat you with this legal stick. Add to this, despite the best efforts of politicians and bureaucrats, the thought police are not fully established in the US. Thought police are well established in other countries.

Put this same lady walking down the streets of some countries in this world and the men who attacked her would be hailed as community heroes.

Context matters.

"They should not do things like that," you may scream.

Well, it happened. Now what? Under the same circumstances, it'll happen again.

Rant, fume, complain, demand, protest and call me whatever names you chose to call me. I'm living in this thing called reality which demands I adapt to it. Reality will not be reordered to suit your personal preferences. So, take off your rose-colored glasses (put on a shirt) and realize "The price of women’s modern freedoms is personal responsibility for vigilance and self-defense."

The lady above may truly believe she is "not asking for it." The rest of the world is not obligated to respect her beliefs. Play with sharks long enough, you will get bitten and you are the one at fault.

Women and men who refuse to acknowledge this will be held accountable by reality. It won't be pretty. In fact, it'll be a feeding frenzy.

Ban books now!

A blog by request.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Seriously.

Ban books.

I am not kidding.

Hold mass book burnings. Build that pyre. Run 'em through a shredder. Compost them. I don't care so long as mass efforts bring about the widespread destruction of books.

Someone poke Ray Bradbury (never mind he's dead) and tell him we're trying to make Fahrenheit 451 a reality.

This is most decidedly not a joke.

Hold protests. Call the library and school board and demand books be removed from the shelves. Stand outside book stores with protest signs. Again, I don't care so long as people come together and demand books be destroyed, never printed again, etc, etc, etc.

Light the pitchforks and sharpen the torches folks! Let's storm the press room!

This is National Banned Books week. As to what are the top 10 all time banned books, that depends on what list you read. Tropic of Cancer is the only book I can find that appears on all of 'em. I find that I've read about half the most banned books.

I stress, once again, I am absolutely serious about this. I am not kidding. I mean this.

Some years ago I was asked to serve on a book committee at an elementary school. A parent raised an objection to one of Shel Silverstein's books. The parent complained that one of Shel's illustrations was of a man's naked posterior.

The book stayed on the shelves at the elementary school, with my full support.

How's that for a non sequitor?

No doubt for a while now you've been asking how and why I can support banning books. You may point out I am an author with several books in print. Some of you still think this is a joke. It's not. I point you to the book The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. This is a massively banned book which I have not read.

Here's why I support banning books. Rushdie's book was banned in some countries and "religion of peace" leaders demanded his actual head on an actual plate, once removed from his body. An otherwise obscure book that would have sold under 100,000 copies was a million-seller overnight.

Tell someone he can't have something and he'll run over you trying to get to it.

In a society that is increasing fixated on idiocy and determined to be stupid - witness the attention given to intentionally limited-run TV series like Breaking Bad and Sons of Anarchy - the only way to get some people's attention is to slap them in the face and tell them no.

Ban books. Now. Because when books are banned, people will break the law to get a copy of the book to read it to find out what the fuss is about. Ban books because people will demand to read them.

Ban books and cure ignorance because people are too stubborn to realize they are being led like sheep to an infinite pasture of clover and sweet water springs with no predators within thousands of miles.

In a less serious vein, can we start by banning my books?

Christians opened the door

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Much to my amusement, Satanists are now a presence in the Orange County, FL school system.

At the same time, I am not sure I like this, but not for the reason you probably suspect.

If the kids are the ones handing out Bibles, religious info and so forth, Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war! If the adults are the ones handing this stuff out, Hey! Lemme show you to the door and if necessary, lemme push you through the door without opening it. I suspect the adults are pushing this, hence my objections.

Here's some 'splainin'.

The most relevant comment in this story: "Greaves made it clear that, in both cases, his organization is only responding to provocations by the Christian community."

Yep. Christians brought this on.


It's that furshlugginer First Amendment again, f'dang it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

To briefly explain - Public schools receive federal tax dollars. This puts Congress in a position of having some control over the schools. Under that pesky 1st Amendment, public schools cannot say which religion or lack thereof is allowed in school and which are not. Let one in, all come in.

When one religions demands X of government, all religions are entitled to the same treatment. Don't like it, then shup, petition to change the Constitution or move to another country.

So. When Christians (and I am trying to be one) demand prayer, the Bible and etc. in schools, they are opening the door to other religions. This offends many Christians. This also offends many non Christians. Ahem. The right to offend is greater than the right to not be offended.

The solution is simple. No religion at all in school. This offends people as well.

Lemme doubletap this one simply. Take prayer. If you want prayer in school, who is allowed to pray? Christians only!, you say. OK. You gonna let a Catholic recite the rosary? Catholics pray to saints. What if a pentecostal starts speaking in tongues? Ooooo.

Division in the ranks, general!

Anyway, now that other religions are getting access to schools, Christians are getting upset. Cool. Their faith needs some shaking up.

Yassee, this tells me these people are not really Christians. Real Christians know that God has it all in hand and it's going to work out right.

Real Christians don't worry. Real Christians wouldn't worry about Satanists and others getting access to public schools because real Christians know God is allowing it.

Real Christians are also not worried about their faith going toe to toe with other beliefs.

And one last thought - Real Christians don't force their beliefs on anyone.

Aside - Our public school has a voluntary Bible Study class conducted off campus. It's packed with kids and it's privately funded. Should any other group wish to start a religion or non-religion class under the same set of rules, they are welcome to come. Doubt they'll get takers, but der yaggo.

Which is the greater?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is a serious question. Which do you think is the greater crime- rape or shutting down someone's freedom of speech?

We sort of tackled this question in a recent FB discussion. By we, I mean the group of regulars on my page. By sort of, I mean it was addressed in a rather oblique way. I broached the idea of Sharia in the US. That led to a discussion of how Sharia is implemented in the US and then into a discussion of marital rape. MA brought up the First Amendment.

As to why MA brought the First Amendment into a discussion that examined marital rape, ask her. I thought the juxtaposition of the two, whether intended or not, is fascinating. So, lemme ask again:

Which is the greater crime against a person? Rape or stifling free speech?

Are you sure? Is that your final answer?


Rape is an intensely personal offense. It is a violation of another person's body.

Shutting down free speech is an intensely personal offense. It is a violation of another person's mind.

I ask you again, which is more heinous?

I mangle some grammar in this next statement.: According to our Fire Chief BM, the late Sheriff Lamar Whiddon once told him that people who shoot you, beat you and etc., well, you can get over what they do to you. The people who assassinate your character, you can never get over that.

The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones. William Shakespeare

Look at it this way. Rape is a singular act, even a gang rape. But take a one-on-one rape. If the two people never tell, two people are affected, presuming pregnancy does not result.


In the absence of free speech, that may be all that can ever be done. Two people left to deal with the ramifications.

With free speech, both can tell what happened. This brings more people into the matter. Whether or not the rapist is convicted or even charged with a crime, his reputation is forever marked by more than just the two people involved in the rape. Indeed, that free speech can be used to bring the rapist to judgment. It was not too long ago that rape was a capital punishment crime. But in order to prosecute a crime, the victim must have free speech. Free speech means more people become involved: judge, jury, law enforcement, legal teams, medical people, etc.

Because of free speech, more people must deal with the ramifications of a one-on-one crime.

After I posted this, MAG shot this comment to me "Only one omission from your blog which I believe bears mentioning: rape is also an attack on the mind; not just the body. The effects are long lasting and debilitating even with the presence of free speech to help mitigate the impact of the mental and physical assault."

She's right and Thank You for that!

Lemme also point out the First Amendment. Free speech is Constitutionally codified. Rape is a legislative issue. Yes, there is a very real difference. Changing a legislative law is a matter of getting a majority of the legislative body to agree. Constitutional changes require a far stronger effort.

I am in no way denigrating victims of rape or excusing the attackers. I'm just throwing out something to think about.