Review №3

The Pelican Brief (1993)

Cast: 

Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, Sam Shepard, John Heard, William Atherton, John Lithgow, Stanley Tucci

Director:

 Alan J. Pakula

Synopsis:

 After two Supreme Court Justices are murdered, law student Darby Shaw, puts together a brief outlining her theory of who's behind the killings. Having done so, she finds herself in the mortal danger. Her only hope of escaping death and proving her theory lies in  Washington newspaper reporter Gray Grantham, whom she turns for help.

Review: 

     “The Pelican Brief” is based on the John Grisham novel of the same name, written for the screen, produced and directed by Alan J. Pakula in 1993.

     'The Pelican Brief" is a film about a young law student Darby Shaw’s theory (Julia Roberts) about the assassinations of two Supreme Court justices, and it just happens to be true. The paper reaches the president through a chain starting with her law professor (also her lover) and uncovers a conspiracy involving the chief executive Victor Mattiece. Thus, the government does anything and everything to kill her; including murdering everyone she comes in contact with. I think Julia Roberts’ performance is superb and realistic. She managed to put her heroine as a clever young woman with all her fears and doubts, who is able to succeed in difficult and dangerous situations, not doing things that leave a trail, like the usage of credit cards…

     Helping Darby is Gray Grantham (Denzel Washington), a Washington newspaper reporter who agrees to meet with her and becomes involved, because of the incredible attention and readership it would bring to him. I think Denzel Washington performance is also great. He gave a true example of a reporter, who fights for sensations, however sets the humanity and justice on the front plan. For example, having read Julia’s brief Denzel Washington decides that he must protect her from death (instead of writing a story about it, since he is a newspaper reporter). So, Denzel very believable performed a passionate journalist, known for his masterful investigations.

      However, there were some confusing and hard to follow elements in this film too, like a great number of characters.  While watching the movie, it was often difficult for me to tell who was who, because most of the actors were dressed absolutely alike and had a similar style. Moreover, though I don’t know why, their faces were undistinguishable for me too. I think it may be a minor flaw in either costume or casting that made me always guess who was a bad guy and who was a good one.

     Nevertheless, I like this movie, “The Pelican Brief” is very entertaining, suspenseful and goes through many ups and downs and twists and reveals to us the effects of a government conspiracy. The chief executive (also an oil tycoon) wants to drill for oil on the marshland which is a major habitat of an endangered species of pelican. In order to do so, he, the president and all their friends go on length to protect their image, even if that means murder. So, here we see an example that politics is a very dirty business, and many of those people who are involved into it want more and more (especially money) and will do everything to reach their aim (even destroy the environment and kill innocent people).  I’m very glad that in the end of the film the main heroes managed to show the real faces of these politicians, thus saving other people’s lives and protecting the environment (the endangered species of pelicans).

       All in all, in spite of several shortcomings, this film is superb and shifts from drama to action movie practically effortlessly. Though I suppose that "The Pelican Brief" is probably not to everyone's taste, but I personally like it; it shows the modern disregard for environmental matters, the real face of politics and the ways people use to reach their goals. It is very truthful, I believe. In addition, it would be also very interesting for me to read John Grisham’s novel on which this film is based, in order to find out all the details which any movie simply cannot convey…

My Pleasure Reading. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Summary (pages 202 - 325)

     On June, Elizabeth goes on another journey with the Gardiners, who are relatives of the Bennets. They decide to go to Pemberley, Darcy’s estate. Lizzy visits Pemberley, after making sure that Darcy is away, but he suddenly arrives and behaves very polite towards her and her relatives. He also invites Elizabeth to meet his sister.

     After a while, a letter comes, saying that Lydia has eloped with Wickham, so Elizabeth and the Gardiners are forced to return home, at Longbourn.  However, all attempts to find the couple fail. Nevertheless, Darcy finds Lydia and Mr. Wickham in London. Darcy convinces Wickham to marry Lydia, gives him ten thousand pounds, pays up his debts, and persuades him to settle in the North of London. After that Darcy asks the Gardiners not to reveal his help to the Bennet family. Elizabeth, however, finds out the truth about that. She is impressed with his kindness.

     When Darcy arrives with Bingley for a visit at Longbourn, Elizabeth tries to talk to him but doesn't get a chance. It seems to her also that Darcy has talked to Bingley about Jane, because Bingley eventually makes a proposal to Jane, which she accepts.

     After a while, arrives Lady Catherine and threatens Elizabeth with bad consequences if she marries Darcy, but Elizabeth refuses, saying she is not engaged to Darcy, but she will not promise anything against her own happiness.  A few days later, Darcy visits Lizzy and makes a second proposal to her, which she happily accepts. The two couples, Jane and Bingley and Elizabeth and Darcy, are married on the same morning. Mrs. Bennet is happy at having three of her daughters married, two of them to very rich young men. Thus, the life of the Bennets family changes completely, bringing them what they deserve and love.

Rendering №8

     The editorial published on the website of the newspaper "The New York Times" on October 4 is headlined "Peace Talks With the Taliban". The article reports at length that though American military commanders long ago concluded that the Afghan war could only end in a negotiated settlement with the Taliban,  now the generals and civilian officials say even this hope is unrealistic before 2015 — after American and coalition troops are withdrawn. In resolute terms the author of the article expresses the view that though  persuading militants to negotiate a peace deal was always a daunting challenge, however, the Obama administration has not been persistent enough in figuring out how to initiate talks with a resilient, brutal insurgency that continues to carry out deadly attacks against American and NATO forces.

     It was revealed that  during the 2010 surge, when the United States added 33,000 troops to the 68,000 in Afghanistan and put maximum military pressure on the Taliban, top generals resisted negotiations, saying the focus should be only on military gains. Speaking of this situation, it's interesting to note that the talks between the United States and the Taliban began early this year but soon collapsed when the administration, faced with bipartisan opposition in Congress, could not complete a proposed prisoner swap. It is an open secret that the Taliban are internally divided and unwilling to meet Washington’s demands to sever all ties to Al Qaeda, renounce violence and accept the commitments to political and human rights in Afghanistan’s Constitution.

     There is every reason to believe that  the United States has not and should not give up completely on a negotiated solution or at least some movement toward reconciliation. The correspondent gives a warning that although there are no formal talks under way, there are contacts between the Taliban and Afghans and others. Besides, it is necessary to emphasize that Pakistan recently urged the insurgents to join the political process and agreed to help Washington vet potential new Taliban interlocutors. It's hard to predict the course of events in future, but there is some evidence that the 2014 presidential election is an interim agreement under which the Afghan opposition, the Taliban and others might endorse minimum objectives rejecting Al Qaeda and supporting an inclusive political system.

     In conclusion the author suggest that though it is hard to be optimistic, but with  American troops leaving Afghanistan, there should be an interest in advancing a political system that insurgents might see as an alternative to armed conflict. As for me, I think peace talks with the Taliban are impossible. They are terrorists and do not share the views of other people, especially Americans. Besides, I believe that the Taliban consider the USA as their main enemy, they are defending their interests, values and lives against a foreign invader. So this problem cannot be solved only by negotiations.

My Pleasure Reading. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Summary (pages 100 - 201)

     When Elizabeth rejects Mr. Collins, he proposes to her friend Charlotte Lucas, who, to everyone’s shock, accepts him. Mrs. Bennet is disappointed with Elizabeth’s rejection of Mr. Collins, because it is the only one opportunity for them to keep the Longbourn estate in the family. At the same time, a letter arrives for Jane from Miss Bingley, informing her that they have left for London and that Mr. Bingley is in love with Darcy's sister. However, Jane decides to go to London with her aunt and uncle, hoping to return Mr. Bingley back. Jane makes many attempts to get in touch with Mr. Bingley, but his sister Caroline does not even inform her brother about Jane’s presence in London. Though Jane is heartbroken she accepts her rejection.

     Elizabeth also leaves home to visit the newly married Charlotte. During her visit, Elizabeth receives a dinner invitation to Lady Catherine's estate, Rosings Park. There she meets Mr. Darcy, who tries to build a relationship with her. One day, he makes a shocking proposal of marriage, which Elizabeth refuses, mentioning his fault in Jane’s depression and Mr. Wickham’s problems. The next day, Darcy gives Elizabeth a letter, containing the truth about Mr. Wickham (he tried to elope with Mr. Darcy’s sister); and also explaining to her that he has not believed that Jane has been really in love with Bingley. The letter makes Lizzy to change her mind towards Mr. Darcy. She returns home and acts coldly towards Mr. Wickham. After a while, she finds out that her another sister Lydia is invited to follow the officers to their next station in Brighton. Elizabeth disapproves of the plan, but, in spite of it, Mr. Bennet allows Lydia to go.

Rendering №7

       The article published on the website of the newspaper "The National Security" on September 10 is headlined "Three wars on terror". The author of the article reports at length that one of Barack Obama's earliest acts as president was to discard the phrase "war on terror," yet he has been waging just such a campaign these past four years -- with a skillful mix of subtlety and ferocity.
     In resolute terms, the author of the article John Arquilla makes it clear that in the history of the USA there were 3 different wars on terror which were lead by Ronald Reagan, by George W. Bush and by Barack Obama.
     There is a lot of comment on the difference in the approaches taken by American two most recent presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Speaking of these differences. it is interesting to note that Bush chose to attack other nations in his attempt to create a less permissive international environment for terrorist networks, and Obama has decided to take the more direct approach: going straight after the networks. As a result, it was revealed that Bush's strategy proved exceptionally costly and highly problematic in Iraq, and even his initial success in "going small" in Afghanistan was all too soon overtaken by a stalemate-inducing impulse to send large numbers of troops there. Besides, there are indications that Obama's concept of operations, on the other hand, has been working well, and will never break the bank or exhaust our military -- especially in the wake of his realizing, and reversing, the folly of surging more troops into Afghanistan, as senior military leaders persuaded him to do early in his presidency.
     In addition, in vigorous terms John Arquilla expresses the view that the  campaign that Obama is now pursuing strongly resembles Reagan's after the October 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 242 Americans. Speaking of this first war on terror, it is necessary to note that the signal success of  it came in a campaign against the Abu Nidal Organization -- the al Qaeda of the ‘80s -- which was conducting terrorist hits for hire on behalf of Iraq, Libya, and Syria. However, giving the appraisal of the situation it's necessary to point out that despite this success, and for all of Reagan's enthusiasm  little else came to pass. This was because many senior military leaders worried about the ethics of Reagan's war on terror, afraiding that it could lead to the deaths of innocents.
In this connection it is worth while mentioning the fact that  Barack Obama has done much better by hewing close to the concept that Reagan initially embraced. But, John Arquilla condemns, that as was the case with Reagan, there is now a similar battle going on for Obama's strategic soul. For all the nimble, networked operations he has overseen, Obama did allow senior military advisers to talk him into surging large numbers of conventional forces into Afghanistan -- at great cost and, at best, with mixed results.
     In the conclusion the author suggests that in the battle for Reagan's strategic soul, the conventional thinkers won out because they convinced him that there was far too much of the "dark side" in the  plan. In the battle for Barack Obama's strategic soul, the "overwhelming force" approach has not yet carried the day - and with luck it won't.
     As for me,   I think it is difficult to change the situation with terrorism unless some countries and their governments stop playing double, intruding into other countries' own affairs and when social disruption and bureaucracy will be reduced...I don't consider the USA is able to liquidate world terrorism and think that only collaboration of different countries together can change the situation for the better.

My Pleasure Reading. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Summary (pages 1-99)

     The garrulous and empty-headed Mrs Bennet has only one aim – to find a good match for each of her five daughters.  And when a wealthy Mr. Bingley moves into the neighborhood and becomes interested in her eldest daughter, Jane, Mrs. Bennet becomes happy and tries to push them together in every possible way. However, Mr. Bingley hasn’t come alone, but with his sisters and a close friend Mr. Darcy, who is rich and attractive, but too proud. He makes a comment on Lizzy that she is not handsome enough to tempt him. After a while, Mr. Bingley's sisters asked  Jane for a dinner. Jane, following the advice of her mother, rides over to the Bingley mansion in the rain, gets wet, falls ill, and has to remain in the Bingley house. Elizabeth arrives to nurse her sister and starts to communicate with Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley and his sisters. Darcy, to his surprise, finds himself attracted to Elizabeth.  Several days later Jane gets better and Mr. Bingley promises her mother and sisters Kitty and Lydia, who have come to visit Jane, to organize the ball in his house.

     Meanwhile, Mr. Collins, the only heir of the Bennet’s estate, arrives for a visit. Mr. Collins has decided that the nice thing to do is to marry one of the Bennet girls in order to preserve their home, and chooses Elizabeth as his future wife. One evening at the dinner, Lizzy is introduced to Mr. Wickham who tells her what an awful man Darcy is. Elizabeth believes Wickham's story, and also learns that Lady Catherine is Mr. Darcy's aunt. The next day, all the Bennet girls are invited to a ball at Netherfield. Elizabeth is excited to see Mr. Darcy and Mr. Wickham confront each other. Mrs. Bennet tells everyone that Bingley will propose to Jane, Mary shows her non-existent musical talent, and Lydia and Kitty flirt with the military officers. Next day after the ball Mr. Collins makes a proposal to Elizabeth, but she rejects him (she considers him to be repulsive and foolish).

Rendering №6 (new)

     The article published on the website of the newspaper "The Guardian" on October 3 is headlined "Russia accuses al-Qaida of "forest jihad" in Europe". The article reports at length that Russia's top security official Alexander Bortnikov has alleged that al-Qaida was waging "forest jihad" in Europe by sparking the wildfires that have ravaged the continent in recent summers. In this respect it is worth while mentioning the fact that fire outbreaks in forests across Europe have become a yearly phenomenon, often blamed on human negligence. This year tens of thousands of hectares of land were set ablaze across Spain Portugal, the Balkans and southern Europe.
     Speaking of this situation it's necessary to point out that Bortnikov cited talk of "forest jihad" on various extremist websites and forums as evidence of the strategy. Giving appraisal of the situation it's necessary to point out that Nikolai Shmatkov, a forest expert at the Moscow office of the World Wildlife Fund dismissed Bortnikov's claim, saying "how involved al-Qaida is in this, how much they need to focus their forces not against the Americans, but against the Greeks and Spaniards, I can't say. I'm sceptical."Besides, Anton Orekh, a journalist at the liberal radio station, Ekho Moskvy also reacted with shock: "And when Russia's forests and peat bogs were burning in 2010, what was that? Also al-Qaida? And this summer in Siberia – was that also part of this 'thousand cuts' strategy?"
In resolute terms the author mentiones the fact that while Bortnikov provided no proof, his theory reflects public discussions among Islamic extremists in the summer issue of Inspire, the online propaganda publication run by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.
     The author concludes the article with the quotation on al-Qaida representatives:"Fire is one of the soldiers of Allah," it said."Imagine that, after all the damage is caused, if a jihad organisation were to take responsibility for the forest fires," it said. "You can imagine the dread it would cause people in the United States, Europe, Russia, and Australia."
     As for me,  I think it is strange to blame only al-Qaida on their responsibility for the wildfires in Europe and Russia. I think that the key factor of wildfires in Mediterranean is the human one. In this case,  I agree with  Nikolai Shmatkov who says that it is strange that al-Qaida focuses their forces more againsts Greeks and Spaniards than against Americans who  made more harm to Muslims than the others. Finally, it is common knowledge that the real causes of forest fires in Russia (2010) were draught, heat and human factors.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/03/russia-al-qaida-forest-jihad