Screening a Lost Film

In a previous post I talked about the cinematic history class that I go to every week. Occasionally one of the students (or the teacher) hosts a screening that has more of a party atmosphere. For example, one of the guys in the class -- Joe -- will soon be hosting a movie night at his home where we will be watching Dario Argento's Opera. The teacher -- Keith -- occasionally hosts something similar. For example, he showed The Rolling Stones' Gimme Shelter.

But the one that I found the most interesting was when Keith hosted Ed Wood's The Young Marrieds. And it wasn't even that I liked the film. It was a rip-roaring embarrassment of a film.

A little bit of backstory...

Ed Wood was known as a director who made horror films that were scary for all the wrong reasons. Many people aren't aware, but the last film he made was a porno, The Young Marrieds. For years there was a softcore version available on DVD, but the hardcore version was lost. In 2004 the hardcore version was found in an abandoned porn theater in Vancouver by porn archaeologist, Demetrios Otis. That was released on DVD, but an uncut version was subsequently found -- I'm not clear on the difference, though I think it's supposed to be better quality. It has yet to be released. That print is owned by a friend of Keith's. The two of them arranged a screening, and invited our film class.

It was the right environment to enjoy such a horror of a film. I should point out that I've got a fascination with lost films and with lost footage from films.For example, the lost thirty minutes of circus performances in Tod Browning's 1932 film, Freaks. To be one of the few people to see the uncut version of Ed Wood's last movie was a memorable experience.

Our Unpopular Populist, Part 2

In my last post I talked about why I love Andrew Jackson. Now I will address some problems that I have with him, and some of the ways he is considered problematic. Even though I am fond of him, I want to make it clear that I am fully aware that he was not perfect.

One of the many things that people dislike him for is the fact that he owned slaves. And while that is problematic in today's world, it was not unusual for the rich elite from the South. Several of our early Presidents and founding fathers were slave owners. I'm not saying that it was good, but you have to judge them for the time.

Another thing people criticize him for is the Trail of Tears, which is popularly described as a genocidally-motivated campaign. Former Secretary of the Navy and Democratic Senator, Jim Webb, explained it better than I can when he wrote this for the Washington Post:

As president, Jackson ordered the removal of Indian tribes east of the Mississippi to lands west of the river. This approach, supported by a string of presidents, including Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, was a disaster, resulting in the Trail of Tears where thousands died. But was its motivation genocidal? Robert Remini, Jackson’s most prominent biographer, wrote that his intent was to end the increasingly bloody Indian Wars and to protect the Indians from certain annihilation at the hands of an ever-expanding frontier population. Indeed, it would be difficult to call someone genocidal when years before, after one bloody fight, he brought an orphaned Native American baby from the battlefield to his home in Tennessee and raised him as his son.

Now I'd like to talk about my biggest problem with him, which is that he expanded the Executive power. I don't feel like it was a problem for what he did, but it was a problem for later presidents. But I won't get into that here. Washington wanted to make sure that there were checks and balances. He knew that it was important to have safety measures put in place so one bad leader can't destroy everything.

The reason that I like Andrew Jackson so much as a character is his complexity. He did a lot of good. He did a lot of bad. But overall I just like him