Monday, August 4, 2014
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Tombstone
Tombstone
1993
1993
This movie is another cinematic portrayal of the "Gunfight at the OK Corral", but its nearly unique in the degree to which it focused on authenticity. The makers of this movie so
closely studied the clothing of the frontier southwest that when the
movie came out it was criticized as inaccurate as it was so accurate.
Simply put, the period clothing in the region was very distinct and that
was reflected in the film, to the shock of viewers who weren't used to
seeing the distinctive look of the region.
The movie is other was a dramatized, but not bad, telling of a familiar tale. Much more accurate than most of the films in this genera, it's really the material details that make this movie worth seeing.
Movies In History: Saving Private Ryan
Saving Private Ryan
This
film did to war movies what Lonesome Dove did to Westerns, it
revolutionized them to such an extent that everything that came after
had to meet its standard.
Set during Operation Overlord during World War Two, this film, featuring a fictionalized story based on an American Ranger unit, went to great lengths to get material details right and mostly did. Almost every item of equipment in the film is correct,
something highly unusual for most war movies filmed before it. This is
so much the case that watching films made prior to it almost invariably
bring out a bit of realization of that fact, even where they are really
good, simply due to Saving Private Ryan's precision. Details are so precise that the Rangers are shown, accurately, wearing some items of clothing that were unique to them alone. The paratroopers are likewise correctly attired, as are regular U.S. infantrymen.
Still, as accurate as the film is, it amazingly isn't quite perfect in these regards. The movie messes up significantly in material details in the case of the sniper character, who is shown having two scopes, which would not have been the case, and perhaps in that one them appears to be a large Unertl scope, which was an item used by the Marines but not the Army. Scopes affixed to M1903A5 sniper rifles sued by the U.S. Army were generally Lyman Alaskans, which one of the scopes in the film does appear to be. That particular scope featured a small diameter barrel and is correspondingly something that looks odd to the modern eye, which may explain the incorporation of a Unertl scope in the film, given their giant size. Swapping out scopes, however, which is referenced in the film, would not have occurred.
Additionally the film makes a goof typical to films in that the sniper keeps shooting even when the five shot magazine capacity of his rifle is exhausted.
On material details the film also departs from being fully correct, as good of film as it is, in that two weapons in use in the Ranger squad unit are inappropriate for their use. The senior NCO of the unit carriers an M1 Carbine, but M1 Carbines were not used by enlisted Rangers or infantrymen during World War Two, or at least weren't supposed to be. That would be an appropriate weapon for the Tom Hanks character, who is a captain, but he carriers a Thompson submachinegun, which is also outside the TO&E. Having said that, submachineguns did show up in sues that they were not supposed to official have, so that use may not be that unrealistic, which is likewise the case for one that is shown being used by an airborne officer.
Still, this movie is so well done that every war film since it has had to meet its standards or appear to be a failure, and even those filmed prior to it are hard to watch without being aware of how they fail to measure up. The slight departures noted here are so slight that even mentioning them tends to overemphasize them.
In terms of historical details, the movie scores very high marks. Operational details are generally correct, and only minor ones (such as a very early criticism of Montgomery before any U.S. officer would have been likely to have done that), show up.
An excellent film. And the one that basically sets the bar for films of this type.
Still, as accurate as the film is, it amazingly isn't quite perfect in these regards. The movie messes up significantly in material details in the case of the sniper character, who is shown having two scopes, which would not have been the case, and perhaps in that one them appears to be a large Unertl scope, which was an item used by the Marines but not the Army. Scopes affixed to M1903A5 sniper rifles sued by the U.S. Army were generally Lyman Alaskans, which one of the scopes in the film does appear to be. That particular scope featured a small diameter barrel and is correspondingly something that looks odd to the modern eye, which may explain the incorporation of a Unertl scope in the film, given their giant size. Swapping out scopes, however, which is referenced in the film, would not have occurred.
Additionally the film makes a goof typical to films in that the sniper keeps shooting even when the five shot magazine capacity of his rifle is exhausted.
On material details the film also departs from being fully correct, as good of film as it is, in that two weapons in use in the Ranger squad unit are inappropriate for their use. The senior NCO of the unit carriers an M1 Carbine, but M1 Carbines were not used by enlisted Rangers or infantrymen during World War Two, or at least weren't supposed to be. That would be an appropriate weapon for the Tom Hanks character, who is a captain, but he carriers a Thompson submachinegun, which is also outside the TO&E. Having said that, submachineguns did show up in sues that they were not supposed to official have, so that use may not be that unrealistic, which is likewise the case for one that is shown being used by an airborne officer.
Still, this movie is so well done that every war film since it has had to meet its standards or appear to be a failure, and even those filmed prior to it are hard to watch without being aware of how they fail to measure up. The slight departures noted here are so slight that even mentioning them tends to overemphasize them.
In terms of historical details, the movie scores very high marks. Operational details are generally correct, and only minor ones (such as a very early criticism of Montgomery before any U.S. officer would have been likely to have done that), show up.
An excellent film. And the one that basically sets the bar for films of this type.
Movies In History: Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?
Oh Brother! Where Art Thou?
This is, simply a great film.
Set
in the 1930s, it really successfully captures the feel of the rural
American South at this time, and does a super job of capturing the feel
of small towns, farms, and Southern politics. Clothing details are well
done as well. Minor details, such as references to the Tennessee
Valley Authority, or a farmer cultivating a field of tobacco with a mule
drawn implement, nicely place the film in context. Even the title is a
shout out to the era, recalling the name of a fictional book which a
fictional movie director is getting set to film in 1941's Sullivan's Travels.
Movies In History: Lonesome Dove
Lonesome Dove
This
television mini series, based on the Larry McMurtry novel, which itself was closely
based on actual events of frontier era cattleman, set a new standard for
clothing accuracy. And as the novel was itself closely based on actual
persons and their history, the details in general are remarkably
accurate. Indeed, this movie is to Westerns what Band of Brothers is to war movies, in that it set the bar so high, that nothing that's come after it has been the same compared to those films which came before it.
Based closely on actual early cattle drives out of Texas going north, this gritty film has almost all, if not all, of the material details right, which almost no film prior to it did. Indeed, this is so much the case that I've actually heard it criticized by the otherwise knowledgeable on some of what it portrays as it stands in such stark contrast to earlier films. No cattle drive film compares to it.
Even wise, it's pretty good as well, showing the slow nature and remoteness of early drives.
If a person was to criticize it, what could be looked at is that like all McMurtry works, it's somewhat more focused on the unseemly side of things than it needs to be, which is McMurtry's hallmark in some ways. Having said that, McMurtray isn't afraid to show various peoples and groups in a pretty unvarnished light, which many portrayals are not willing to do.
And the economic nature of the drive, without which it wouldn't make any sense, is largely omitted, a fault common to many western movies.
Having said that, this film sets the bar for westerns.
Based closely on actual early cattle drives out of Texas going north, this gritty film has almost all, if not all, of the material details right, which almost no film prior to it did. Indeed, this is so much the case that I've actually heard it criticized by the otherwise knowledgeable on some of what it portrays as it stands in such stark contrast to earlier films. No cattle drive film compares to it.
Even wise, it's pretty good as well, showing the slow nature and remoteness of early drives.
If a person was to criticize it, what could be looked at is that like all McMurtry works, it's somewhat more focused on the unseemly side of things than it needs to be, which is McMurtry's hallmark in some ways. Having said that, McMurtray isn't afraid to show various peoples and groups in a pretty unvarnished light, which many portrayals are not willing to do.
And the economic nature of the drive, without which it wouldn't make any sense, is largely omitted, a fault common to many western movies.
Having said that, this film sets the bar for westerns.
Movies In History: The Godfather, Part II
The Godfather, Part II
This movie gets on the list not for its portrayal of the Mafia, but for its portrayal of urban New York City in the early 20th Century. Very well done.
I don't really know enough about the Mafia to really comment on how accurate in general this movie, or the first movie, may be in regard to it, but from what I understand, they are fairly close to accurate in their portrayals and the various crime families are in fact closely based on real ones. The novel, which is a very good one, no doubt is as well. This movie really excels in its portrayal of early 20th Century New York Italian ghettos, and it does a nice job with Cuba on the end of revolution in the 1950s as well.
This movie gets on the list not for its portrayal of the Mafia, but for its portrayal of urban New York City in the early 20th Century. Very well done.
I don't really know enough about the Mafia to really comment on how accurate in general this movie, or the first movie, may be in regard to it, but from what I understand, they are fairly close to accurate in their portrayals and the various crime families are in fact closely based on real ones. The novel, which is a very good one, no doubt is as well. This movie really excels in its portrayal of early 20th Century New York Italian ghettos, and it does a nice job with Cuba on the end of revolution in the 1950s as well.
Movies In History: True Grit
True Grit (the Coen Brothers version)
The
film is also is excellent in its material details, which most Westerns
are not. The clothing is correct, as are the firearms. The sense of space involved in an expedition of this type is excellently done, and comes across much better in this film than in the early John Wayne version. That the expedition is basically alone in a wilderness is really conveyed.
The film's ending, true to the novel, is also historically correct, as not a lot of time passes in an historical context, but in a human context, as the film notes, "Twenty five years is a long time." The changes in the west in the brief ending, and those things that had not changed, are subtly brought out.
It's an excellent movie, and a unique one given the emphasis on the dialog, a detail that it shares with the novel upon which it is based. An excellent film and one of the best Westerns ever made.
The ABA pivotal scenes (from a lawyer's prospective) on this film.
I like the John Wayne version of this movie, but I love the Coen brothers version.
This
film is dialog-centric, like most Coen Brothers films are, but in this
case the dialog serves to really illustrate something view films do. .
.how things sounded like, not just how they looked. In these regards, this film is superb.
The film's ending, true to the novel, is also historically correct, as not a lot of time passes in an historical context, but in a human context, as the film notes, "Twenty five years is a long time." The changes in the west in the brief ending, and those things that had not changed, are subtly brought out.
It's an excellent movie, and a unique one given the emphasis on the dialog, a detail that it shares with the novel upon which it is based. An excellent film and one of the best Westerns ever made.
The ABA pivotal scenes (from a lawyer's prospective) on this film.
Movies In History: Valkyrie
Valkyrie
Tom Cruise was criticized for starring and backing this project, which depicts the July 20 Assassination attempt on Adolph
Hitler but the film is excellent. It includes the most accurate
depiction of an fighter strafing run right at the start of the film,
which is so well done that it's incredibly scary to watch in a movie
theater.
The film gets the tone of the assassination attempt, including its internal divisions, down about as well as a film of this length could. Suffice it to say, the actual plot was somewhat more complicated, or actually a great deal more complicated, but there's only so much that can be done on film, and even today people debate who all may have been involved in the plot, knew about it, or had a role of some kind.
In terms of material details, this movie was quite good. The equipment and the uniforms are all correct for the period shown, with the movie makers having gone to the extent of showing the qualitative differences in various German uniforms and the tailored nature of officers uniform.
A very fine effort, well worth seeing, and historically correct within the confines of the movie's length.
In terms of material details, this movie was quite good. The equipment and the uniforms are all correct for the period shown, with the movie makers having gone to the extent of showing the qualitative differences in various German uniforms and the tailored nature of officers uniform.
A very fine effort, well worth seeing, and historically correct within the confines of the movie's length.
Movies In History: Paper Moon
Paper Moon
This 1973 film came about some decades prior to Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?
but it also really has the feel of the Depression right, in this case
in the Missouri Kansas border region. The film surrounds the story of a con artist who arrives in the story just in time for the funeral of a woman with whom, the film strongly suggests, he has, unbeknownst to him, had a child. The association with the deceased mother, we understand, was illicit in nature, and he never acknowledges at any point in the film that he's the child's father. He does accept, however, a charge to take the child to an aunt. From there, a series of adventures ensues.
The gritty nature of the film, filmed entirely in black and white, and the desperation of the protagonist, even though it's a comedy, really come through. The lack of, or failure of, the social structure also shines through, with it not seeming all that odd, by the end of the film, that a little girl has been essentially been adopted, outside the law, by a man who was in the end a kindhearted stranger, or who may be that.
Filmed in black and white, as noted, even though well within the color film era, the cinematography and the excellent cast give it the right feel.
The protagonists are portrayed by actual father and child Ryan and Tatum O'Neal. This is Ryan O'Neal's best film, to the extent I've seen his films, and he acts in it quite well. Tatum O'Neal was brilliant in the film.
In terms of material details, the film is excellent, with the portrayal of Dust Bowl Kansas significantly added to by the use of black and white cinematography.
The gritty nature of the film, filmed entirely in black and white, and the desperation of the protagonist, even though it's a comedy, really come through. The lack of, or failure of, the social structure also shines through, with it not seeming all that odd, by the end of the film, that a little girl has been essentially been adopted, outside the law, by a man who was in the end a kindhearted stranger, or who may be that.
Filmed in black and white, as noted, even though well within the color film era, the cinematography and the excellent cast give it the right feel.
The protagonists are portrayed by actual father and child Ryan and Tatum O'Neal. This is Ryan O'Neal's best film, to the extent I've seen his films, and he acts in it quite well. Tatum O'Neal was brilliant in the film.
In terms of material details, the film is excellent, with the portrayal of Dust Bowl Kansas significantly added to by the use of black and white cinematography.
Movies In History: The Missouri Breaks.
The Missouri Breaks
This
movie is regarded as sort of an "anti Western", which seems to be how
most movies that don't fit into the 1950s formula of a Western are
regarded. But its a nice treatment of the northern Plains in the late
19th Century. The Marlon Brando bounty hunter character is really an
oddly played character, and I'd exempt that portrayal out of this entry,
but the other characters are well played.
Some odd details are actually done correctly in the film which rarely are. The treatment of a small homestead is correct in appearance and in its small nature, which seems to be rarely done in films. And the clothing is correct, which is somewhat unusual for a film made prior to Lonesome Dove.
Durango
Durango
This film, set just before World War
Two, takes place in rural Ireland and involves a cattle drive from one
town to another, with the cattle to be sold at a public square in front
of the Durango pub, named after the southwest Colorado town.
Based on a novel by the same name (also excellent), the film portrays Ireland right before it really began to change post war, when the Ireland of our classic imaginations still existed. Well attuned to Irish life, and from an Irish novel, it's very well done and gives us a look at Ireland in history in a way that no other film does to the same extent, although The Quiet Man is in some ways somewhat comparable. This film is better.
Like The Quiet Man, but only more effectively, this film incorporates a lot of details of Irish rural life into the film in an effective way. With the novel having been authored by Irish author John B. Keane, it is perhaps not too surprising that this film would do an overall much better, and subtler, job of incorporating such details.
Included in the historical and material details which are worked effectively into the film, the mixed feelings about the United Kingdom and World War Two are portrayed in the film. As was intended to be done in The Quiet Man, but which was dropped as that fairly long film was dropped, this film includes a subplot involving the Irish Republican Army (which is also in the book), but which is done in a comedic fashion. The very local nature of the Irish cattle industry is portrayed in the movie very well, as well as the only partially mechanized nature of the country at that time.
Like The Quiet Man, but only more effectively, this film incorporates a lot of details of Irish rural life into the film in an effective way. With the novel having been authored by Irish author John B. Keane, it is perhaps not too surprising that this film would do an overall much better, and subtler, job of incorporating such details.
Included in the historical and material details which are worked effectively into the film, the mixed feelings about the United Kingdom and World War Two are portrayed in the film. As was intended to be done in The Quiet Man, but which was dropped as that fairly long film was dropped, this film includes a subplot involving the Irish Republican Army (which is also in the book), but which is done in a comedic fashion. The very local nature of the Irish cattle industry is portrayed in the movie very well, as well as the only partially mechanized nature of the country at that time.
It's a Hallmark film, but it portrays the era and the culture very well.
Anatomy of a Murder
Anatomy of a Murder
I'm
not a big fan of legal dramas, in part because they tend to be highly
inaccurate. But this film, based on a novel written by a judge, is an
exception. Excellently acted, the minute details that show the author
had real familiarity with the law really push it over the top for me.
Amongst these details, showing how well the author knew the law, is that
the client stiffs the lawyer on his bill in the end. Only a real
lawyer would have included that.
The film portrays the defense of an accused murderer, based on a psychological defense, by a solo practitioner. Excellently acted, with great courtroom scenes that are pretty realistic, and not absurd.
The ABA "pivotol scenes" commentary on this film.
The film portrays the defense of an accused murderer, based on a psychological defense, by a solo practitioner. Excellently acted, with great courtroom scenes that are pretty realistic, and not absurd.
The ABA "pivotol scenes" commentary on this film.
Movies In History: The Culpepper Cattle Company.
The Culpepper Cattle Company
This
Western, which is in someways the antithesis of the classic The Cowboys, is also an "anti-Western" according to reviewers, but probably
only because they don't really understand the nature of the late 19th
Century West all that well. Like The Cowboys, it deals with a 19th Century cattle drive, this one starting out in Texas rather than Montana, and it involves a young protagonist.
Filmed in the 1972, this Western has its problems, but in some ways it's really
accurate. It's one of the very few Westerns in which the cattle owner
is really concerned about the economic bottom line, making it a very
rare Western in which the cattle industry is actually shown as an
industry. The film also gets pretty good marks for getting details of
dress partially correct, and for showing the pretty gritty nature of the
subjects of the film fairly accurately, if in a somewhat exaggerated
fashion. "The Cowboys" (which I like), or "Red River" (which I also
like), it is not.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Some Gave All: Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum, Oklahoma...
Some Gave All: Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum, Oklahoma...: These photos are of the city block that is now a memorial to those who lost their lives in the tragic and senseless bombing of the Murrah...
War and Commentary on War
Recently, Israel has sent troops into Gaza. And Israel has been using heavy weapons as part of that. When heavy weapons are used in urban areas, civilian deaths result. That's been sparking tons of criticism on Israel, but seemingly missed on that is that the Israeli action was prompted by the Hamas use of heavy weapons, in the form of rockets, on Israeli civilian targets.
I don't post here to be an apologist for Israel. I've never been that. But I am amazed by the degree of self righteousness that people in North American and Europe have exhibited over this event. Frankly,. the Palestinian voters who voted Hamas into office in the Palestinian Authority, and who support it now, might has well have pulled the lanyard on Israeli artillery.
For the simple reason that we do not wish to believe that its true, people in the western world simply refuse to believe that in their heart of hearts, members of Hamas are not liberal democrats. They are not. They adhere to a version of the world that is similar, if not identical, to that shared by ISIL, which is now operating to destroy Christianity in Iraq in the name of a Sunni Caliphate. Hamas, which is backed by Iran, wouldn't argue for a Sunni Caliphate, but it does imagine a Middle East that's a theocracy. That vision doesn't allow for a Jewish state in its midst. If it could effect its goals, which thankfully it cannot, things would be grim for the Jewish residents of Israel indeed.
If Hamas cannot bring about its goals, it can and does kill, and has been. And at some point, if you shell a country with an Army, that country is going to react. And if you hide your own guerrilla bands in a city, that city is going to be a target.
None of this excuses the indiscriminate use of force, nor does it even perhaps justify force. But it doesn't justify the excusing of a basic set of facts either, those being that to date there has not been a single Arabic nation on earth, save for the problematic example of Lebanon (formed as Christian state carved out from Syria originally) that has demonstrated the ability to function as a secular democracy. Twice in recent years, the Palestinian Authority being one example, and Egypt being another, chances for democracy have shown a high percentage of the population willing to throw in with theocratic parties that are troubling in nature. People a re instinctively democratic, and certainly the examples we've seen globally show that the fostering of democracy can take decades to be successful. There's nothing to suggest that the neighbors of such states will be willing to chalk up violent attacks against them to political infancy and just sit it out.
I frankly don't know what the solution to this problem is here. Gaza is clearly untenable as a political entity. It's an isolated city that's hopeless in its isolation. It can't be part of Israel as that would not work. Egypt wants nothing to do with it. Rationality would argue for buying out the residents and urging them to move elsewhere where things were better, which would be nearly anywhere, but long history has demonstrated that the Arab states are pretty intolerant toward taking in refugee populations. This is no wonder, given that almost every single Arab nation is ruled in a fashion that's simply a house of cards. So, for example, it makes more sense for Dubai or Saudi Arabia to bring in huge numbers of Filipinos, from their prospective, than it would to offer and encourage a funded new home for their fellow Arabs, who wouldn't take them up on that offer anyhow. But rocketing Israel isn't going to get them what they want either, which largely would seem to be Hamas' goal that Israel simply not be.
Additionally, there's more than a little irony, albeit one that apparently isn't very much appreciated, by populations in the western world lecturing Israel, when Israel remains quite aware that it came into existence as the greater European culture participated in a pretty dedicated effort to wipe the Jewish culture in the 1930s and 1940s. It'd be hard, from the prospective of people who have experienced that well within historical memory, to feel that they shouldn't act to defend themselves, and that others will not act to aid them. Again, I"m not an apologist for Israel, but to a certain degree it's hard not to feel that in recent decades proclivities that had seemingly died in 1945 have creeped back in a tad, and even if they haven't, it'd be hard for Israelis not to wonder if they have.
Finally, I have to wonder why it is that one population of suffering Arabs, whom I fully concede are suffering, and many of whom are completely innocent of anything, receive the attention they deserve, while another, differing mainly in their traditional stability and Faith, are ignored.
I don't post here to be an apologist for Israel. I've never been that. But I am amazed by the degree of self righteousness that people in North American and Europe have exhibited over this event. Frankly,. the Palestinian voters who voted Hamas into office in the Palestinian Authority, and who support it now, might has well have pulled the lanyard on Israeli artillery.
For the simple reason that we do not wish to believe that its true, people in the western world simply refuse to believe that in their heart of hearts, members of Hamas are not liberal democrats. They are not. They adhere to a version of the world that is similar, if not identical, to that shared by ISIL, which is now operating to destroy Christianity in Iraq in the name of a Sunni Caliphate. Hamas, which is backed by Iran, wouldn't argue for a Sunni Caliphate, but it does imagine a Middle East that's a theocracy. That vision doesn't allow for a Jewish state in its midst. If it could effect its goals, which thankfully it cannot, things would be grim for the Jewish residents of Israel indeed.
If Hamas cannot bring about its goals, it can and does kill, and has been. And at some point, if you shell a country with an Army, that country is going to react. And if you hide your own guerrilla bands in a city, that city is going to be a target.
None of this excuses the indiscriminate use of force, nor does it even perhaps justify force. But it doesn't justify the excusing of a basic set of facts either, those being that to date there has not been a single Arabic nation on earth, save for the problematic example of Lebanon (formed as Christian state carved out from Syria originally) that has demonstrated the ability to function as a secular democracy. Twice in recent years, the Palestinian Authority being one example, and Egypt being another, chances for democracy have shown a high percentage of the population willing to throw in with theocratic parties that are troubling in nature. People a re instinctively democratic, and certainly the examples we've seen globally show that the fostering of democracy can take decades to be successful. There's nothing to suggest that the neighbors of such states will be willing to chalk up violent attacks against them to political infancy and just sit it out.
I frankly don't know what the solution to this problem is here. Gaza is clearly untenable as a political entity. It's an isolated city that's hopeless in its isolation. It can't be part of Israel as that would not work. Egypt wants nothing to do with it. Rationality would argue for buying out the residents and urging them to move elsewhere where things were better, which would be nearly anywhere, but long history has demonstrated that the Arab states are pretty intolerant toward taking in refugee populations. This is no wonder, given that almost every single Arab nation is ruled in a fashion that's simply a house of cards. So, for example, it makes more sense for Dubai or Saudi Arabia to bring in huge numbers of Filipinos, from their prospective, than it would to offer and encourage a funded new home for their fellow Arabs, who wouldn't take them up on that offer anyhow. But rocketing Israel isn't going to get them what they want either, which largely would seem to be Hamas' goal that Israel simply not be.
Additionally, there's more than a little irony, albeit one that apparently isn't very much appreciated, by populations in the western world lecturing Israel, when Israel remains quite aware that it came into existence as the greater European culture participated in a pretty dedicated effort to wipe the Jewish culture in the 1930s and 1940s. It'd be hard, from the prospective of people who have experienced that well within historical memory, to feel that they shouldn't act to defend themselves, and that others will not act to aid them. Again, I"m not an apologist for Israel, but to a certain degree it's hard not to feel that in recent decades proclivities that had seemingly died in 1945 have creeped back in a tad, and even if they haven't, it'd be hard for Israelis not to wonder if they have.
Finally, I have to wonder why it is that one population of suffering Arabs, whom I fully concede are suffering, and many of whom are completely innocent of anything, receive the attention they deserve, while another, differing mainly in their traditional stability and Faith, are ignored.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
The Big Speech: Trees
1918. Poet Joyce Kilmer, U.S. Army sergeant, killed in France.
TREES
I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.
A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the sweet earth's flowing breast;
A tree that looks at God all day,
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;
A tree that may in summer wear
A nest of robins in her hair;
Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
Who intimately lives with rain.
Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)