finally got around to watching Escape from New York (yes, the 80s cult classic) last night. Always meant to watch it, have read about it, seen a few clips here and there but never the whole movie. For those souls hiding under a rock the past 30 years, basically Kurt Russell is Snake Plissken, an ex-military hero who is actually on his way TO the prison (for robbing a bank) when Lee Van Cleef enlists him to save The President, because Air Force One crashed in NYC, now a max-security prison for the entire country.

Some thoughts:

1) do *NOT* watch the ‘extras’ until AFTER the movie! While I already knew mostly what happens (the movie is 30+ years old after all) there were a few spoilers in the featurette (interviews with John Carpenter, Kurt Russell, and others from the movie/writers) that unfortunately did their evil work. Doh!

2) it isn’t a super high-budget movie. But for what it has, it’s not bad. And it has the advantage of depicting NYC as a prison (versus trying to depict a future robot theme park on a budget), so you expect things to be thrashed and on fire, etc.

3) The fight scene with Kurt Russell and the big wrestler guy is lame. I guess it was inevitable they had to have *some* big ‘fight’ in a movie like this – but they should have had some crazy alley battle like the ridiculous one in They Live (also by JC but later) or some square-off between Isaac Hayes (the ‘Duke of New York’ – has a ’70s big-ass Caddy with chandeliers mounted on the hood – I am not making that up) and KR.

4) Harry Dean Stanton is always good, he plays great freaks. Ernest Borgnine (‘Cabbie’) was kind of wasted in his part (who takes cabs in prison? And how has he been driving a cab in NYC for 30 years – did he just decide to stay when they converted it into a prison?)

5) Like the featurette says – Snake Plissken is a great anti-hero, and KR definitely plays up the Clint Eastwood aspect (as he admits). Minimal dialogue, maximum attitude. Would that we could all be Snake Plissken 🙂 But I’d toss the eye-patch – I like having depth perception, myself. Get some scary tattoo or wear goth clothing or something.

6) it’s a bit weird to see SP land his glider on the Twin Towers, given that they aren’t there anymore. And the chase across the bridge to ‘escape’ seems like an awfully small bridge? Foot bridge? Every car/transit conduit into Manhattan I’ve ever seen is at least FOUR LANES? Even the smallest bridges in Seattle are four lanes? Just sayin’.

All in all, an entertaining watch – it’s always interesting for me (having been there first time around) to see how well the ‘tech’ ages in movies like this. Here, they don’t really play that up, save for some computery-looking fonts on some of the signs and computers – and a few terminals that were obviously stolen from a nearby airport for the early part of the movie. SP’s radio is a bit on the big side as you might expect, and the ‘phone’ Lee Van Cleef uses to call him on later almost covers the side of his entire head and neck – now THAT’s a phone! One he could call with *and* use as a TV tray for his dinner while waiting for SP to get back?

candybowl

I caught this article in the latest issue of The Utne Reader – not online yet – it’s originally from Notre Dame magazine (yes, the school).

I was kind of taken by surprise while reading this. Without stepping into the ‘big picture’ issues around a potential motive he may have (prison reform – a subject I’m not very familiar with by any means) – this article really made me stop and think about several things, namely:

a) The comparison between ‘young man decisions made in ignorance’ vs. ‘old man never able to escape them’. This of course brings up the tired cliche of ‘youth being wasted on the young’ – but certainly with more than a hint of irony. I’m not sure the lesson to be learned here is much more than ‘impulsive decisions can sometimes cost you dearly, sometimes forever’. We don’t know the circumstances of what this guy did, but it was obviously permanent (he hints it was murder) and may not have even been done with any sort of planning, or ‘evil’ – although certainly the outcome ended up that way. No excuses – and even the most ignorant person in this country knows what happens when you kill someone, right?

b) This type of essay makes me think – what is the cost? What is the cost to our society (not thinking of $$, but that’s a factor too of course) in terms of lost potential (both by what he and others might have contributed had things gone differently, and by what else society itself may have gained as a result)? What does it say about us? Are we really willing to treat others’ lives like a permanent UFC reality show behind bars for decades if not their entire lives? And how does that square with what they did, proportionality and other ‘rules’ such as ‘eye for an eye’, etc.? All tough questions with no easy answers.

c) One of the most interesting points made was that of prison = a society of captive children. everything (save defecation and eating) is done for them and they aren’t allowed to do almost anything for themselves even if they want to. Does this imply they are ‘frozen’ in an immature state (also may depend on the age at which they enter and other background factors, to be sure) – and how do we change that? DO we change that?

c) Beyond running the prison laundry, making license plates and the like, one thing WA has done of late is allow prisoners to tend gardens and grow food. I don’t believe the food grown leaves the prison (unlike the license plates and other products they may manufacture) but rather they eat it, too. Why wasn’t this done decades ago? It’s not like tending gardens is a 21st century innovation? even if a person is going to be in prison for life (and even if deservedly so) – why not let them tend a garden? And certainly for those slated to eventually rejoin society – it might actually help rehabilitate them? If nothing else, it might give them a break/respite from the otherwise nearly constant violence he describes? Yes, I get it – prison is not ‘vacation’ and not intended to be easy – but there’s a difference between imprisonment and ‘perma-riot’, no?

d) The point made about society’s perception of the prisoner being made when the person entered prison (and doesn’t really change), while the person inside – especially one growing old inside for literally decades – is increasingly reminded of those early, permanent mistakes. And as he notes, the aging, frail body conveying those thoughts serves as a second, painful reminder of same.

e) It is human nature for many to want a black and white solution – to want to make an easy (or even hard) decision and then be DONE with it, period. Locking up a malefactor and (effetively) throwing away the key may be one way – the guy did his crime, regardless of his background/upbringing, environmental factors, etc. – and now he pays with his life (as he made someone else pay, whether that person was an innocent victim or someone who was seconds from doing the same to him). No matter the circumstances – is that all there is to it? Again, not arguing excuses or softening the blow of permanence – just wondering if this is the only answer…..

As noted when I sent this article around via email prior to this post – one thing is certain. I am very, very thankful I haven’t made the mistakes this guy did – and that I have the life I have, and not his.

candybowl