ILNews

Hammerle on ... 'The Company You Keep', 'Star Trek Into Darkness'

Robert Hammerle
June 5, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Company You Keep

Well, good people, it’s time to stop and smell the cinematic roses, as Robert Redford’s “The Company You Keep” is a fine film on multiple levels. To begin with, while you may have known that this intriguing drama stars both Mr. Redford and Shia LaBeouf, did you know that Julie Christie, Susan Sarandon, Nick Nolte, Chris Cooper, Richard Jenkins, Terrence Howard, Stanley Tucci, Anna Kendrick, Brendon Gleeson and Sam Elliott are also in this film? Isn’t that enough to pry you out of your malaise and get into the theater to see what this film is all about?

It centers on suspected members of the Weather Underground from the 1970s being arrested in New York 30 years after their alleged involvement in a bank robbery that resulted in a guard being killed. Susan Sarandon’s Sharon Solarz, the mother of two, was arrested in New York by the FBI while trying to turn herself in, and Robert Redford’s character is forced on the run as her suspected accomplice. Mr. Redford, playing the widowed father of a 12-year-old daughter, is at his laconic best as a lawyer trying to protect his past while not revealing the involvement of old friends.rating1.jpg
Despite the fact that these old Vietnam War protesters have kept a tight bond despite hiding from public view for three decades, it comes unraveled with the work of a young newspaperman played by Mr. LaBeouf. Fighting to keep his job, he is the first one to track the intentions of Mr. Redford’s character as he flees to the Midwest. Is he trying to protect himself or simply others?

In the process, Mr. Redford’s Nick Sloan reunites with his old lover, Mimi, played by the still beautiful

Ms. Christie. How can you possibly save yourself if it involves sending someone forever etched on your soul to prison? Watching their characters confront each other is as mesmerizing as it is moving, and you end up reliving your reflections of both as actors as they relive their relationship as young protesters who were convinced they were fighting on the right side of justice.
The value of “The Company You Keep” extends beyond its entertainment as a film. Even if you are too young to have experienced the turmoil surrounding the Vietnam War debacle of the 1960s and 70s, you need to remember.

Tragically, Sloan’s young friends did the unthinkable by robbing a bank when their protest deepened. While certainly inexcusable, over 50,000 young American boys were to die in Vietnam while our government and others ignored the consequences. A 1969 college graduate, I, like many, continued peaceful protests. Yet how could we really condemn protests turning to violence after college kids were gunned down at Kent State in 1968?

Finally, if you want to see a brilliant film that plays upon the theme captured by Mr. Redford, then go see Sidney Lumet’s “Running on Empty” (1988). The late River Phoenix was unforgettable as a young kid constantly running for years with his parents and sister as a result of the bombing of a “Dow-like” building where a janitor was killed. With the help of old friends like that experienced by the characters of Mr. Redford, Ms. Sarandon and Ms. Christie, Judd Hirsch and Christine Lahti were hunted parents who could never spend more than several months at any location. Like the characters of Redford and Sarandon, they had a child who had to be released into the real world, a move that would forever separate them from one another.

While “The Company You Keep” embraces cerebral themes as opposed to “Running on Empty’s” emotional foundation, they both help you understand the consequences of opposing your government’s perfidy in sending massive numbers of young Americans to an undeserved grave. Mistakes were made by parents in both movies when they were young and inspired, but the deaths they inadvertently caused did not compare to those lying in Vietnam’s ashes.

Who was really at fault and who was to blame? You tell me.

Star Trek Into Darkness

I find it safe to say that most of you will find J.J. Abrams’ “Star Trek Into Darkness” to be a completely fun ride. While you don’t need to be a fan of the old TV series, the film won’t disappoint if you find yourself in that league.

While William Shatner certainly wishes he had Chris Pine’s penetrating blue eyes, they both are chips off the same Captain Kirk block. Arrogant yet caring and bullheaded to a fault, they will always find the ability to lead the Enterprise out of the cauldron they created.
rating2.jpg Zachary Quinto is a young Mr. Spock, whose dedication to intellect over emotion frequently annoys his comrades, not to mention himself. While Spock and Kirk often battle, they would give their lives for the other.

Furthermore, Karl Urban strikes the right chord as the pugnacious Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy, and he helps you remember the fun brought to the screen by the late DeForest Kelley. In addition, Simon Pegg, the very funny Englishman who I hope you have seen in such scatological endearing films as “Paul” (2011), “Hot Fuzz” (2007), and “Shaun of the Dead” (2004), makes the neurotic Scotty a full-time treat.

But the film clicks due to a wonderful performance by Benedict Cumberbatch, here playing Khan, a human-looking ball of destruction. As a result of shedding the necessity of artificial makeup, Cumberbatch’s Khan has been able to survive the centuries for one specific purpose, namely to get even with everyone. He’s a great villain.

Finally, the success of the film centers on a group of friends rediscovering each other’s strengths while gradually rejecting their personal weaknesses. They all need to be reeled in at times, and Spock is helped immensely from the fact that he is in love with Uhura. Zoe Saldana is able to do a lot with very little, and her Uhura is able to pierce Spock’s heart in the same way her Neytiri did to Sam Worthington in “Avatar” (2009).

Climb aboard and blast off.•

__________

Robert Hammerle practices criminal law in Indianapolis. When he is not in the courtroom or working diligently in his Pennsylvania Street office, Bob can likely be found at one of his favorite movie theaters watching and preparing to review the latest films. To read more of his reviews, visit www.bigmouthbobs.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT