I picked Sayles’ LONE STAR. Seems like every line and scene is rich
with meaning. Chris Cooper (Sam) is sheriff of a Texas town. A skeleton
is found, and he investigates this old murder. The movie depicts three
eras. The 50’s, late 60’s/70’s and now.
Kristofferson is the l950’s sheriff, an ardent, venom-filled racist who extracts
money from Hispanics and African Americans. He is also a cold blooded
killer who one day just disappears. The next
sheriff is Buddy, M. McConaughey. Moral ground is shadowed gray by him.
He was a humanitarian who was kind to the minorities, but he cheated
on his wife, didn’t acknowledge an illegitimate child, and may have accepted
bribes. Sam struggles with the legend of his father, Buddy. Other “sins
of the fathers” relationships are also examined in the film. The lack of
connection between sons and fathers is mirrored and magnified by
the separation (chasm) between the three races. The movie
is certainly a social commentary on racism and the evolution over decades
of the power positions of whites, African Americans, and Hispanics. Within
its 35 year span, some progress in social positions and in “some” attitudes
occurs; however, others cling to their white supremacy attitudes regardless
of social upheaval, laws, and change.

Various bars in town still predominately host separate races, but more
interaction between races exits. Some minorities want
the “white” way only and disregard their culture. (The Hispanic mother is
always saying, “You’re in America. Only speak English.”) Others cling to
their cultural heritage. Sayles shows that while the Hispanics and African
Americans have garnered more prestige and economic independence
over the decades, there is still an uneasy, angry commingling of the three races.
White parents want the history of Texas taught from their white perspective
and attack Hispanic teachers who present variable sides to, “Remember
the Alamo.” The movie doesn’t show that a truce between the three
races has been reached after three decades; instead, in my opinion
the movie depicts an almost malevolent compliancy and resignation
to a “mixed” America. And interracial romances are vilified, despised, or
reluctantly tolerated.

My first question about this movie is that I wonder if Sayles is using Texas
as a microcosm for the United States in terms of family and race relationships,
or is he mainly commenting about the State of Texas? (There are
Texans on this Board.) I think a little of both,
but Texas is certainly a target for Sayles because of several unique
characteristics. It borders Mexico, and African Americans were slaves there
when Texas became a state. (And who else has the Alamo?) Texas is a
crucible for these three races and is faced with a history unique to only its
territory. And Sayles gave it a Texan, not a universal title. Other
thoughts on the universality of Sayle’s vision played out in Texas???

Where I really struggle is with the end of this superb, thought-
provoking movie. Sam and Pilar sit at an old dilapidated drive in,
a symbol of the past. Finally they are both unmarried and able to
be together after 23 years. This is a respectful and loving relationship.
Sam, however, has found out that Buddy was also Pilar’s father
through an adulterous affair, so they are half brother/sister and have
committed incest. Pilar is devastated but says that they shouldn’t worry
because she can’t have more children. She also says, “Forget history,
we’ll start from scratch, to hell with the Alamo.” This is the same teacher
who felt her race must embrace their culture and see all perspectives
of history. I think they will stay together, but what is Sayles saying
here? Does the movie posit that races be equal but separate?
I have a hard time believing Sayles supports that idea, so why introduce the
tragedy of incest to two decent people? Any ideas?

Hope some of you also start Smart Movie II, III etc. thread.

First, I'll address the Texas part. Texas can be easily divided into three distinct geographic areas which each have a unique culture -- East Texas with its ties to the South, West Texas with its ties to the West, and South Texas with its ties to Mexico.

It seemed that Sayles was trying to bring all three of these together in a small South Texas town. From a Texan's point of view, it seemed forced -- especially the inclusion of the African-Americans. In fact, he has to put a fictional Army base near the town in order to bring in the African-Americans. The only place this occurs is in El Paso. I've never been to El Paso. In fact, here in Fort Worth, I'm closer to Chicago than I am to El Paso. So, I may be wrong, but it seemed forced to me.

The movie also seemed to focus on the minorities who want to assimilate. While there are many who feel this way, the trend these days is to "celebrate diversity" rather than seek assimilation. Here's another caveat -- I live in an urban area and those minorities who seek assimilation may be more common in 249 rural Texas counties than they are in the five "urban" counties.

My experience has been that the non-white races are seeking to promote their own ethnicities to the exclusion of the majority culture. And this certainly wasn't the theme portrayed in the movie. Pilar's one classroom scene showed (to me) a very balanced telling of Texas history. I have read other stories completely villifying the first white settlers that was only briefly touched on by the Hispanic activist in the movie.

I can lookk at this movie from another perspective, too. My first marriage was to an Hispanic woman. And her family favored the assimilation goals of the family portrayed in the movie. Before I got married to her, I never really thought of people with Hispanic surnames being any different than me -- anymore than someone with an Italian or Norwegian surname. Those of you who have been married will know that ultimately, you don't just marry a person, you acquire a family. I learned that I had entered a completely different culture than I had ever experienced. The desire for assimilation was emphasized by their compelte hatred of illegal immigrants (there's a coloquial term for this that I was never allowed to use, but they used with great frequency) and juxtaposed by their equal resentment with the way "Anglos (a word I find offensive)" had treated Hispanics in the past. At one point, I just got fed up with my culture getting blamed for all the ills of the Hispanic culture.

And now for something completely different, Pilar's line " . . . forget the Alamo" is very symbolic. The Alamo was one of the most significant events in World History. Because of that battle, Mexico lost what has become some of the richest land (not just Texas, but ultimately New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California) in the world, and conversely, the US acquired it. The US was able to acheive it's "Manifest Destiny" of a nation stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The Alamo is also reminder of the division of the primary ethnic cultures in Texas -- even though several men of Hispanic heritage died defending the mission/fort. It wasn't the battle itself, but the land-grab afterwards that caused the scars, but the battle received the symbolic blame. Pilar's ". . . forget the Alamo" is almost ironic. How can you forget something so huge? How can they forget they are brother and sister? On the surface you think she is just talking about the conflict between the two cultures, but ultimately, she is underscoring the impossibility of their relationship.

What you said about the quotations, “Forget the Alamo,” made perfect
sense in terms of the consequences of the aftermath of that battle. It only
underscores more the tragedy of Pilar’s and Sam’s relationship. I love the
dilapidated drive in in the background as a symbol of a past era, now
gone.

I live in a state (Washington) totally divided by the Cascade Mountain Range.
On the coast is Seattle, rain, evergreen trees, cosmopolitan life styles,
sophistication, ecological concerns etc. The east side of the state is desert.
Our rivers are harnessed by dams, which have diminished the salmon, and
we have the large nuclear Hanford reservation. West side wants
to breech the dams; the East side needs the dams for farming. Big political
conflicts!

We also are a large agricultural area, and the migrant workers here
travel between Texas and Washington. Our school districts travel to Texas
for bilingual teachers, and the strain on school districts is enormous.
Many towns keep the housing prices high to prevent integration. It is at
best an uneasy truce as people and cultures try to commingle. Perhaps that
is why I find the movie so insightful into the realities of American life.

NP Masada

[Message edited by joan hue on 09-25-2000]

OOOPs. That's not what I meant. We have two large army bases in Texas: Fort Hood near Austin and Fort Bliss out in El Paso. And we do have a lot of African-Americans in the state, mostly concentrated in the major cities and East Texas.

What I meant is that Sayles placed an Army base in South Texas so he could import a significant number of African-Americans to the area to tell his story. He HAD to do this to emphasize the three races stories. What do they call it? Um, artistic license.

It didn't bother me, but I think it made the African-American story harder to tell. The African-Americans in East Texas are mostly the descendants of freed slaves who have lived with bigotry and discrimination for more than a century.

When I was a reporter in a small East Texas town, I saw a lot of the tensions stemming from this that I never saw growing up in Dallas. There was a word among the African-Americans that became common throughout the region during the violence of the civil rights movement -- accommodation.

Basically, both sides agreed to the accommodation (a compromise) that led to greater involvement of the minorities without the crucible of violence experienced by the Deep South states.

Where the controversial theme for Hispanics has been assimilation, the controversial theme for African-Americans has been accommodation. That really didn't get told in "Lone Star." Sayles kind of grouped the experience of both ethnicities together.

That's why the Army base concept seemed so artifical to me. It ignored the fact that African-Americans are as much a part of Texas as the whites and Hispanics.

As far as the Drive-in symbolism is concerned, I thought it was significant that Sayles came back to this setting. The first time there, it was when the lovers were ripped apart. And we thought, at the time, that the reason was bigotry. By the end of the movie, we realize that traumatic moment was the result of parents hoping to prevent their children from committing a "sin."

It says more about the need for communication between the generations, which was a secondary plot line.

Marc

As a matter of fact, they pulled them out Friday evening in a bid to stay up late. It worked. BTW, the two-year-old thinks the Space Shuttle looks smashing in Forest Green.

Thanks again for the gift. Also, I've looked all over for "Space Camp," but none of the rental places around here carries it. I ended up ordering it from Suncoast Video.

For another take on the Hispanic/White relationship in the American Southwest, see "The Milagro Beanfield War." One of my all-time favorites with a nice little score by Dave Grusin -- availble only as three tracks on his "Migrations" CD.