The Tragic Heroism of Curt Flood and Phil Ochs

Curt Flood

Scenes of my young years were warm in my mind,
Visions of shadows that shine.
Til one day I returned and found they were the
Victims of the vines of changes.
— Phil Ochs, “Changes”

Most movies about heroes usually end in triumph with the hero accomplishing great things, making the feats seem easy in retrospect once you see the result. But if it were easy to be a hero, there would be nothing unique about those who sacrifice in an attempt to change the world. Two recent documentaries remind us that there is a real risk and cost to attempting to accomplish something great. One film, The Curious Case of Curt Flood (2011), is a new HBO documentary about the baseball player who attempted to break baseball’s reserve clause. The other movie, released on DVD this July 2011, is Phil Ochs: There But for Fortune (2010), telling the story of the activist and folk-singer. Both stories remind us that standing up for one’s beliefs has costs.

The Curious Case of Curt Flood follows HBO’s tradition of creating outstanding sports documentaries, although much of Curt Flood’s story is not about athletic prowess. Curt Flood had been a star center fielder with the St. Louis Cardinal when the team opted to trade him to the Philadelphia Phillies after the 1969 season. At the time, players were limited by a reserve clause in their contracts that gave them no say about where they played. Flood wanted to change that, and he decided to sue Major League Baseball in a case that eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Curious Case follows Flood’s suit and Flood’s life as you see how much he gave up by foregoing his baseball career to pursue what he saw as a basic human right of not being controlled by one’s employer. At the time, other players were afraid to support him openly, and many in the public viewed Flood’s actions as showing a greedy ballplayer. But with candid interviews from people like Flood’s former teammate Bob Gibson, the film shows not only how Flood was a hero but how much he sacrificed as his life spiraled downward into alcoholism and other troubles after he made the decision to stand up for what he believed.

Phil Ochs There But for the Fortune Phil Ochs sang and stood for a number of issues during the 1960s and 1970s. He never achieved the success of his contemporary Bob Dylan, but he will always be a hero to members of the anti-war and civil rights movements. Phil Ochs: There But for Fortune has interviews with Ochs’s family members, anti-war activists, other singers (but no Dylan), and recordings from Ochs himself. There are a number of videos of Ochs talking and singing that I had never seen before, and it was a revelation for me to see him throughout all stages of his career.

The Ochs film is excellent, although there is a sadness that hangs over the tale even from the beginning. In retrospect, perhaps it is because we know how long it took for the Vietnam war to end or because of a sense of how Ochs’s life would end. Like Flood, Ochs was a victim of both his own flaws and of flaws in American society.

While a lot of people will know the stories of these two men, I suspect that many more are merely familiar with a one- or two-sentence biography of each and will learn a lot from these films. Both are excellent documentaries about two flawed men who reached for the stars and are heroes even if they fell short of their goals. The Curious Case of Curt Flood and Phil Ochs: There But for Fortune are two stories everyone should know. And they are two reminders of why so few people aspire to be heroes in the real world.

If you’d like more information, HitFlix has a good review of the Curt Flood film, and The Huffington Post has a good review of the Ochs film. Curt Flood photo via HBO.

  • One Degree of Separation Between Bob Dylan & Twilight Zone: Bonnie Beecher & “Come Wander With Me”
  • Sheila Atim Peforming “Tight Connection to My Heart” (Great Bob Dylan Covers)
  • Bonnie “Prince” Billy’s Cover of Bob Dylan’s “Brownsville Girl”
  • Vampire Weekend Saluting a Font By Covering Bob Dylan’s “Jokerman”
  • Clarence Ashley: “The Cuckoo” & “Little Sadie”
  • Dylan Releases “Murder Most Foul”
  • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)

    I Brought a Comb: “Stand By Me” is 25

    Stand By Me gun This week is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the release of the movie Stand By Me. Like me, you should plan to watch it again. It is a movie that many of us connect to over and over again. For example, about a year ago, I discovered that a childhood friend had passed away. I had lost touch with the friend when we were both kids and he moved away, but I still felt close to him. The best explanation I could give to anyone at the time was a line from Stand By Me, where the writer character played by Richard Dreyfus looks back and writes, “I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?”

    Below is a clip from the film, but you should check out Will Wheaton’s new blog entry, “I was twelve going on thirteen when I made the movie that changed my life.” Wheaton, who played Gordie in the movie, discusses reuniting with the surviving cast members Corey Feldman and Jerry O’Connell. And he talks about coming to terms with the death of River Phoenix. It is a moving must-read for any fan of the movie.

    There are some other good articles about the anniversary around the web. Popdose has a thoughtful piece about the movie’s anniversary, including some discussion of the Stephen King book that was the source for the film. SlashFilm lists twenty-five lessons from the film. And NPR has an audio story that includes an interview with Wheaton that he discussed in his blog post. Few movies hold up as well as Stand By Me, which is a genuine classic about being young and growing up. As Wheaton notes in his blog post, “[M]ovies like Stand By Me come along once in a generation.” That is true, if we are lucky.

  • “American Graffiti” Opens in 1973
  • New Honest Trailer for “The Princess Bride”
  • Springsteen Joins U2 at Madison Square Garden
  • Childhood Summers In the Movies
  • River Phoenix’s Final Movie
  • The Fiscal Cliffs of Insanity
  • Cinderella story, Outta nowhere: Caddyshack Anniversary

    Caddyshack was released more than three decades ago on July 25, 1980. Although the movie initially received a number of poor reviews, over time it has become a comedy classic.  But there still may be some things about the movie that you don’t know.

    Did you know . . .

    Caddyshack

    Caddyshack was the first movie directed by Harold Ramis, who would go on to direct other classics such as Groundhog Day.

    – The idea for the movie came from Brian Doyle-Murray’s experiences working as a caddy in Illinois.

    – Originally, the producers planned to get Don Rickles for the Rodney Dangerfield part as Al Czervik.

    – At one point, a young Mickey Rourke was considered for the role of caddy Danny.

    Doug Kenney, who co-wrote Caddyshack with Doyle-Murray and Ramis, also co-wrote National Lampoon’s Animal House (1978) and co-founded National Lampoon Magazine in 1970. He also had a small role in Animal House, where he played Stork. Unfortunately, he was despondent over the early bad reviews for Caddyshack and never saw the movie achieve its cult status. Kenney died a little more than a month after Caddyshack was released.  He died while in Hawaii, where he was trying to fight various demons. He either fell off a cliff or committed suicide.

    – Many of the film’s segments were improvised by the various actors, including Bill Murray making up much of the role of Carl Spackler.

    – The character of Al Czervik was initially a small role.  But Rodney Dangerfield could not be stopped when he started his routines.  Thus, he ended up with a much larger role than originally planned.

    – If you want to read an excellent article about more of the story behind Caddyshack, check out this article from (where else?) Golf Digest.

    Is Caddyshack one of the best comedies of all time or an overrated movie? Leave a comment.

  • Visiting the Locations for “Groundhog Day”
  • Groundhog Day (and Ghostbusters?) 2012
  • Happy Groundhog Day!
  • Picture Show Online Tribute to John Prine
  • Teaser Trailer for New “The Jungle Book” from Disney
  • New Track from Darlene Love: “Forbidden Nights”
  • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)

    Dear Zachary (Missed Movies)

    Cover of "Dear Zachary:A Letter to a Son ...
    Cover via Amazon

    Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father
    (2008) is a moving documentary that filmmaker Kurt Kuenne made after his friend Andrew Bagby was murdered.  More than anything, the film is a tribute to his friend.

    Dear Zachary explores how one person may touch many others and how one tragedy connects to loved ones.  The film does address the solving of the crime.  But the movie is not a prolonged mystery, although it does follow the quest for some sense of justice.

    Much of the drama of the film, though, comes from attempts to return the alleged perpetrator to the United States from Canada.  And then, there is a twist. Bagby’s friends and family learn that he left behind a son, who is the Zachary in the title.

    The film then becomes an attempt to tell the son about the father he will never know. Much of the movie focuses on Bagby’s parents.  It recounts how they have dealt with losing their only child.  Their agony is genuine throughout the movie, as they face additional hurdles and heartbreak.

    My one criticism of the movie is that it over-simplifies the legal issues involved in the attempts to extradite the alleged perpetrator.  The movie makes an argument that Canada needs to reform its bail system. And it argues for an automatic rule that might not work in all cases.

    While it is true that the system did not work in this case, the failures may have been more from the actors in the system than the system itself.  It was fairly clear that the woman who killed Bagby was mentally ill.  And the movie only briefly notes her psychiatrist’s misconduct that led to her release. Thus, the movie ignores part of the problem with the system.  It also avoids the question of whether putting more potentially innocent people in jail is the solution.

    Along these lines, the movie may attempt too much by tacking on a political statement that the filmmaker is not willing to fully explore.  But it is an understandable oversight in light of the personal story.

    The movie’s appearance and lighting reveal that the film is not an expensive Hollywood vehicle.  But it is compelling and a good story.

    Although the movie goes in some different directions, those directions are driven by the narrative of real events.  The film is a very good documentary about the tragedies that befall when individuals die too soon.  And it reminds us of the love that can live on after their deaths.

    {Missed Movies is our continuing series on good films you might have missed because they did not receive the recognition they deserved when released.}

    If you have already seen Dear Zachary, head over to the movie’s website for an update.  If you have not yet seen the movie, wait until after you see it before checking out the update, which contains spoilers.

  • “Paul Williams Still Alive” (Missed Movies)
  • Missed Movies: Project Nim (short review)
  • Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop . . . Being a Jerk?
  • The Tillman Story (Mad Movies)
  • Although the Oscars Passed Over “Little Richard: I Am Everything,” You Shouldn’t
  • Nicolas Cage Shines In Modest But Surprising “Pig” (Short Review)
  • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)

    An Industry Attempts to Prevent Gasland from Winning an Oscar (Mad Movies)

    {Note: On February 21, 2011, Chimesfreedom posted the following discussion of the documentary Gasland, but for some reason the blog post disappeared in early July 2011. The web hosting company does not know what happened, so we are re-posting the review, which is still relevant in light of recent debates in states like New York on the practice of fracking.}

    With this post and a post about The Tillman Story, Chimesfreedom starts a series on “Movies that Make Us Mad.” These movies expose information that we might not otherwise know about, revealing misinformation, lies, and hidden stories that make us angry.

    Gasland movie With the Academy Awards later this week, we are starting with a movie that has an industry so upset the industry is trying to prevent the film from winning an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. The movie is Gasland (2010), a documentary about the natural gas industry that is available on DVD and Blu Ray.

    The movie begins with the filmmaker, Josh Fox, getting an offer of more than $100,000 from gas companies to be allowed to drill on his land, and the offer sets him off on a cross-country journey. Fox visits the homes of a number of people who claim to have been affected by natural gas companies in their areas. The movie explains how the gas companies drill into the ground and then pump tons of water mixed with numerous chemicals into the ground to get the natural gas. The homeowners in the movie claim to be affected by the air pollutants and they show the effects on their drinking water, ranging from health problems, livestock and animals losing hair and dying, and being able to light the gas coming out of their water faucets.

    America’s Natural Gas Alliance, i.e, the natural gas industry, has responded to the documentary by saying there is no link between their drilling for oil and the problems shown in the movie. One oil and gas industry organization has even tried to get the Motion Picture Academy to revoke its best documentary Oscar nomination for the movie.

    While watching the movie, I did wonder what the other side to the story was, as things are not always black and white. There is a problem sometimes with taking anecdotal evidence, such as a few people having contaminated water, and drawing a big conclusion without using the scientific method to reach that conclusion. But there is also a problem that individuals have no power, and big industry has all the power. That’s why movies like Gasland are important. Even though the truth may be somewhere between the self-interested response of the gas companies and the stories shown in the movie, the documentary is an insightful look that raises important issues that most of us probably never would think about otherwise.

    The gas industry memo does not respond to the information in the movie about how the industry was made exempt from several national environmental laws by a bill that Pres. George W. Bush signed into law in 2005. The movie also asserts that the exemption benefited the vice-president’s former company, Halliburton, which developed the drilling technology of “fracking” or hydraulic fracturing which involves using high pressure to fracture shale to release the gas underground.

    The movie does an excellent job of telling the stories of individuals in middle America who are largely powerless against corporate interests. By contrast, the state of New York worked toward a moratorium on shale gas drilling [July 2011 Update: It now looks like New York may allow this type of drilling]. Most importantly, the movie makes you more aware of the issue and want to learn more. And it makes you mad. Fracking mad.

    Did you see the movie? What did you think? Leave a comment.

  • 3 Movies That Make Us Mad
  • 2011 Oscar Predictions Roundup
  • The Tillman Story (Mad Movies)
  • Although the Oscars Passed Over “Little Richard: I Am Everything,” You Shouldn’t
  • Daniel Ellsberg: The Most Dangerous Man
  • Movies That Make Us Mad: “Merchants of Doubt”
  • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)

    ]]>