…there are a great many reasons why Dirty Harry has every right to be considered a classic movie. In many ways it is an example of its star, Clint Eastwood, and its director, Don Siegel’s best work.
Eastwood started his acting career in his late 20s in the television series “Rawhide”. By the mid 1960s he was to finally get his chance to be a leading actor in the famous trilogy of westerns by the noted Italian director Sergio Leone. These films were made in Spain and on a limited budget (Eastwood only received the part because the salary on offer failed to interest any of the major Hollywood actors approached). The trilogy, comprising of the films A Fistful of Dollars (1964), For a Few Dollars More (1965), and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) were not originally made for the American market, but they were successful and finally brought Eastwood to the attention of the Hollywood studios. It is no coincidence then that Hollywood realized Eastwood would make an appealing action hero and started to offer him roles in war movies and police thrillers as well as other cowboy roles.
It is perhaps to Eastwood’s credit that he was able to fit into any of those films with ease. He was (and still is) a natural athlete and looked as at home riding a horse as he did jumping from an aeroplane. By 1971 Eastwood was 41 years old but still performed almost all his own stunts in Dirty Harry (including a famous leap from a bridge onto the roof of a moving bus). In fact Eastwood was not even Warner Brothres first choice to play the lead role of Harry Callahan in Dirty Harry as they had already tried to persuade the much older Frank Sinatra and John Wayne to play it. However it was another Hollywood legend, Paul Newman, who suggested they approach Eastwood after Newman himself turned it down. Now, 35 years on, it is almost impossible to imagine anyone else playing Callahan, for the role suited Eastwood’s personality, wit, humour and screen charisma so perfectly.
It has to be remembered that the early 1970s were a time of turmoil and change in America. There was much resentment and distrust of politicians as the Vietnam war still raged on the other side of the world. Death and violence was on the news every evening and it had also been less than 10 years since the civil rights movement in the south of the country had allowed black people the same rights as whites. And yet, even so, this was an America of prosperity and wealth, epitomized by a huge, petrol hungry cars that were everywhere until the oil crisis a few years later made car manufacturers start to consider the viability of making smaller, more economical models. American film makers also had many of the restrictions of censorship (known as the “Hays code”) removed from them, allowing them to start making more daring and controversial subjects. In many ways Dirty Harry is a film of its time, with all these factors becoming evident in its depiction of America as a violent, crime ridden society where the myths of the virtuous and good heroes of Hollywood legend are replaced by the realities of modern life and a world filled with anger and frustration.
…The film is also full of terrific set-pieces, a tribute to the veteran director Don Siegel who frequently collaborated with Eastwood in the late 1960s and 1970s. The bank robbery scene at the beginning of the film (the only scene not shot on location but at the Warner Brothers film studios) is a terrific example of this and with its legendary “Go ahead, make my day” dialogue shows Eastwood at his most iconic. Dirty Harry was also commercially very successful (it took over $28 million and that was in 1971) and led to four watchable (but still inferior) sequels in which Callahan had to solve various violent crimes.
It is fair to say the Dirty Harry changed the way action films were made for adult audiences. It stripped away the glamour from action movies and showed the consequences of violence and the anger within America itself. It was also one of the first films of its type to spawn big budget sequels with the likes of Die Hard (1988), Speed (1994) and Under Siege (1992) have subsequently done. Whether Dirty Harry is a film that glamorizes or condemns violence is perhaps open to interpretation. However where Dirty Harry really succeeded is in adding a toughness and realism to Hollywood action films as well as treating audience with intelligence. Dirty Harry is a film that acknowledges that the world is changing and is a dangerous and unfair place where bad things happen and we are often powerless to change it.
Have all the heroes died?
A hero, it is said, is someone who is "larger than life," whom we can admire for great qualities or abilities that we may never have. Our heroes reflect the values, hopes, and beliefs of a particular time. Heroes have included political and religions leaders, athletes, movie stars, and musicians.
In the United States, for example, political leaders who led the country to greater freedom and democracy have been heroes to many. (George Washington, the nation's first president, John Kennedy, the vibrant young president who inspired hope, and Martin Luther King, the civil rights leader who fought for racial equality, all attained hero status among Americans). Sports was, and still is, the first source of heroes for many American children. Picture, for example, the 1930s sports stadium: a red-haired freckled-faced boy sits in the stands, magnetized by the style, grace, and actions of the larger-than-life athlete, Lou Gehrig, the famous baseball player who died of a nerve disease that was later named after him. That young boy was a true believer.
Today, however, many people say they do not have heroes. It is difficult to find an equivalent of Washington, Kennedy, King, or Gehrig. Political figures in today’s world of leaders rarely, if ever, appear larger than life to us. In today's world of prying journalists and a television-age public, it seems difficult for anyone to attain heroic stature. What is worse, we now dredge up information about our past heroes, only to take away their heroism: we now know that John Kennedy ran around with other women; there appears to be evidence that Martin Luther King did, too. And today, more and more of our heroes have been forced to abdicate their hero status as new discoveries of their real lives have been made.
For athletes, the days of hero worship may be over as well, as more and more sports figures have been discovered breaking the rules of the game, exhibiting violent behavior in competition, using steroids to intensify muscle development, and abusing alcohol and drugs. Like political leaders of the past, heroic athletes of the past have fallen under the umbrella of "heroes with feet of clay," heroes with human frailties or weaknesses. Even the famous baseball hero, Babe Ruth, has fallen to shame in our modem world. Considered a hero for his outstanding record of home runs, overall excellence as an athlete, and generous contribution to the community, he was a model for many young boys. Today, however, his "model personality" is considered a sham, and lie is put down by many people. They now focus on his failures. Because he ate and drank too much, he had a potbelly something that would never be tolerated in a baseball player today. And, like John Kennedy, he is criticized for having chased women, another unacceptable behavior in a modern-day hero.
With the loss of our heroes, then, what is left for us to look up to? The buzzword in today's language is "role model," someone whose behavior is "imitated," but not necessarily "courageous" or "heroic." Sports players continue to be regarded as role models by their fans and by the baseball team owners, who have an interest in "selling" the heroic quality of their players. Business leaders who have stood up to economic pressure to save American industry from failure have also been considered role models. Take, for example, Lee Iacocca, chief executive officer of Chrysler Corporation, who saved his corporation from bankruptcy and perhaps even prevented a fatal outcome to the American car industry. He persuaded American consumers to buy Chryslers for the good of America; consequently, many considered him a successful business role model.
But even being a role model in today's world is not easy. In fact, anyone daring to enter public life must have an ego big enough to survive the daily investigations into his or her personal affairs. Much of the public, critical of their poor behavior and drug use, has rejected ballplayers as role models. Players' unions, who represent the rights of ballplayers to be treated fairly and paid equitable salaries, will argue that baseball players are just normal people like everybody else, denying any special treatment of them. The business world has also shared in the loss of role models. In another example within the car industry, Roger Smith, chief executive officer of General Motors, is a man who could have, or should have, served as a role model in American business. Yet, he, like so many other public figures, allowed his ego to get in the way. Reports indicate that through bad management and selfishness he allowed his company to fail while his pension was raised; he retired from his position a millionaire.
If our heroes have died and our role models are scrutinized, what can be said about our society? Perhaps the crux of the issue lies in the fact that Americans have always looked to heroes and role models to exemplify traditional American values. Yet today’s public has become ungrateful and ungenerous toward its public figures. It doesn't want to let them get away with having fame and fortune if they are not perfect human beings. Perhaps the public knows too much about them and has become too demanding, or perhaps today’s role models are too self-possessed. But is living without heroes and role models a satisfactory state of affairs?
Heroes of our time
(abridged)
Where are the great men and women who are changing the world for the better? Who are they? The New Statesman invites you, the reader, to nominate your modern hero.
In the late 1970s, the Stranglers released one of the great punk anthems. "No More Heroes" was an expression of dis-enchantment and inertia. The Stranglers' lost heroes were the already dead, such as Shakespeare and Leon Trotsky, or the merely mythic, such as Sancho Panza. There were no more contemporary heroes.
Here at the New Statesman we are not so pessimistic... For everywhere you care to look there are good people doing good, often heroic work. We all know some of them: the single mother living on a difficult estate, who raises her family with dignity and respect; the man who gives up his well-paid job in the City to work for a relief agency; the environmental activist helping to alert the public to global warming. But these people, though admirable, are usually known only to their immediate family and friends, their influence vital yet limited.
We want to discover who you consider to be the heroes of our time - the people, occupying a larger stage, who most inspire through their convictions, courage and good work. Do you, for instance, still believe in the virtues of our political elite? Who, if anyone, at Westminster or in international affairs is worthy of special admiration?`
What of Hans Blix, the former United Nations weapons inspector, who worked so hard to delay the invasion of Iraq? I, for one, admire Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the first democratically elected female head of state in Africa, whose daunting mission is to free her country, Liberia, from corruption and the ravages of civil war.
Away from politics, what do you think of the masters of our new technologies, such as Steve Jobs at Apple, or Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google, or Bill Gates who, in addition to his achievements at Microsoft, is emerging as one of the great philanthropists of this or any other age, a figure to compare with Andrew Carnegie or Joseph Rowntree? What of TV celebrities who use their positions of wealth and privilege, and their captive television audiences, to make a difference - the media chef and entrepreneur Jamie Oliver, with his campaign to improve food in schools, or Oprah Winfrey, with her book club and concern with racial and social issues? Are they heroic in any recognisable sense of the word?
What of ageing-rockers-turned-poverty-campaigners such as Bono and Bob Geldof? One believes in their sincerity, but what of their programmatic utterances and hippyish utopianism, not forgetting their atrocious taste in music and even worse dress sense? Or sportsmen such as Andrew Flintoff, the England cricketer, or Amir Khan, the British-Asian boxer, who inspire and enchant so many of us?
What should we make of those dissidents who, in their battles against tyranny, sacrifice their own and their families' happiness?
One thinks of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and his struggles against Soviet totalitarianism (rather than his recent reinvention as a Russian nationalist-mystic) or Aung San Suu Kyi, so long under house arrest for challenging the military junta in her native Burma. What of the courage of a religious leader such as Desmond Tutu, in South Africa, or a Christian believer such as the mother of the murdered black teenager Anthony Walker who, though grieving, spoke publicly of forgiveness and reconciliation?
"Heroes" can be diabolical as well. It would be not exaggeration to say that, for millions, Osama Bin Laden is kind of a hero: not only did he fight to repel a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he has dared, so the argument goes, to fight against the hegemony of American power.
Another ambivalent hero is Robert Mugabe, a former liberation symbol who, in old age, has emerged as one of the most reactionary of all Africa's failed post-independence leaders. Yet he is still admired by many who cannot forgive colonialism.
So who will be there? That's up to you to decide by nominating your hero and, if you wish, offering a brief justification of your choice.
What makes a hero? By our definition, a hero is a man or woman whose actions have been in the service of the greater good and whose influence is national or international. He or she must be a role model, an inspiration, an optimist: someone who is prepared to act in pursuit of a freer, more equitable and more democratic future without resorting to violence.
Please don't nominate the great dead: we want to find out about those who are with us now and can influence our lives, either through past example or present purpose.
No more heroes? We'll leave you to decide that.
To nominate your hero visit: www.newstatesman.com/heroes
The hack who perfected the fame game
For most of his career, Donald Zec was the film columnist of the Daily Mirror. When he began in this role in the early 1950s, the Mirror, with daily sales of 5.25m, was the world’s largest-selling newspaper, and Britain was the largest overseas market for Hollywood films, with an audience of 25m a week. It is not surprising that Zec was flattered by studio publicists and courted by stars. His cheery Englishness was an advantage, and he achieved a rare intimacy with his subjects in numerous interviews…
Many of the stars he encountered engaged his empathy and earned his admiration. Marilyn Monroe was “a gorgeous, giving creature who ironically had an intrinsic decency that put her lofty detractors to shame”; Elizabeth Taylor “remains a life-battered triumph of a woman”.
Some of this material has appeared in Zec’s out-of-print collection of profiles, Some Enchanted Egos (1973), or in his biographies of Barbra Streisand, Sophia Loren and Lee Marvin…
Zec captured some wonderful moments in his interviews, glimpses that afforded tantalising, often profound insights. Cary Grant, who was born in England, was originally called Archibald Leach. On a visit to Grant’s house in Hollywood, Zec was invited to inspect the contents of his wall safe. “No silver trophies, awards, fancy baubles or other glittering testimony to his truly remarkable career. Instead, there was his school blazer, a box of scout club badges, his father’s pocket watch and his mother’s rings. The inescapable ‘markers’ of Archibald Alexander Leach”. Asked what these meant to him, Grant replied “Agony, actually, old chum”, although he declined to elaborate.
On a flight from Los Angeles to Arizona, where he was seated next to Monroe, one of the engines had to be shut down. Zec speculated that if she died in a crash, the story would dominate the next day’s headlines: “I wondered aloud (admittedly with a reporter’s cunning) how she thought she would be remembered. Typically, she did not answer at once. The question required serious thought. Twenty miles of Arizona desert slid away beneath us. Then with not much of a smile she murmured, ‘Marilyn Monroe, 37, 22, 38’.”
Putting America on wheels
The motor car, alas, is with us to stay; dirty, noisy, unreliable and dangerous it may be, but it is useful too. The question is; useful to whom? Few of us, after all, despite the prosperity of this early 20th century, can afford a “chauffeur” (and who but the daredevil young want, or even know, how to drive themselves?) Yet one far from youthful American has come up with a bold answer: useful to everybody. Henry Ford, a Michigan inventor and entrepreneur, wants to put America on wheels.
Ever since the 13-year-old Mr Ford saw his first steam engine, in 1876, he has been in live with machines. As a young farmer, he was much more interested in gadgets than crops. And when he at last got a job as an engineer with the Edison Illuminating Company in Detroit, he spent all his spare time playing around with cars, building his own “quadricycle” in 1896. Since then he has been one of the pioneers of American motoring, designing, building and racing cars (he claims to be the first man to have driven at more then 90 mph – a feat he achieved on the ice of Lake St Clair as long ago as 1903).
Six years ago, in 1908, Mr Ford took a step that many judged even riskier than such “speed demon” exploits, as that optimistically titled local paper Horseless Age called them. The Ford Motor Company launched a new “universal” car, its “Model T”: a car, as he put it, “for the great multitude, constructed of the best materials after the simplest designs that modern engineering can devise, so low in price that no man making good salary will be unable to own one”.
…Many expected Mr Ford to fail, like most (including two of his own) of the 485 car firms set up before he launched his Model T. The car was a huge gamble. While other makers rushed upmarket – one car offered electric curlers in the back, for female passengers whose coiffure might need refreshment – Mr Ford proclaimed his “a farmer’s car”. It has few accessories and little comfort. But it has ample clearance; it is light; its engine can be used to run mechanical attachments; and it is easy to understand. Yes, but how has he kept down the price – nay, cut it to $550, 35% less than in 1908?
One answer has been skilled finance… But the real secret these days lies in his production methods. Mr Ford has learned two essentials. One – nothing new, but rare in his industry, indeed in his own Detroit factory until the Model T – is the division of labour. No longer does a worker assemble much, even most, of a car. Instead,.. he does one job repeatedly; and hence, better and faster… Second, and more novel, Mr Ford insists that all components be strictly interchangeable, each piston of engine-block, say precisely identical with the next. Today’s machine-tool technology makes this possible. Results: no fiddling or grinding-down to make piston fit block – and no time wasted.
… So “what now?”… As to volume, enthusiasts see no limit…Mr Ford has brought the world two gifts rich in promise: the moving assembly line (not just for his industry, surely) and the resultant low-cost “mass production” – we offer him the phrase – that could make this (not just in America) the century of the motor car.
General Motors: Who Needs Hybrids?
If concept cars are any indication, then General Motors Corp. is ahead of its rivals in the race to build hydrogenpowered vehicles. Exhibit A: The company’s Hy-wire, a $5 million experimental car that powers down the highway by converting hydrogen to electricity and emitting water vapour exhaust. GM execs say the Hy-wire is a glimpse of what it’s planning for hydrogen cars, which they hope will be street-ready in small numbers by 2010. Meanwhile, some of the concept car’s electronic wizardry is already showing up in current models.
The most immediate difference between the Hy-wire and a conventional car is the lack of an engine or transmission. Instead, an electric motor powered by the hydrogen fuel cells turns the front wheels. With the bulky drivetrain gone, engineers were able to design an open cockpit with tons of legroom and cargo space, not to mention a windscreen that practically reaches the floorboards. That allows the driver to see the road directly ahead.
The other differences: there are no pedals or steering wheel. Instead, the driver navigates through traffic with hand controls like those found on an aircraft. To accelerate, he twists a handgrip; to break, he squeezes. A computer relays those signals to the brakes, motor, and steering system. Such electronics suck a lot of juice – power that the beefy hydrogen cells ably supply. But versions of the computer-aided accelerator are already in the Chevrolet Corvette and Cadillac XLR roadster, though with a conventional gas pedal.
What’s so great about computer-aided controls? For starters, they respond faster than traditional controls do. Moreover, if the car starts to skid, the onboard brain automatically adjusts direction. Such stability controls could be a big advance, though they won’t be ready for prime time for a while, says Nick Zielinski, GM’s director of vehicle and technology integration.
Where GM has really excelled is in cramming all that technology into one roomy car. The fuel cells, hydrogen tanks, batteries and computer controls have been packed into an 11-inch-thick chassis. In most fuel cell concept cars, the storage tanks take up too much of the cargo space. The design of the chassis, which resembles a giant skateboard, solves that problem.
It will be years before GM masters the technology. For now, the Hy-wire’s range is a scant 80 miles. Moreover, its fuel cells cost an estimated $50,000 a vehicle, 10 times what any company could afford in a production car. Still, it’s a tantalizing start.
Tourism
Tourism is the act of travel for the purpose of recreation and business, and the provision of services for this act. Tourists are persons who are "travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes not related to the exercise of an activity remunerated from within the place visited" (official UNWTO definition). The distance between these two places is of no significance.
In 1981 International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism defined Tourism in terms pf particular activities selected by choice and undertaken outside the home environment.
Tourism may be classified into the following types:
· Inbound international tourism: Visits to a country by nonresident of that country
· Outbound international tourism: Visits by the residents of a country to another country
· Internal tourism: Visits by residents of a country to their own
· Domestic tourism: Inbound international tourism + internal tourism
· National tourism: Internal tourists + outbound international tourism
Required factors
1. Discretionary income, i.e. money to spend on non-essentials
2. Time in which to do so
3. Infrastructure in the form of accommodation facilities and means of transport.
Individually, sufficient health is also a condition, and of course the inclination to travel.
Wealthy people have always travelled to distant parts of the world to see great buildings or other works of art; to learn new languages; or to taste new cuisine. As long ago as the time of the Roman Republic places such as Baiae were popular coastal resorts for the rich.
The terms tourist and tourism were first used as official terms in 1937 by the League of Nations. Tourism was defined as people travelling abroad for periods of over 24 hours.
The history of European tourism can perhaps be said to originate with the medieval pilgrimage. Although underaken primarily for religious reasons, the pilgrims in the Canterbury Tales quite clearly saw the experience as a kind of holiday (the term itself being derived from the 'holy day' and its associated leisure activities). Pilgrimages created a variety of tourist aspects that still exist - bringing back souvenirs, obtaining credit with foreign banks (in medieval times utilising international networks established by Jews and Lombards), and making use of space available on existing forms of transport (such as the use of medieval English wine ships bound for Vigo by pilgrims to Santiago De Compostella). Pilgrimages of one sort or another are still important in modern tourism - such as to Lourdes or Knock in Ireland. But there are modern equivalents - Graceland and the grave of Jim Morrison in Pere Lachaise Cemetery.
In the course of the 16th century, it became fashionable in England to undertake a Grand Tour. The sons of the nobility and gentry were sent upon an extended tour of Europe as an educational experience. The eighteenth century was the golden age of the Grand Tour. The modern equivalent of the Grand Tour is the phenomenon of the backpacker, although cultural holidays are also important.
Health tourism has always existed, but it was not until the 18th century that it became important. In England, it was associated with Spas, places with supposedly health-giving mineral waters, treating diseases from gout to liver disorders and bronchitis. Bath was the most fashionable resort, but Buxton, Harrogate, and Tunbridge Wells, amongst others, also flourished. Of course, people visited these places for the balls and other entertainments, just as much as 'the waters'. The population was following in the steps of Royalty. King George III made regular visits to Weymouth when in poor health. At the time, a number of doctors argued the benefits of bathing in sea water, and sea bathing as a widespread practice was popularised by the Prince Regent (later George IV), who frequented Brighton for this purpose.
Leisure travel was a British invention due to sociological factors. Britain was the first European country to industrialize, and the industrial society was the first society to offer time for leisure to a growing number of people. Initially, this did not apply to the working masses, but rather to the owners of the machinery of production, the economic oligarchy, the factory owners, and the traders. These comprised the new middle class.
The British origin of this new industry is reflected in many place names. At Nice, one of the first and best-established holiday resorts on the French Riviera, the long esplanade along the seafront is known to this day as the Promenade des Anglais; in many other historic resorts in continental Europe, old well-established palace hotels have names like the Hotel Bristol, the Hotel Carlton or the Hotel Majestic - reflecting the dominance of English customers.
The father of modern mass tourism was Thomas Cook who, on 5 July 1841, organized the first package tour in history, by chartering a train to take a group of temperance campaigners from Leicester to a rally in Loughborough, some twenty miles away. There had been railway excursions before, but this one included entrance to an entertainment held in private grounds in the price. Cook immediately saw the potential of a convenient “off the peg” holiday product in which everything was included in one cost. He organised packages inclusive of accommodation for the Great Exhibition, and afterwards pioneered package holidays in both Britain (particularly in Scotland) and on the European continent (where Paris and the Alps were the most popular destinations). He was soon followed by others (the Polytechnic Touring Association, Dean and Dawson etc.), with the result that the tourist industry developed rapidly in early Victorian Britain. Initially it was supported by the growing middle classes who could afford the luxury of travel but the Bank Holiday Act 1871 introduced a statutory right for workers to take holidays, even if they were not paid at the time. By the last quarter of the 19th century, the tradition of the working class holiday had become firmly established in Britain. These were largely focused upon the seaside resorts.
However, the real age of international mass travel began with the growth of air travel after WWII. In the immediate post-war period, there was a surplus of transport aircraft and a number of ex military pilots ready to fly them. They were available for charter flights, and tour operaters began to use them for European destinations.
There has been a discernable upmarket trend in tourism over the last few decades. Tourists have higher levels of disposable income and greater leisure time. They are also better educated and have more sophisticated tastes. There is now a demand for a better quality product in many quarters.
· The old “sun, sea, and sand” mass market has fragmented. People want more specialised versions of it, such as “Club 18 -30”, quieter resorts with select hotels, self-catering, etc.
· People are taking second holidays in the form of short breaks/city breaks, ranging from British and European cities to country hotels.
· There has been a growth in niche markets catering for special interests or activities.
There have also been changes in lifestyle, which may call into question the current definitions of tourism. Some people (particularly the 45+ and retired) may be adopting a tourism lifestyle, living as a tourist all the year round - eating out several times a week, going to the theatre, daytripping, and indulging in short breaks several times a year.