The world is undoubtedly getting smaller with the degree of separation between us shrinking, but the story behind the 2015 movie Twinsters is more than just a case of a small world — it is sheer luck joining forces with Facebook and YouTube to lessen the emotional and geographical distance between two people.
Twinsters centers around two women in their late 20s – one Korean-American actress, Samantha Futerman, best known for her supporting role in the 2005 film Memoirs of a Geisha. In recent years, she appears in 21 & Over and Man-Up.
Samantha directs the documentary Twinsters.
In 2013, Anais Bordier, a French fashion student, came across a YouTube video featuring Samantha and was ‘struck by their uncanny resemblance, ’ so Anais messaged Samantha on Facebook. After discovering they shared a birth date and were born in the same town in Korea, they knew — even though their adoption papers did not state it — it was highly likely they were twins.
As the title suggests, they do learn (through DNA testing) that they are, in fact, identical twins. The documentary is about their steadily advancing journey into sisterhood. The story begins in the United States, heads to France and eventually back to Korea where both women are reunited with the foster parents.
It is a touching, enjoyable ‘feel-good’ story that showcases both how small the world is and how modern technology, like social media, made their reunion possible.
Rated 5 out of 5. An interesting, engaging and thoughtful look at the emotional journey of twin sisters separated at birth. The movie is currently available on Amazon Prime.
One of the parts of American history that I am least familiar with is the history of the Indians. Until I started studying the Colonial Era, I did not realize just how many nations and tribes existed in North America.
Reel Injun, filmed and produced by Neil Diamond in 2009, is an intriguing look at Hollywood’s depiction of Native Americans over the decades. The strength of the film is it is told from a non-White perspective, which I think, gives one a better understanding of how the stereotypes, created by films, impacted generations of children and adults.
One interview that stood out for me was of a middle-aged Indian explaining how he and his brother would watch Westerns at the local theater on Saturdays. But when the finale of the movie began — the scene where the Calvary or other white men pursued and killed all the Indians — his brother would put his head down and refuse to watch. Having watched plenty of Westerns myself, I never once thought about the type of message the films delivered to impressionable kids.
The movie is filled with old familiar clips, includes an interview with Clint Eastwood, and has a couple surprises — like famous actors billed as Native Americans in real life who were not Indian.
The documentary is currently available on Netflix.
Getting an accurate source of information is difficult in the United States. Although news organizations seldom hide their political slant anymore parsing out the truth from the various agencies is, even for the most diligent viewer, a difficult task. Some even claim fact-checking sites are biased.
But it was a singular TV event that launched our modern world of pundit TV – the concept of bringing on two guests with opposing viewpoints onto a show — and then asking questions designed to create to lively debate. It makes for great TV since the guests are usually entertaining.
The beginning of this modern news approach is captured in the film Best of Enemies. The film is currently available on Netflix.
A Year Of Turmoil
The year is 1968 – one of the most critical, turning points in modern American history – and the players on the stage are two intellectual men – one from the left, author Gore Vidal, and one from the right, William Buckley Jr., founder and editor of the National Review.
Setting The Stage
The film is built around a series of debates that ABC news held during the GOP and Democrat presidential conventions in 1968. ABC was the third ranking TV company in the country – and a very low-ranking third at best. Since they could not compete with CBS or NBC – they decided to abort the standard approach of gavel-to-gavel convention coverage and try something new. They invited Buckley and Vidal to commentate on the conventions. What unfolded on camera was the increasing disgust the men felt for each other.
Behind The Scenes
If the film only covered the debates, it would quickly mire in a he said-he said event that most Americans have grown accustomed to. But the film also pulls in the events of 1968 – like the police brutality in Chicago and the changing rhetoric and language concerning race – and provides biographical sketches of the two men. Buckley, of course, largely through his publication is credited with creating the Ronald Reagan constituency while Vidal became one of the most provocative and successful novelists of his generation. Both men were well-connected with high ranking politicians including presidents. Both men viewed the other as the personification of everything that was wrong in the United States.
Hatred Explodes On Air
The climax of the film is the final debate between the two men. An exchange becomes very heated during a discussion concerning the police brutality in Chicago. The confrontation quickly moves from politics to personal when Vidal calls Buckley a crypto-Nazi and Buckley comes unglued. After calling Vidal a [expletive] queer Buckley threatens to punch Vidal. All of this unfolds on live TV – relatively tame by today’s standards.
In The End
The men continued to spar publically after the incident — both writing print pieces about the meltdown — and Buckley filed a defamation suit against Vidal over Vidal’s article. Vidal filed a countersuit. After the event, Buckley launched a successful TV show and Vidal continued to write — although his fame began to falter in the 1980s.
Who Should Watch It?
If you are not interested in political theory and the forces that create it, then don’t watch the film. However, if you are interested in how TV news became pundit-based, it’s worth watching. The film looks at how a ABS’s desire to improve ratings forever changed the way Americans received their news.
Rated 4 out of 5
Although I am not a Buckley fan, I did feel that the film was slanted somewhat against him and his position. But, in the film’s defense, Buckley is not necessarily a likeable person. In live footage, he comes across as arrogant, conceited and, in general, very unpleasant with a condescending attitude. Vidal, on the other hand, in the live footage is more polished, but it did appear (I did not count minutes) that Vidal was given more time (via interviews) to expound on his belief that Buckley’s ideology was undermining and destroying the democratic process in America.
Although this site began as a repository for American history stories, over time it essentially became a 'brain dump.' For more than a year, I've used the site to work through my beliefs and opinions in this post-truth era of political illiteracy.
Charlie R. Claywell 