BDeWittP

This is a pretty good episode and, in my opinion, one of the better ones of the sixth season. This was when the show was at it's best, just before the quality of the series began to decline. It was also when more and more of the plots started to move away from the Ingalls familial relationships and focus on other characters and stories. The story opens with Milo Stavroupolis, who was once the mighty European Heavyweight Greco-Roman wrestling champion and is now a patsy paid to lose in fixed wrestling matches.

His wife is in the hospital, dying, and admonishes him for making himself a laughingstock in the fake matches, and pretending that he loves it. Milo tries to explain, unconvincingly, that he does indeed care because he is only giving the public what they want. In truth, he is only participating in the matches because he needs to pay his wife's hospital bills. His wife, Anna, doesn't buy it and wishes she wasn't in such poor health so he wouldn't have to resort to the wrestling schemes to keep her alive.

As it turns out, the next stop for Milo (traveling as the # 1 Heavyweight Wrestling Contender), Champion Hans Mueller, and their shrewd, conniving promoter, Jimmy Hart is in Mankato. They search for a new "contender" to wrestle Milo, only planning to have him lose the bout to the Champ, Mueller, to lengthen they odds so that they can make more money.

Well, the next guy happens to be Jonathan "Big John" Garvey. Jimmy and Milo take an immediate interest in Garvey, noticing his size and strength while he is unloading his wagon. Milo picks a fight with him, letting Garvey manhandle him. After some conning by Hart, Garvey is persuaded into thinking that he is he's a good wrestler and agrees to wrestle Milo again in an elimination bout, while making him think that he will most likely beat the Champ, Mueller.

After Jonathon beats Milo in the fixed bout, and Milo finds out that his wife has died, Milo has a change of heart, and we learn that Jimmy Hart isn't the only one with tricks up his sleeve. Milo, desperate to redeem himself, confronts Garvey telling him that the bout was indeed fixed, and that he threw the match. After they wrestle again, Garvey is indeed convinced that Milo is the real deal. He agrees to let Milo stand in for him in the Championship bout. Milo then tells Mueller at the start of the bout "This time, I not wrestle like clown."

The ending is actually somewhat predictable, but very redeeming and satisfying. Leo Gordon, playing thugs most of his career, does an excellent job of playing the confused and depressed Milo Stavroupolis. We see his inner conflict and his ambivalence about the predicament he's in. Ray Walston is also excellent as the crooked and smooth-talking conman, Jimmy Hart. Jack Yates is also good as the smug, arrogant Champion.

I wonder if this episode has any historical accuracy, as the premise of the story still has relevance today with the WWF being as fake as it is. The King is Dead is a good character study and more about the redemption of a human being and being truthful, rather than wrestling. This is a well-acted, entertaining, and very satisfying episode to watch. The King is Dead is definitely a contender for one of the season's best episodes.

On These Grounds opens with the quote "Pull a thread here and you'll find that it's attached to the rest of the world." Amen. Unfortunately, the world is spiraling downward very fast. This movie is a prime example of that. The level we've sunk to is amazing, infuriating, and scary. This movie reminded me exactly of just how infuriating it was watching "Stranger Fruit." The movie's focus is on a disrespectful belligerent student, who happens to be a black female and makes her into not only a victim, but a hero. On October 26th, 2015, at Spring Valley High in South Carolina, Officer Ben Fields was called in to a classroom by a math teacher. The student, Shakara, was politely asked to leave the classroom and refused. Hold it right there. Why didn't she just do as she was told? Her friend Niya encouraged her classmates to get their cameras out. She started questioning the officer. The officer forcefully removed the student. Both were later taken to jail for their actions. The officer was later fired for excessive force. The officer was white and the students were black. Supposition: racism.

Okay, I'll concede that going to jail may be a little harsh, but why are students disrupting class in the first place? Why did the teacher feel the need to call the officer to the classroom? This is exactly what is wrong with society today: encouraging disrespect for authority, supporting the disrespectful people who cause the problems, and wrongfully blaming the authority figures. It's also calling this a racial issue. The movie has everything backwards. This was not a racial issue, it's another one of those issues our society is making into a racial issue.

The student, Shakara, was an IEP (Individualized Education Plan) student, with a learning disability. She was attending a math class and wanted to call her resource teacher because she didn't understand math and refused to take the classroom test, thinking she would most likely fail. The teacher asked her to leave the classroom. She refused. At this point, the film focuses on the teacher being at fault for just giving her a detention and "leaving it at that." Really? Doesn't the teacher have a right to remove a student from the classroom? Maybe the kid wasn't disrupting the class, but she was still being disrespectful. Why isn't the focus on the fact that maybe if the student had just left, this "excessive force" would've been unnecessary?

Officer Ben Fields politely asked her to leave, he tried to be reasonable, and she refused. The officer physically removed her, throwing her to the ground. After several attempts to be reasonable, the student was resisting and not complying. The disturbing thing about this film is that focus is never on teaching kids to respect authority, but rather, why are our kids being arrested? Why are officers getting physical with the kids?

Maybe if parents taught these young disrespectful kids to just do as their told and argue in front of the judge instead of refusing to comply with and respect authority, maybe we wouldn't have these problems. If students were taught respect for their teachers in the first place, maybe we wouldn't need police in the schools. Why not focus on the real problem? Society needs to get their priorities straight and get that part right. If we focus more on moving closer to teaching respect for law and order, rather than moving closer to anarchy and anti-authority, we definitely wouldn't have these problems. The movie needs to get that part right. I have a message for the producers of this film: this kid should've done what she was told!

Carbon Copy is one of those movies where you may laugh occasionally, but later you realize that you're not proud of what you're laughing at. This movie seemed like it had something to say about WASPs, affluence and racial discrimination, but didn't know really how to say it. The old adage "the wrong execution of the right idea" does indeed do justice to this film.

Carbon Copy is intended to be a comedy, when in truth, it's more offensive than funny. That's because it seems to take racism seriously and not presenting it as a joke. Movies like Blazing Saddles were funny because when they're intended as comedies and poking fun of racism, the material is indeed laughable because we know it's supposed to be funny. When it's presented as a serious situation and the way people think life is supposed to be, it's not going to work in a comedy. The racism portrayed in this movie would have been much more effective as a drama with better writing as a social commentary, but back to the movie.

The movie starts with Walter Whitney (George Segal), whom we learn has later anglicized his name from Weisenthal, living with a wife named Vivian (Susan Saint James) who doesn't show him affection and a stepdaughter Mary Ann (Vicky Dawson) who doesn't show him any respect. Walter lives in the very affluent, white community of San Marino, California. This looks like a place where no one would be able to live if they weren't a white millionaire.

Despite his empty home life, Walter seems content to be in a high paying job, driving a nice car, and living in a mansion. Walter then gets hit right between the eyes with an unexpected shock that changes his life and turns his world upside down, a visit from a seventeen-year-old black boy who tells him he's his son, a bright young man by the name of Roger Porter, played very well by Denzel Washington in his film debut (the only real significance this film seems to have). Walter loved Roger's mother, Lorraine, but seems reluctant to accept his son as he knows it will jeopardize his career status as well as his acceptance in his family and community.

We learn that Roger's father-in-law, played by Jack Warden, in a flashback encouraged Walter to end his relationship with Lorraine to marry his daughter, who is white, or he would not be accepted in the community. This is where the flaws in the movie begin. Why is this information being given to the audience in a scene where Walter is confiding in his lawyer and best friend Victor (Dick Martin) before the scene where he meets his son, rather than after? It seems like the information is being forced on the audience to set up the other scenes, rather than explain it in a logical sequence after Walter meets his son.

Roger has bad news, his mother Lorraine, has just died. Walter seems to accept him only because he sees him as the offspring of the woman he once loved, and not unconditionally because he's his son. The screenplay never makes it clear whether he feels guilty for abandoning the woman he loved or that he wants to get to know his son when they first meet.

Walter, knowing that Roger will not be accepted as his son because of his race, tries to disguise the situation by convincing his wife to "adopt an under-privileged black teenager" so that her friends in the community will see her as compassionate. The plan is to "make it her victory, not your defeat." Walter and Vivian agree that Roger can board with them "only if he stays in the garage." Real hospitable.

At the dinner table, Vivian asks, of all people, her daughter Mary Ann's, if her fiancee's father, who's a respected judge in the community, would approve of Roger. Only then will they agree to allow him to live with them. Vivian later learns that the real reason Walter wants him in their home and adopt him is that he's his biological son, just as Mary Ann is Vivian's biological daughter. Vivian refuses to accept him because he's black.

Walter is thrown out of the house, his car (which belongs to the company he works for) is confiscated, his credit cards are cut, and his father-in-law and boss fires him. All the marital assets are transferred to his wife, and she then wants a divorce. Things really start to go downhill for Roger, he has his belongings thrown onto his lawn, no one in the area will hire him, he moves in with his son to a cheap motel and later a slum apartment, and he finally has to resort to shoveling horse manure just so that they can afford to eat.

Walter's father-in-law and wife later pay him a visit in the run-down apartment, showing respect for his resilience and ability to survive. They agree to take him back only if he returns without his son. Roger later confesses that he only entered Walter's life to cause trouble for him because he was angry that he abandoned his mother. Roger also admits that he was happy when his problems began, and later agrees that they should part ways and return to their own worlds where they belong. Walter later learns to love his son after learning that he is not a high school dropout, but a gifted student pursuing further education, he seems to want to get to know his son rather than seeing him as a distraction. Is this because he has a new respect for him? Or does he just love him because he's intelligent and a good student? This is never clarified either.

The ending, which I will not give away, is neither redeeming nor satisfying because it doesn't seem like the changes in the Segal character's attitude about his son or the people surrounding him have any credibility. Why doesn't the argument with Walter and his father-in-law about his lack of acceptance for non-whites, specifically Roger, have more anger and emotion? It would have been much more effective as longer scene with more clarity and intensity instead of just a scene with a brief quarrel. It cheats the audience out what could have been a great climactic moment in the story.

There are also some questions that go unanswered in the movie. Questions like why would such a smart, educated businessman like Walter have no money saved or assets protected? Why wouldn't he just use a checking account instead of credit cards if he makes so much money? How could he not know he has an illegitimate son?

George Segal gives a very good performance and so does Denzel Washington. Perhaps they gave a better performance than their characters deserve. The director of the movie, Michael Schultz, ironically, is black. Strange. You'd think with all the racial insults and stereotyping in the movie that a black man would stay as far away from the project as possible.

Carbon Copy was released in 1981, even then, after racial jokes on show like All in The Family and shows with black cast members like What's Happening, Sanford and Son, Good Times, and The Jeffersons (quite possibly "four of their own television shows" being alluded to in the movie by Susans Saint James) hit the tv airwaves, I still think the material would have been taken offensively by audiences.

The message this movie seems to convey is that society will not accept you and will not be able to live a comfortable lifestyle unless you're white. Jews, blacks, hispanics, etc., are "not one of us" therefore not accepted in those affluent social circles. This may be true to a certain extent, but when a movie takes it seriously as a true reality, it's not comical. This is another one of those movies which has the potential to be good, if the writing fit the genre. Carbon Copy would have had something to say as a dramatic social commentary film with better writing, instead of intending to send a message as a comedy. It just doesn't work.