Show Me a Hero

The hero in this 2015 HBO biopic is the late Nick Wasicsko, the one-time mayor of Yonkers who fought heroically to allow public housing to be built in the eastern section of the city. The construction was mandated by a federal judge, but implementing that mandate in the Yonkers of 1987 required a bit of heroism. Local demagogues insisted that an "outsider" judge could not be allowed to integrate predominately white neighborhoods by de-concentrating public housing that had  been in he western part of the city.

Winona appears in early episodes of this six-part miniseries, as Vinni Restiano, Wasicsko's close friend and confidant, his key ally as he does the right thing but pays an increasingly high price for his convictions. She returns in the final episodes, as he becomes increasingly consumed by desperate efforts to remain politically relevant in a city he loves. One by one, his allies become his political enemies, and when he parts ways with Restiano, the audience knows that he has reached the political and personal end of the road.

This story resonated with us, as we have spent the last year getting to know a bit about Yonkers while our kid attended Sarah Lawrence College in the adjacent community of Bronxville. Thirty years on from the events of this miniseries, it remains one of the most racially segregated cities in the United States, but also one in which many people continue to be committed to improving their city. For example, earlier this year I wrote about the daylighting project on the Saw Mill River downtown.

Show Me a Hero is an important story, told in a way that allows viewers to sympathize with Wasicsko, even as we watch his decline into a less likeable politician. The fifth and sixth episodes would have benefited from tighter editing, as the political machinations become ever more trivial and tedious. Winona is effective but not outstanding in her supporting role.

Final verdict: three croquet balls

The Experimenter

Our Winona is back on her game in this film about the infamous obedience studies conducted by Dr. Stanley Milgram in the early 1960s. I first learned about these studies the same way so many have - in my introductory psychology class in college. Milgram found that the majority of his subjects (65%) would continue to inflict pain on another person if a person in authority told them to do so, even as the "victim" (a confederate in the experiment) screamed in pain.

My Psychology 101 class is also where I also first learned about Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and was told that it would be unlikely that any IRB today would approve such a study. I was, therefore, surprised to discover that a study conducted as recently as 2009 Jerry Burger's "Obedience Lite" showed similar results to Milgram's. I sit on the IRB at the university where I work and wonder how Burger's study was written that he able to get approval. Our Board is pretty aggressive about our role in protecting human subjects. A few of our colleagues have expressed their disapproval with us when faced with our denial of their applications, but for most of us our concern is foremost on the human subjects, and not on what the experimenter wants. It is a tricky space. There are often risks associated with studies. Any risk must be outweighed by the importance of what might be discovered.

Our Winona plays Milgram's wife Sasha. She is fascinated by the studies and watches both transfixed and horrified as she sees participants struggle with their consciences, believing they are inflicting severe shocks to an innocent person. These scenes are uncomfortable to watch, even though the audience, like Sasha, knows that it was all a deception. Milgram and his cronies appeared to show no signs that they were bothered by this. All seemed academic to them, and in fact, they laughed at many of their subjects and how easily they were fooled. Were the experimenters torturing their subjects by insisting they continue with the study? Milgram and his co-researchers apparently never saw themselves that way. How far should we go in the name of science? Where do we draw the line? What role should deception play in the pursuit to scholarship? This is an excellent and thought-provoking film.

Final Verdict: Four Croquet Balls

Drunk History (2 episodes: "Boston" and "Philadelphia")

I suppose I can't say I was disappointed in this absolutely sophomoric series. It was exactly what it purported to be - drunk people describing historical events while actors portray them. The actors actually lip sync to drunk narrator, so the only voice the audience ever hears is that of the soused storyteller. We only watched the two episodes that featured Our Winona. There was nothing to recommend watching the rest of them.

In "Boston" Ryder plays Mary Dyer a Quaker who was hanged for, well, being Quaker. In "Philadelphia" she is Peggy Shippen, wife of traitor Benedict Arnold.

We did not enjoy these and mostly just wanted them to end, but I will say these two positive things about them

1. I did learn some new historical facts by watching them
2. The actors did a smashing job of synchronizing their mouths to the slurred speech of the pickled raconteurs

Final Verdict: Two Croquet Balls