I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS STORY AT ALL.
I haven't really been following the Terri Schiavo story, but I see the headlines and am generally aware of the basic facts. Frankly I still don't get it. I don't know what the issue is around which it is suddenly so important that I have an opinion, and it is even less obvious to me why my opinion will label me as good or evil, moral or indecent, left or right.
I'm still unclear what exactly the controversy is. Is the dispute over the dignity of life? the rule of law? checks and balances between governmental branches? Is the dispute because she is being slowly (and maybe horribly and maybe not so horribly) starved to death rather than, say, taking her off a respirator, where death would be quicker? Is it because the husband may or may not have surrendered his legal right to speak on his wife's behalf when he took up with another woman? Seriously, I don't get what this story is about.
Another thing I don't get... I know there are lots of protestors out there on Terri's side. Has anyone been out there making the argument in favor of starving her to death? What is that argument? Simply that she said she would want it that way -- and if she didn't say that, then should have? Is the argument that, by implication, anyone in her condition would want taken out?
Why is this issue generally divided along party lines?
Maybe my confusion is because I do have a living will, and in it I state that if I should become incapacitated, then my wife can decide to authorize or refuse care in whatever ways she thinks is best. And if she is dead or likewise incapacitated, then my pastor makes the call. I figure in that condition, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and probably am in no position to judge. Am I now to conclude that my thinking is somehow missing the mark? Am I supposed to rethink the hypotheticals? Why? How? And why is this more important today than it was yesterday?
Is this a real story with lasting implications, or just this month's Big Story?
Seriously, help a fella out.
A Blog of Current Events and Ancient Issues.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
LAWS OR GOOD IDEAS
Walter Williams offers a different take on "General Welfare."
Walter Williams offers a different take on "General Welfare."
I regularly bike for fun, cardiovascular fitness and, hopefully, for a longer, healthier life. In my opinion, that's a good idea. That being the case, would you deem it proper for Congress to enact legislation requiring Americans to bike regularly or perform some other cardiovascular fitness exercise?
What if Congress didn't act on this good idea? Would you deem it proper and acceptable if five out of nine U.S. Supreme Court justices, in the name of "evolving standards" and promoting the general welfare, decreed that we all participate in some fitness exercise?
Suppose biking advocates saw no hope in getting Congress to enact legislation mandating regular biking and saw the U.S. Supreme Court as a means to accomplish their ends. Tell me your preference. Would you prefer the justices to rule along the lines they did in the recent Roper v. Simmons case, finding the execution of teenagers unconstitutional because, as Justice Anthony Kennedy speaking for the 5-4 majority said, "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty"? Modified to fit my biking example, Justice Kennedy might say, "We acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion that regular biking is a good idea."
Or, would you prefer the justices to say, "We're guided by the U.S. Constitution, and we find no constitutional authority to rule that Americans must regularly bike, despite your nonsense argument about the 'promoting the general welfare' clause; get out of our court"?
Whether "evolving standards," the "weight of international opinion" and good ideas should determine court decisions underlies much of the ongoing conflict over President Bush's federal court appointees. A federal court appointee who'd say his decisions are guided by the letter and spirit of our Constitution would be tagged by Democrat senators and a few Republican senators, such as Arlen Specter, as an extremist. They'd prefer justices who share former Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes' vision that, "We live under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." Translated, that means we don't live under the Constitution; we live under tyrannical judges.
THE EASE OF VOTER FRAUD (From Boortz)
Race warlords in Georgia are screaming. They are mightily upset. "Governor Perdue, don't sign this bill!!!!" Oh the humanity. This hideous and horrible bill is being cast by race pimps as "a disaster for race relations in the State of Georgia." One black legislator said that this new bill was "spitting on the grave of Martin Luther King, Jr." This bill is so bad that black lawmakers staged a walkout when the measure was debated earlier this month. They said that it could turn back the clock on civil rights. "It's an attack on the rights of minorities."
So, what's going on? Well, it seems that both the Georgia House and Senate have passed bills requiring all voters to show some kind of picture ID before they can cast a vote. Any one of six different types of picture ID will do. A Driver's license will work, even if it is expired. The law provides for free state-issued picture IDs for anyone who wants one. Still, the race pimps aren't satisfied.
You know what's going on here, don't you? Voter fraud is a reality, and across this country most of the votes that are illegally cast are cast for Democrats. It is Democrats who are driving the demands that non-citizens be allowed to vote in local elections. It is Democrats who are even insisting that illegal aliens be permitted to vote in some areas. It is Democrats who have opposed each and every move, no matter where, to attempt to clean up the election process by making sure that people who vote are actually legally qualified to vote. It is Democrats who want felons to vote! They know that felons will, by and large, vote for Democrats.
I'll say it again. Most illegally cast votes are cast for Democrats. Democrats have been at the forefront of every move to loosen voting restrictions and to counter any attempt to combat voter fraud.
Now .. if you really want to hear Democrats howl ... make it easier for military personnel to vote. Military personnel, you see, usually vote Republican.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
DEVIL IN THE DETAILS
There's a perfectly good argument going around about how a Husband has the obligation and the authority to make life and death situations for his wife. Another perfectly reasonable argument is that most of us wouldn't want to survive in the situation that Terrie Shiavo is presently in. The polls ask these two questions and the American public agrees with the decision made by Michael Shaivo and the judge. The controversy arises out of whether things are as they appear.
The reason we have judges is to weigh the context in which these laws are applied. The law by itself is a blunt instrument. A judge is the only figure that can see the human element. Why isn't this judge suspicious of Michael's motives?
If Michael is living with another woman and reproducing why hasn't he divorced his wife? Can he mentally peform the functions of a husband when he first answers to a different woman?
His loyalties are to his new family. That being the case, the court can't fully trust his word or judgment. A life and death situation doesn't need a protagonist with divided loyalties. While it may be interesting to have a bunch of doctors diagnose Terrie, it might be equally interesting to have a psychologist examine Michael's state of mind. Can a man be the head of two households? If he knows a dead Terrie provides money for the family he now supports, wouldn't it be awful hard not to wish her death a bit sooner?
We can argue that he beat her or that these were her wishes. We can argue whether or not she is a vegetable or cognizant. We can argue how this hurts or strengthens abortion law. I've heard a bunch of people on TV arguing all of these points. What we should be arguing is whether Michael's actions post accident make him a good objective candidate for guardianship. If we can't be sure of his objectivity, we should give custodial rights to someone else.
I don't know what the judge has in mind here. Maybe he thinks this case will create a precedent for a lot of other people who are suffering and need relief. Maybe his interest lies in getting rich by writing a book about this famous case. What he isn't doing is judging the credibility of the star witness. Michael Shiavo may have the best of intentions, but he has too much baggage to be the last word.
You can't always default to the husband here just like you can't always give custody of the kids to the wife after a divorce. You not only have to believe that Michael is being objective but her parents are so selfish that they want her suffering to continue. Is it possible to look at this case and think her parents are more likely to have divided loyalties?
Context is the key to the situation and the polls. The pollster didn't tell respondents that Michael has another wife and kids. The pollster didn't tell the respondents that Terrie isn't in pain. When it’s simply about whether a husband has the right to let his wife pass comfortably into the beyond, then yes he does have the right. It's a national event because it’s being presented as a simple "husband doing the best for his wife" case when it's much more complicated than that.
The same people who always criticize rightwing thinking as being simple minded, or black and white are perfectly willing to simplify things here. Elian Gonzalez was a good example from 2000. Sure a child should be with his father, but would we have sent Anne Frank back to the concentration camp to be with her father?
We always hear catchy phrases like "living constitution" and "social justice" when academics and the learned culture want to force laws that have no popular appeal down our throats. When it comes to individuals, the same learned monster's hands are tied by the letter of the law.
This case has become a circus of politicians throwing blame at one another, but that's a sideshow compared to the runaway judiciary that answers to no one. For this case to have been solved correctly you have to believe that Terrie's parents want to selfishly extend her painful life while her cheating husband only wants the best for her. That's a tough one for me to swallow.
UPDATE: Democrats have been out since late last week trying to make this a partisan issue, although Jesse Jackson seems to have other ideas. I've heard a dozen different liberals argue that it's a state's rights issue. Only a bunch of judge-loving lefties could argue that local and state judges embody the founder's ideas of Federalism. The 10th amendment gives the states the right to decide local through legislative bodies. How are the state's rights protected when judges go unchecked?
The shame of this whole issue is that Terrie will die on the word of a shaky husband and it will result in the kind of legislation that will prolong the lives of people who really do want to die. We're seeing the worst of government from the judge's decision to the circus atmosphere outside her hospice. Thomas Sowell has a good breakdown of how the court system is running amok in this case.
There's a perfectly good argument going around about how a Husband has the obligation and the authority to make life and death situations for his wife. Another perfectly reasonable argument is that most of us wouldn't want to survive in the situation that Terrie Shiavo is presently in. The polls ask these two questions and the American public agrees with the decision made by Michael Shaivo and the judge. The controversy arises out of whether things are as they appear.
The reason we have judges is to weigh the context in which these laws are applied. The law by itself is a blunt instrument. A judge is the only figure that can see the human element. Why isn't this judge suspicious of Michael's motives?
If Michael is living with another woman and reproducing why hasn't he divorced his wife? Can he mentally peform the functions of a husband when he first answers to a different woman?
His loyalties are to his new family. That being the case, the court can't fully trust his word or judgment. A life and death situation doesn't need a protagonist with divided loyalties. While it may be interesting to have a bunch of doctors diagnose Terrie, it might be equally interesting to have a psychologist examine Michael's state of mind. Can a man be the head of two households? If he knows a dead Terrie provides money for the family he now supports, wouldn't it be awful hard not to wish her death a bit sooner?
We can argue that he beat her or that these were her wishes. We can argue whether or not she is a vegetable or cognizant. We can argue how this hurts or strengthens abortion law. I've heard a bunch of people on TV arguing all of these points. What we should be arguing is whether Michael's actions post accident make him a good objective candidate for guardianship. If we can't be sure of his objectivity, we should give custodial rights to someone else.
I don't know what the judge has in mind here. Maybe he thinks this case will create a precedent for a lot of other people who are suffering and need relief. Maybe his interest lies in getting rich by writing a book about this famous case. What he isn't doing is judging the credibility of the star witness. Michael Shiavo may have the best of intentions, but he has too much baggage to be the last word.
You can't always default to the husband here just like you can't always give custody of the kids to the wife after a divorce. You not only have to believe that Michael is being objective but her parents are so selfish that they want her suffering to continue. Is it possible to look at this case and think her parents are more likely to have divided loyalties?
Context is the key to the situation and the polls. The pollster didn't tell respondents that Michael has another wife and kids. The pollster didn't tell the respondents that Terrie isn't in pain. When it’s simply about whether a husband has the right to let his wife pass comfortably into the beyond, then yes he does have the right. It's a national event because it’s being presented as a simple "husband doing the best for his wife" case when it's much more complicated than that.
The same people who always criticize rightwing thinking as being simple minded, or black and white are perfectly willing to simplify things here. Elian Gonzalez was a good example from 2000. Sure a child should be with his father, but would we have sent Anne Frank back to the concentration camp to be with her father?
We always hear catchy phrases like "living constitution" and "social justice" when academics and the learned culture want to force laws that have no popular appeal down our throats. When it comes to individuals, the same learned monster's hands are tied by the letter of the law.
This case has become a circus of politicians throwing blame at one another, but that's a sideshow compared to the runaway judiciary that answers to no one. For this case to have been solved correctly you have to believe that Terrie's parents want to selfishly extend her painful life while her cheating husband only wants the best for her. That's a tough one for me to swallow.
UPDATE: Democrats have been out since late last week trying to make this a partisan issue, although Jesse Jackson seems to have other ideas. I've heard a dozen different liberals argue that it's a state's rights issue. Only a bunch of judge-loving lefties could argue that local and state judges embody the founder's ideas of Federalism. The 10th amendment gives the states the right to decide local through legislative bodies. How are the state's rights protected when judges go unchecked?
The shame of this whole issue is that Terrie will die on the word of a shaky husband and it will result in the kind of legislation that will prolong the lives of people who really do want to die. We're seeing the worst of government from the judge's decision to the circus atmosphere outside her hospice. Thomas Sowell has a good breakdown of how the court system is running amok in this case.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
SCRAPPLEFACE LOL
Parents Offer Trade: Terri Schiavo for Scott Peterson
by Scott Ott(2005-03-22) -- Just minutes after a federal judge denied a request to provide a starving, dehydrating Florida woman with food and water, Terri Schiavo's parents offered to trade their 41-year-old daughter for convicted double-murderer Scott Peterson.
"What we're offering to the state of California is an even-up trade," said Bob Schindler, Mrs. Schiavo's father. "Scott Peterson, who murdered his wife and son, gets to come to this nursing home where he'll die in a week or two. Our daughter goes to death row in San Quentin, where she'll likely live a long life as Peterson's case is appealed."
The Schindlers' desperation offer calls for the names on all legal documents to be exchanged so that Mrs. Schiavo will be treated under law as if she had committed Mr. Peterson's crimes, and he will be treated as a healthy, but brain-damaged woman whose estranged husband controls her future.
George Felos, the attorney for Mrs. Schiavo's husband, Michael, immediately rejected the Schindler's offer with a single word: "Nuts."
POET MURDERER
Have you ever seen the movie RUNNING ON EMPTY? It gave me an idea for a movie about a guy who hunts down old 60s radicals, much like Simon Weisenthal hunts down old Nazis. Of course, it would be played for laughs. When our hero finds the first radical he makes a comment about the terrible living conditions a fugitive must live in. The radical takes offense. He's not a fugitive. He's living in a commune.
A man known as J. J. Jameson became one of Chicago’s prominent anti-war figures and a member of the community of leftist anti-war poets. The author of two books, a congregation leader at a church, and named Chicagopoetry.com's poet of the month in March 2004, Jameson seemed the very model of a modern “enlightened” cultural leader.
He was also living as a fugitive under a phony identity, an escaped con, and a vicious murderer. His real name was Norman A. Porter, Jr. Michael Dukakis commuted one of his life sentences, and unsuccessfully tried to commute a second. According to the Boston Globe,
Porter's criminal history in Massachusetts began with a string of robberies. On Sept. 29, 1960, he robbed a Robert Hall Clothing Store in Saugus, brandishing a sawed-off shotgun. Porter herded customers and employees into a back room and ordered them to give up their valuables, according to the state Department of Correction.
''As a part-time clerk was reaching into his pocket for his cash, Porter, with no known provocation, placed his shotgun's muzzle against the back of the clerk's head and pulled the trigger, killing him 'execution style,' " the department's website states.
Have you ever seen the movie RUNNING ON EMPTY? It gave me an idea for a movie about a guy who hunts down old 60s radicals, much like Simon Weisenthal hunts down old Nazis. Of course, it would be played for laughs. When our hero finds the first radical he makes a comment about the terrible living conditions a fugitive must live in. The radical takes offense. He's not a fugitive. He's living in a commune.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
WHEN THE NEWS BECAME SO UNWATCHABLY ASININE
With apologies to Pat Sajak, whose work I have mildly edited.
Very few people have given credit (or blame) to the man most responsible for the changing nature of today’s television news coverage. I’m talking about O.J. Simpson. As he prowls the nation’s golf courses searching for the real murderers of his ex-wife, let us not forget that it was the Simpson saga that taught TV news directors an important lesson: a Big Story can generate big numbers and big profits. Without a Big Story, ratings take a tumble, so it’s important to have that one dominating story that goes on and on and on.
Some Big Stories are obvious: 9/11 and The War in Iraq. But some Big Stories have to be elevated to that status to keep all the talking heads talking: Gary Condit, Laci Peterson, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson. Without a new daily chapter in an ongoing Big Story soap opera, the news is just the news. How the heck do you promote that?
The major networks gave the Simpson story extensive coverage, pre-empting a lot of their regular programming to do it, and their payoff was big ratings. However, they also unknowingly began digging the graves of their own news divisions, because it was the cable networks that were better suited to apply the lessons learned from the O.J. coverage.
So you now have Fox News Channel, MSNBC, CNBC and CNN day after day and night after night promoting the current Big Story (usually the same one). Hour upon hour of speculation, discussion and blah blah blah. New developments seem to be reported every hour, even though they are rarely new and frequently not even developments. In this world of the Big Story, we are treated to “Breaking News” that we saw three times last night.
A plus side does exist, because there is a certain comfort in waking up and finding that Michael Jackson is still the Big Story. At least it tells you that nothing horrible has happened in the world that would force them to move on to real news.
Little did we know that O.J.'s white Bronco was driving us into the era of the Big Story. Thanks for nothing, O.J.
RECENT COURT CASES
TERRIE SHAIVO
This is great political theatre so it’s a shame that this woman is suffering to provide it. This is a good reason for everyone to get a living will.
I can’t imagine Terrie wanting to live if she were up to the choice, but I don’t quite believe Michael’s dinner conversation story either. It took him seven years to remember it. His reasoning that Terrie wanted to die would be more credible if he weren’t shacked up with some other woman producing tots. Does he really care for Terrie’s person or does he want the money he stands to inherit? His personal situation complicates his testimony. He stands to gain the most from her death and while the vibrant Terrie would seem to choose death herself, the current Terrie is seen almost smiling. Maybe she’s in some dreamy state that feels like a constant heroin fix. She doesn’t make it look like hell the way Million Dollar Baby did.
While Michael’s feelings for Terrie are complicated with his new life, her parents truly love her and will do anything not to lose her. While I would choose death for myself, I think the court has error on the side of life. The only witness has too much baggage to trust his objectivity and Terrie doesn't seem to be in torturous pain.
Someone needs to explain to me why an alert Hillary Swank couldn’t just ask the doctor to turn off her respirator?
MICHAEL JACKSON
We’ve been waiting for this one a long time. We know he’s a freak and probably a creap. The stories of wine and porno only re-enforce the idea. I can just see him explain to the kids that the human body is beautiful and drink up your Jesus juice and you’ll go to heaven.
The family may have seen a way to cash in our prejudices. I tend to think he is capable of something like this and yet the testimony from this family seems erratic and contradictory.
He’s probably going to beat the criminal trial (see Robert Blake) but pay a substantial amount in the civil suit.
ROBERT BLAKE
I didn’t see it, but read that a reporter asked Blake after the verdict “If you didn’t kill Bonnie, who did?” Blake reportedly went nuts.
Any number of people might have wanted to kill her but Blake not only benefited the most, he actually tried to hire the job out. Was someone really tracking the Blake’s at dinner that night and made a move on Bonnie went Robert went back into the restaurant? It seems unlikely, unless Blake set it up with the shooter himself.
What’s funny is that no one saw anybody shoot her. No one saw anyone flee from the scene. Five million people in L.A. and not one person looked up when they heard a gunshot. Blake frequented that restaurant and knew that it was a remote spot for the killing. Someone tracking them independently wouldn’t have been so secure, especially with Blake just a few steps away.
This typical L.A. acquittal should pave the way for Michael Jackson’s.
TERRIE SHAIVO
This is great political theatre so it’s a shame that this woman is suffering to provide it. This is a good reason for everyone to get a living will.
I can’t imagine Terrie wanting to live if she were up to the choice, but I don’t quite believe Michael’s dinner conversation story either. It took him seven years to remember it. His reasoning that Terrie wanted to die would be more credible if he weren’t shacked up with some other woman producing tots. Does he really care for Terrie’s person or does he want the money he stands to inherit? His personal situation complicates his testimony. He stands to gain the most from her death and while the vibrant Terrie would seem to choose death herself, the current Terrie is seen almost smiling. Maybe she’s in some dreamy state that feels like a constant heroin fix. She doesn’t make it look like hell the way Million Dollar Baby did.
While Michael’s feelings for Terrie are complicated with his new life, her parents truly love her and will do anything not to lose her. While I would choose death for myself, I think the court has error on the side of life. The only witness has too much baggage to trust his objectivity and Terrie doesn't seem to be in torturous pain.
Someone needs to explain to me why an alert Hillary Swank couldn’t just ask the doctor to turn off her respirator?
MICHAEL JACKSON
We’ve been waiting for this one a long time. We know he’s a freak and probably a creap. The stories of wine and porno only re-enforce the idea. I can just see him explain to the kids that the human body is beautiful and drink up your Jesus juice and you’ll go to heaven.
The family may have seen a way to cash in our prejudices. I tend to think he is capable of something like this and yet the testimony from this family seems erratic and contradictory.
He’s probably going to beat the criminal trial (see Robert Blake) but pay a substantial amount in the civil suit.
ROBERT BLAKE
I didn’t see it, but read that a reporter asked Blake after the verdict “If you didn’t kill Bonnie, who did?” Blake reportedly went nuts.
Any number of people might have wanted to kill her but Blake not only benefited the most, he actually tried to hire the job out. Was someone really tracking the Blake’s at dinner that night and made a move on Bonnie went Robert went back into the restaurant? It seems unlikely, unless Blake set it up with the shooter himself.
What’s funny is that no one saw anybody shoot her. No one saw anyone flee from the scene. Five million people in L.A. and not one person looked up when they heard a gunshot. Blake frequented that restaurant and knew that it was a remote spot for the killing. Someone tracking them independently wouldn’t have been so secure, especially with Blake just a few steps away.
This typical L.A. acquittal should pave the way for Michael Jackson’s.
HOW GOES THE ANTI-WAR?
This is a great find by Opinion Journal.
This is a great find by Opinion Journal.
Idiot's Delight
The "antiwar movement" doesn't seem to be going well. An e-mail list called the Idiot's Delight Digest, inspired by the radio show of the same name, carries a first-person account from one Jordan Hoffman of a rally apparently in New York:I went to the anti-war demonstration today. Anyone else go? Man, it was depressing. It was more of a group mope than a demonstration. People just kinda went to the park, wandered around, looked sad and left. And got harassed for contributions to every organization under the sun. That made me even sadder because I couldn't join a friend going downtown because I only had $2.00 on my metrocard & needed that to get home and I have $0.00 in my wallet until next week. . . .
I gotta relax. It is 4:49 AM and I haven't been to sleep. I've been up all night stewing about how much I can't stand the direction the US's policy has taken--I still can't get over the fact that John Kerry lost. It's kinda like a delayed thing. I just can't believe how willfully dumb people are. Or maybe just mean. Mean and nasty. And covering it up, like ketchup on a burnt steak, with their bornagain Christianity.
Agence France-Presse, meanwhile, reports from London:People poured into the capital from across the country, including 29-year-old human rights author Susanna Akono who travelled in a coach from Kent. . . .
Akono from Cambodia, who is married to a British man and is pregnant, said that she planned to go on a hunger strike from April 14 in protest against the continuing war on terror.
"I want to do everything I can to make sure my child has a secure future," she said.
Hat tip: Arthur Chrenkoff. Starve-the-fetus is certainly a novel method of ensuring that your child has a secure future. If Akono has a daughter, maybe she'll grow up and marry Michael Schiavo.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Saturday, March 19, 2005
FINAL RESULTS
WINNER - Rob Hollink - 635,000 Euros
2nd - Brandon Schaeffer, 350,000 Euros
3rd - Alex Stevic, 178,000 Euros.
4th - Romain Feriolo, 139,000 Euros
5th - Kevin Seeger, 118,000 Euros
6th - Abdullaziz Abdullaziz, 99,500 Euros.
7th - Ben Grundy, 79,500 Euros
8th, Mikhail Ustinov, 59,500 Euros.
9th, Jani Sointula, 39,300 Euros.
10th, Isabelle Mercier, 23,900 Euros
FINAL DAY
7 left - Dude looking for Magic
6 left
5 and Dude is alive
Congratulations Dude. You played great!
7 left - Dude looking for Magic
6 left
5 and Dude is alive
HUUUUUUGE KEY HAND
Hand 53
Romain is on the button. Alex is in the small blind. Kevin is in the big blind.
Brandon rasies to 30,000, Kevin calls in big clind.
Flop: T64 with two clubs. Kevin checks. Brandon bets 40,000. Kevin moves all in Brandon calls immediately.
Kevin: 88
Brandon: AA
Turn: 7
River: 3.
Aces hold up and Brandon wins a monster.
Kevin is out in fifth place with €118,000
Congratulations Dude. You played great!
Friday, March 18, 2005
Dude was the chip leader going into today. It looks like he's third with 17 players left. EPT has a running blog to keep up with the details.
15 Left and Dude outlasts Gus Hansen.
You can read Dude Day by Day at Poker Room.
He's made the final table. In the top 8. Dude the TV Star. Action starts tomorrow morning 11am EST.
Friday, March 11, 2005
E's FICTION LIST
On this date in history, MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN was published in 1818. Which reminds me that Tom (I think it was Tom) asked me in Orlando what my favorite works of fiction were. I get asked that from time to time, and it always kind of embarrasses me, because although I do a fair amount of reading, I do very little reading of fiction. I read what I like, and I like to learn, so I read nonfiction and opinion almost exclusively, yet I always feel somehow that I *should* be reading fiction, even if just for balance. But the books that catch my interest are generally "serious" books, and I can never quite shake the notion that fiction is a poor use of my time. Just the way I'm wired, I guess. And I'm just talking about *my* time, not yours.
Anyway, I'm trying to think of fiction books that I really liked, and here's my little list.
FRANKENSTEIN by Mary Shelley. I love the way this book was written, back when English prose was majestic, lofty, precise. The Creature in the original is articulate, sensitive, and searching, not the grunting brute he became in the movies. It is really a story about man's relationship with his creator -- a probing, engaging, and moving treatment of that timeless subject.
OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET by C. S. Lewis. A short science fiction tale with a nice message.
TARZAN OF THE APES and its many sequels by Edgar Rice Burroughs. I wish I still had all those paperbacks with the classic cover art.
THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck. One of those books I had to read and liked anyway. I have never seen the movie version -- got it for Christmas 2004, will do that soon.
THE PUPPET MASTERS by Robert Heinlein. At the time I read this, I could really relate. Alien beings attach themselves across their victims' shoulders and take over their minds. I was in late drunkenness or early sobriety at the time.
DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE by Robert Louis Stevenson. I reread this last year and it was just as good.
THE EDUCATION OF LITTLE TREE was a humorous little book that fit my liberal mindset circa 1994 before I grew up and went conservative. I remember giving it as a gift.
I loved AGATHA CHRISTIE'S HERCULE POIROT mysteries as a kid. Haven't read one since, though, so I'm putting her at the bottom of this list.
It may not be much, but that's all I have to offer. That I am going back to college and high school to compile such a meager lists tells you and me that I'm just not into works of fiction. As Dude laments, I'm always asking what's the point, what's the payoff, what's the practical application. In recent years I've kept a list of the books I've read, and of the 144 entries, I see 3 works of fiction, and even those had a serious bent. Again, not sure why I feel I should apologize, but I do.
On this date in history, MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN was published in 1818. Which reminds me that Tom (I think it was Tom) asked me in Orlando what my favorite works of fiction were. I get asked that from time to time, and it always kind of embarrasses me, because although I do a fair amount of reading, I do very little reading of fiction. I read what I like, and I like to learn, so I read nonfiction and opinion almost exclusively, yet I always feel somehow that I *should* be reading fiction, even if just for balance. But the books that catch my interest are generally "serious" books, and I can never quite shake the notion that fiction is a poor use of my time. Just the way I'm wired, I guess. And I'm just talking about *my* time, not yours.
Anyway, I'm trying to think of fiction books that I really liked, and here's my little list.
FRANKENSTEIN by Mary Shelley. I love the way this book was written, back when English prose was majestic, lofty, precise. The Creature in the original is articulate, sensitive, and searching, not the grunting brute he became in the movies. It is really a story about man's relationship with his creator -- a probing, engaging, and moving treatment of that timeless subject.
OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET by C. S. Lewis. A short science fiction tale with a nice message.
TARZAN OF THE APES and its many sequels by Edgar Rice Burroughs. I wish I still had all those paperbacks with the classic cover art.
THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck. One of those books I had to read and liked anyway. I have never seen the movie version -- got it for Christmas 2004, will do that soon.
THE PUPPET MASTERS by Robert Heinlein. At the time I read this, I could really relate. Alien beings attach themselves across their victims' shoulders and take over their minds. I was in late drunkenness or early sobriety at the time.
DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE by Robert Louis Stevenson. I reread this last year and it was just as good.
THE EDUCATION OF LITTLE TREE was a humorous little book that fit my liberal mindset circa 1994 before I grew up and went conservative. I remember giving it as a gift.
I loved AGATHA CHRISTIE'S HERCULE POIROT mysteries as a kid. Haven't read one since, though, so I'm putting her at the bottom of this list.
It may not be much, but that's all I have to offer. That I am going back to college and high school to compile such a meager lists tells you and me that I'm just not into works of fiction. As Dude laments, I'm always asking what's the point, what's the payoff, what's the practical application. In recent years I've kept a list of the books I've read, and of the 144 entries, I see 3 works of fiction, and even those had a serious bent. Again, not sure why I feel I should apologize, but I do.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
BALLPLAYERS TO CONGRESS
Is this government meddling or a legitimate concern of the government?
My favorite federal law was the one passed 10-15 years ago that insisted that food companies label their product with nutritional information. The consumer should know what they're getting.
As a consumer of MLB I want to know what I'm getting too. Are the players using substances that are altering the games I am paying for? Am I watching men with their natural ability or comic book characters? MLB obviously likes the comic book characters masked as regular men and they have no intention of unmasking them. Olympic athletes are suspended for two years on their first steroids violation. MLB players have to be caught 4 times to get a mere one-year suspension. Since the tests are random a player could juice up his whole life and never get caught.
These guys have the right to put anything they want into their bodies. I wouldn't prosecute any of them, but Baseball hurts its own integrity by letting them play. Since baseball is going to pretend its not happening, I don't mind Congress getting to the truth. Sure it's grandstanding (ha ha) but sometimes it takes grandstanding to push an issue to the forefront.
Let the consumer decide if he wants to watch Barry Bonds break a record on dope.
Oh, but Congress left Bonds off the list. What will Kevin Towers tell us that is more interesting than what Bonds might have to say?
The 11 witnesses are:
Jose Canseco, former Oakland Athletic and Texas Ranger.
Jason Giambi, current New York Yankee and former Oakland Athletic.
Mark McGwire, former Oakland Athletic and St. Louis Cardinal.
Rafael Palmeiro, current Baltimore Oriole and former Texas Ranger.
Curt Schilling, currently of the Boston Red Sox.
Sammy Sosa, current Baltimore Oriole and former Chicago Cub.
Frank Thomas of the Chicago White Sox.
Bud Selig, commissioner of baseball for Major League Baseball.
Sandy Alderson, former general manager of the Oakland Athletics and current executive vice president of baseball operations for Major League Baseball.
Don Fehr, executive director and general counsel of the Major League Baseball Players Association.
Kevin Towers, general manager and executive vice president of the San Diego Padres.
Is this government meddling or a legitimate concern of the government?
My favorite federal law was the one passed 10-15 years ago that insisted that food companies label their product with nutritional information. The consumer should know what they're getting.
As a consumer of MLB I want to know what I'm getting too. Are the players using substances that are altering the games I am paying for? Am I watching men with their natural ability or comic book characters? MLB obviously likes the comic book characters masked as regular men and they have no intention of unmasking them. Olympic athletes are suspended for two years on their first steroids violation. MLB players have to be caught 4 times to get a mere one-year suspension. Since the tests are random a player could juice up his whole life and never get caught.
These guys have the right to put anything they want into their bodies. I wouldn't prosecute any of them, but Baseball hurts its own integrity by letting them play. Since baseball is going to pretend its not happening, I don't mind Congress getting to the truth. Sure it's grandstanding (ha ha) but sometimes it takes grandstanding to push an issue to the forefront.
Let the consumer decide if he wants to watch Barry Bonds break a record on dope.
Oh, but Congress left Bonds off the list. What will Kevin Towers tell us that is more interesting than what Bonds might have to say?
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
TERESA WRIGHT DIES
Whenever Tom and I would list the sexiest babes of Hollywood history, my mind would always fill with images of Teresa Wright. She was sexy in an offhanded kind of way, as an offshoot of being smart and engaging. I've wanted to marry her ever since first seeing her attend to her ailing husband's collar button when the poor sap was stricken with Lou Gehrig's Disease, or ALS, as it was known then. She always seemed to me sweet enough to fall for, smart enough to talk with, and pretty enough to lay beside for fifty years - some kind of classy babe.
I have never seen acknowledged classics THE LITTLE FOXES (1941) or MRS. MINIVER (1942), but Teresa Wright enjoys three spots on my top 100 movies list:
THE PRIDE OF THE YANKEES (1942)
SHADOW OF A DOUBT (1943)
THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES (1946)
Whenever Tom and I would list the sexiest babes of Hollywood history, my mind would always fill with images of Teresa Wright. She was sexy in an offhanded kind of way, as an offshoot of being smart and engaging. I've wanted to marry her ever since first seeing her attend to her ailing husband's collar button when the poor sap was stricken with Lou Gehrig's Disease, or ALS, as it was known then. She always seemed to me sweet enough to fall for, smart enough to talk with, and pretty enough to lay beside for fifty years - some kind of classy babe.
I have never seen acknowledged classics THE LITTLE FOXES (1941) or MRS. MINIVER (1942), but Teresa Wright enjoys three spots on my top 100 movies list:
THE PRIDE OF THE YANKEES (1942)
SHADOW OF A DOUBT (1943)
THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES (1946)
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
BEST OF DAN RATHER
The Media Research Center has fun with this "objective" news man.
This bit between Rather and O'Reilly is well-known but priceless.
The Media Research Center has fun with this "objective" news man.
This bit between Rather and O'Reilly is well-known but priceless.
Bill O’Reilly: “I want to ask you flat out, do you think President Clinton’s an honest man?”
Dan Rather: “Yes, I think he’s an honest man.”
O’Reilly: “Do you, really?”
Rather: “I do.”
O’Reilly: “Even though he lied to Jim Lehrer’s face about the Lewinsky case?”
Rather: “Who among us has not lied about something?”
O’Reilly: “Well, I didn’t lie to anybody’s face on national television. I don’t think you have, have you?”
Rather: “I don’t think I ever have. I hope I never have. But, look, it’s one thing – ”
O’Reilly: “How can you say he’s an honest guy then?”
Rather: “Well, because I think he is. I think at core he’s an honest person. I know that you have a different view. I know that you consider it sort of astonishing anybody would say so, but I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.”
— Exchange on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor, May 15, 2001.
Monday, February 28, 2005
<>MILLION DOLLAR BABY AGAIN
I can't fault the Academy for giving gold to Swank and Freeman. Both were Great. Freeman may have been the greatest American actor to have never won. Eastwood did a wonderful job directing. He's one of a handful of true legends left inHollywood
<>
Rock tried to get the crowd on his side with praise for Farenheit 911 and derision for George Bush. That's like giving out cotton candy in a Kindergarten class. It's the first time I can remember an Oscar's host being so overtly political. Billy Crystal and Steve Martin seemed be more subtle about such things. Still Rock wasn't nearly as bad a Whoopi or Letterman. I laughed a few times.
I can't fault the Academy for giving gold to Swank and Freeman. Both were Great. Freeman may have been the greatest American actor to have never won. Eastwood did a wonderful job directing. He's one of a handful of true legends left in
<>
Rock tried to get the crowd on his side with praise for Farenheit 911 and derision for George Bush. That's like giving out cotton candy in a Kindergarten class. It's the first time I can remember an Oscar's host being so overtly political. Billy Crystal and Steve Martin seemed be more subtle about such things. Still Rock wasn't nearly as bad a Whoopi or Letterman. I laughed a few times.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
FEBRUARY MOVIE ROUNDUP
DANGEROUS LIVES OF ALTER BOYS (2002) – In the tradition of STAND BY ME in that it’s a movie about kids made for grownups. It has an inventive first act, and it sustains itself through Act II, but the ending doesn’t dramatically fit the lead up. It’s set in the 1950s and our main character and his friends have drawn their own alter ego comic book super heroes. Periodically through the film the characters come to life in an animated sequence that parallels the live action angst of our hero. I found this to be generally interesting, but it annoyed me that it wasn’t done in 1970s style animation. Would this kid really have imagined the technological advances of the medium?
DEVIL’S PLAYGROUND (2002) - It turns out that Amish kids can run wild when they turn 16 and most do. They’re expected to eventually give it up and join the church and be God fearing in the old tradition and most do that too. This was an interesting documentary about what these kids actually do when the freedom comes. Some of the subjects join up and others go running off. I grew up about 20 minutes from where this was shot so it was particularly interesting for that reason alone.
THE ALAMO (2004) – This was the equivalent of a well made TV movie. The script is adequate. The actors don’t run into the furniture. I was maybe supposed to be thrilled by the battle scenes, but they weren’t particular inventive. We did get to fly with a cannonball once like we fell with that bomb in PEARL HARBOR (2001). Video games use to copy movies and now movies are copying video games. Another similarity to PEARL HARBOR was that this massacre didn’t complete the film. We got to see Sam Houston route Santa Anna like we got to see General Doolittle bomb Japan. We’re not far away from a time in which Romeo and Juliet ends with Mr. Capulet strangling Friar Lawrence and the Nurse.
+ANIMAL HOUSE (1978) – Still good after all these years. Tim Matheson does a decent job leading the film and Belushi is still funny. Bruce McGill plays D-Day, which means nothing except that he’s turned into a very productive character actor. You see him all the time in small roles. He played Ralph Houk in 61 and he played Peter Arnett in LIVE FROM BAGHDAD. He’s also in Collateral, Matchstick Men, Ali, The Sum of All Fears, Bagger Vance, The Insider. . . Why didn’t Tim Matheson have a better career?
+DRESSED TO KILL (1980) De Palma’s Psycho homage. The heroine dies early in the film via the ugly knife. The shower is used in dream sequences. An adultery angle pops up. The killer is fighting multiple personalities, one male and one female. DePalma’s career choices? SNAKE EYES? MISSION TO MARS? Gimme a freakin break.
SECOND HAND LIONS (2003) – Duvall and Caine wasted on an uneven film that changes tone frequently. The title is some sort of obvious symbolism, while the plot reminds one of BIG FISH (2004) without the stylish magic. There are some funny moments early on, but the screenwriter ran out of gas and the director couldn’t keep things together.
A PERFECT CANDIDATE (1996) The movie doesn't seem to take sides in the 1994 Senate race between Oliver North and Chuck Robb. It's mostly about North though and he comes off as earnest, although his campaign manager is a self-promoting jerk. North is gracious in his defeat, but the campaign manager is so self-involved he doesn't even care how his candidate feels. And who knew Chuck Robb was so void of personality. No wonder George Allen defeated him in 2000. The most interesting character in the movie is the Washington Post reporter who follows and asks questions of the candidates. He's totally over Chuck Robb, because Robb claims to have never told a lie. Who hasn't told a lie? A seminal moment is that same reporter asking Robb to clarify his position on strikebreakers. Robb talks in circles and will not answer the question no matter how many ways it is posed.
+TARGETS (1968) – Peter Bogdanovich’s debut was a low budget suspense film produced by Roger Corman. Corman told Bogdanovich that Boris Karloff owed him two days and that he could use 20 minutes from the Karloff picture, THE TERROR. Instead of writing a horror film around the footage, Bogdanovich dreamed up a scenario in which an aging film actor wants to retire while a young man goes on a shooting spree. It’s just a matter of time before the two meet up. It’s full of the gee whiz acting style contrasted by some grizzly shootings.
+SHORT CUTS (1993) I hadn’t seen this since the theatrical release, and at the time I had only seen two Altman films, THE PLAYER the year before and MASH when I was real young. In the last year or so I have seen NASHVILLE, LONG GOODBYE, and THREE WOMEN. I am amazed at how they all have the same soft dreamy camera work and nonchalant pacing style. Of the previous three, I only liked LONG GOODBYE, and I would have liked it better had they stuck to the original Raymond Chandler novel. For all the praise NASHVILLE gets I found it one long snooze. THREE WOMEN was Atlman’s attempt at a weird Euorpean style. SHORT CUTS works better than any of them.
+ASHES AND DIAMONDS (1958) – I just recently came across the name of Andzej Wajda, a man considered Poland’s greatest director. There was a time that I would read about someone like this and just forget all about it. Now we have Netflix. Zbigniew Cybulski is a young man who is part of an underground movement to rid Poland of Communists shortly after the war. The movie begins with he and his boss offing a couple of dudes thought to be the new communist leaders coming to town. They got the wrong guys. The rest of the movie takes place inside their hotel where the real communist leader is also staying. Cybulski is ready to try it all over again, but in the interim he meets and romances the fetching young bartender, Eva Krzyewska. Our character is therefore torn between having a normal life with Eva and carrying out his duty to the resistance. If Eva is the standard looking Eastern European babe, it’s no wonder it took them so long to tear the iron curtain down. Who could keep their mind on the revolution?
HAPPY ACCIDENTS (1999) From Director Brad Anderson, the guy who just directed the MACHINIST with Christian Bale’s weight loss. Kooky actor Vincent D'Onofrio plays a kooky character that may be from the year 2470. Marisa Tomei plays his wacky girlfriend that alternates between playing along with him for the excitement and getting angry at his active imagination. These actors are both better as supporting players. They don’t have enough of that heroic magnetism to make you root for them. The payoff is somewhat interesting if you make it that far. I was ready for it to end.
THE CROSSING GUARD (1995) – This is a perplexing movie at first sight. It’s written and directed by Sean Penn, a man who couldn’t put a single coherent thought together in one hour on the Larry King show in 2002. Penn’s case that night of the wonderful people in Iraq and why we shouldn’t go to war was nothing but emoting through a string of disjointed words and phrases that lacked argument, evidence and conclusion. It might go down as the perfect example of how artists are ill equipped to function in the real world. The CROSSING GUARD is full of the same kinds of unfocused emoting, but it works here somewhat better. Jack Nicholson and Anjelica Huston split up after their daughter was killed by a drunk driver. The driver (David Morse) is getting out of prison at the beginning of the film and Jack plans to put a hole in him. The plot gets no deeper. Morse feels as bad as Jack and they spend the movie in parallel despair. It’s certainly the kind of movie made by someone who likes to see acting rather than story. If you add this movie to his other directorial effort, THE PLEDGE and the Eastwood film, MYSTIC RIVER, the Robbins film DEAD MAN WALKING one would get the idea that Penn is building an entire portion of his career around the murdered daughter plot device.
HURLY BURLY (1998) – One of those showcase for actors movies that gets a top notch cast because the characters get to do so many random and exciting things. For the audience waiting to see how this slice of life nonsense fits together, it’s less thrilling. There’s a few moments and even some decently written dialogue, but it falls short of something I would call either art or entertainment. My old theatre teacher, Susan Harper labeled this category as actor masturbation.
+EMPEROR’S CLUB (2002) – Kline is a classics teacher in one of those typical Eastern prep schools circa 1975. Emile Hirsch (one of the kids from DANGEROUS LIVES OF ALTER BOYS) plays the rebellious kid that Kline must set straight. It has something interesting to say about how teachers sometimes waste effort on bad kids that cannot be reached at the expense of kids that could better use and appreciate that same help. It also has much to say about the inherit value of personal virtue. The movie doesn’t denigrate capitalism or the real world, but appreciates the successful graduates who learned their lesson in that school. You’d expect the rebellious kid to be redeemed through efforts of the great teacher, but instead he’s proven dishonest twice, once as a student and later as a candidate for the Senate. As the Senate candidate he repeats the hackneyed lines about the importance of education that as we know he doesn’t believe. His donation to his Alma Matter is nothing but cheap political opportunism. This film is about the inherent value of education not a propagation of the institutions or processes that masquerade as education while functioning as jobs programs and daycare. Since I spent the better part of the movie trying to guess the liberal twist, I was surprised to find a conservative movie that didn’t apologize for it.
+61* (2001) – I had no patience for reading when I was a kid. But meeting Mickey Mantle when I was 7 changed my life. I started reading books about Mantle and the Yankees. Reading those books led to other baseball books and I eventually wrote Roger Maris a letter asking for his autograph and he kindly sent me his signature only a few years before his early death from smoking. Mickey would eventually succumb to the drink and both habits can be witnessed in the painfully accurate Billy Crystal movie. I saw it again last night for the 5th or 6th time. Will McGwire, Sosa and Bonds someday die from the effects of Steroids? Crystal uses CGI to great effect and he has a real love for the material. Mel Allen and Scooter Rizzuto are fun. Yogi has a couple of Yogi lines. Whitey Ford pipes in from time to time. It's hard to get over how much Barry Pepper and Thomas Jane look like Maris and Mantle.
DANGEROUS LIVES OF ALTER BOYS (2002) – In the tradition of STAND BY ME in that it’s a movie about kids made for grownups. It has an inventive first act, and it sustains itself through Act II, but the ending doesn’t dramatically fit the lead up. It’s set in the 1950s and our main character and his friends have drawn their own alter ego comic book super heroes. Periodically through the film the characters come to life in an animated sequence that parallels the live action angst of our hero. I found this to be generally interesting, but it annoyed me that it wasn’t done in 1970s style animation. Would this kid really have imagined the technological advances of the medium?
DEVIL’S PLAYGROUND (2002) - It turns out that Amish kids can run wild when they turn 16 and most do. They’re expected to eventually give it up and join the church and be God fearing in the old tradition and most do that too. This was an interesting documentary about what these kids actually do when the freedom comes. Some of the subjects join up and others go running off. I grew up about 20 minutes from where this was shot so it was particularly interesting for that reason alone.
THE ALAMO (2004) – This was the equivalent of a well made TV movie. The script is adequate. The actors don’t run into the furniture. I was maybe supposed to be thrilled by the battle scenes, but they weren’t particular inventive. We did get to fly with a cannonball once like we fell with that bomb in PEARL HARBOR (2001). Video games use to copy movies and now movies are copying video games. Another similarity to PEARL HARBOR was that this massacre didn’t complete the film. We got to see Sam Houston route Santa Anna like we got to see General Doolittle bomb Japan. We’re not far away from a time in which Romeo and Juliet ends with Mr. Capulet strangling Friar Lawrence and the Nurse.
+ANIMAL HOUSE (1978) – Still good after all these years. Tim Matheson does a decent job leading the film and Belushi is still funny. Bruce McGill plays D-Day, which means nothing except that he’s turned into a very productive character actor. You see him all the time in small roles. He played Ralph Houk in 61 and he played Peter Arnett in LIVE FROM BAGHDAD. He’s also in Collateral, Matchstick Men, Ali, The Sum of All Fears, Bagger Vance, The Insider. . . Why didn’t Tim Matheson have a better career?
+DRESSED TO KILL (1980) De Palma’s Psycho homage. The heroine dies early in the film via the ugly knife. The shower is used in dream sequences. An adultery angle pops up. The killer is fighting multiple personalities, one male and one female. DePalma’s career choices? SNAKE EYES? MISSION TO MARS? Gimme a freakin break.
SECOND HAND LIONS (2003) – Duvall and Caine wasted on an uneven film that changes tone frequently. The title is some sort of obvious symbolism, while the plot reminds one of BIG FISH (2004) without the stylish magic. There are some funny moments early on, but the screenwriter ran out of gas and the director couldn’t keep things together.
A PERFECT CANDIDATE (1996) The movie doesn't seem to take sides in the 1994 Senate race between Oliver North and Chuck Robb. It's mostly about North though and he comes off as earnest, although his campaign manager is a self-promoting jerk. North is gracious in his defeat, but the campaign manager is so self-involved he doesn't even care how his candidate feels. And who knew Chuck Robb was so void of personality. No wonder George Allen defeated him in 2000. The most interesting character in the movie is the Washington Post reporter who follows and asks questions of the candidates. He's totally over Chuck Robb, because Robb claims to have never told a lie. Who hasn't told a lie? A seminal moment is that same reporter asking Robb to clarify his position on strikebreakers. Robb talks in circles and will not answer the question no matter how many ways it is posed.
+TARGETS (1968) – Peter Bogdanovich’s debut was a low budget suspense film produced by Roger Corman. Corman told Bogdanovich that Boris Karloff owed him two days and that he could use 20 minutes from the Karloff picture, THE TERROR. Instead of writing a horror film around the footage, Bogdanovich dreamed up a scenario in which an aging film actor wants to retire while a young man goes on a shooting spree. It’s just a matter of time before the two meet up. It’s full of the gee whiz acting style contrasted by some grizzly shootings.
+SHORT CUTS (1993) I hadn’t seen this since the theatrical release, and at the time I had only seen two Altman films, THE PLAYER the year before and MASH when I was real young. In the last year or so I have seen NASHVILLE, LONG GOODBYE, and THREE WOMEN. I am amazed at how they all have the same soft dreamy camera work and nonchalant pacing style. Of the previous three, I only liked LONG GOODBYE, and I would have liked it better had they stuck to the original Raymond Chandler novel. For all the praise NASHVILLE gets I found it one long snooze. THREE WOMEN was Atlman’s attempt at a weird Euorpean style. SHORT CUTS works better than any of them.
+ASHES AND DIAMONDS (1958) – I just recently came across the name of Andzej Wajda, a man considered Poland’s greatest director. There was a time that I would read about someone like this and just forget all about it. Now we have Netflix. Zbigniew Cybulski is a young man who is part of an underground movement to rid Poland of Communists shortly after the war. The movie begins with he and his boss offing a couple of dudes thought to be the new communist leaders coming to town. They got the wrong guys. The rest of the movie takes place inside their hotel where the real communist leader is also staying. Cybulski is ready to try it all over again, but in the interim he meets and romances the fetching young bartender, Eva Krzyewska. Our character is therefore torn between having a normal life with Eva and carrying out his duty to the resistance. If Eva is the standard looking Eastern European babe, it’s no wonder it took them so long to tear the iron curtain down. Who could keep their mind on the revolution?
HAPPY ACCIDENTS (1999) From Director Brad Anderson, the guy who just directed the MACHINIST with Christian Bale’s weight loss. Kooky actor Vincent D'Onofrio plays a kooky character that may be from the year 2470. Marisa Tomei plays his wacky girlfriend that alternates between playing along with him for the excitement and getting angry at his active imagination. These actors are both better as supporting players. They don’t have enough of that heroic magnetism to make you root for them. The payoff is somewhat interesting if you make it that far. I was ready for it to end.
THE CROSSING GUARD (1995) – This is a perplexing movie at first sight. It’s written and directed by Sean Penn, a man who couldn’t put a single coherent thought together in one hour on the Larry King show in 2002. Penn’s case that night of the wonderful people in Iraq and why we shouldn’t go to war was nothing but emoting through a string of disjointed words and phrases that lacked argument, evidence and conclusion. It might go down as the perfect example of how artists are ill equipped to function in the real world. The CROSSING GUARD is full of the same kinds of unfocused emoting, but it works here somewhat better. Jack Nicholson and Anjelica Huston split up after their daughter was killed by a drunk driver. The driver (David Morse) is getting out of prison at the beginning of the film and Jack plans to put a hole in him. The plot gets no deeper. Morse feels as bad as Jack and they spend the movie in parallel despair. It’s certainly the kind of movie made by someone who likes to see acting rather than story. If you add this movie to his other directorial effort, THE PLEDGE and the Eastwood film, MYSTIC RIVER, the Robbins film DEAD MAN WALKING one would get the idea that Penn is building an entire portion of his career around the murdered daughter plot device.
HURLY BURLY (1998) – One of those showcase for actors movies that gets a top notch cast because the characters get to do so many random and exciting things. For the audience waiting to see how this slice of life nonsense fits together, it’s less thrilling. There’s a few moments and even some decently written dialogue, but it falls short of something I would call either art or entertainment. My old theatre teacher, Susan Harper labeled this category as actor masturbation.
+EMPEROR’S CLUB (2002) – Kline is a classics teacher in one of those typical Eastern prep schools circa 1975. Emile Hirsch (one of the kids from DANGEROUS LIVES OF ALTER BOYS) plays the rebellious kid that Kline must set straight. It has something interesting to say about how teachers sometimes waste effort on bad kids that cannot be reached at the expense of kids that could better use and appreciate that same help. It also has much to say about the inherit value of personal virtue. The movie doesn’t denigrate capitalism or the real world, but appreciates the successful graduates who learned their lesson in that school. You’d expect the rebellious kid to be redeemed through efforts of the great teacher, but instead he’s proven dishonest twice, once as a student and later as a candidate for the Senate. As the Senate candidate he repeats the hackneyed lines about the importance of education that as we know he doesn’t believe. His donation to his Alma Matter is nothing but cheap political opportunism. This film is about the inherent value of education not a propagation of the institutions or processes that masquerade as education while functioning as jobs programs and daycare. Since I spent the better part of the movie trying to guess the liberal twist, I was surprised to find a conservative movie that didn’t apologize for it.
+61* (2001) – I had no patience for reading when I was a kid. But meeting Mickey Mantle when I was 7 changed my life. I started reading books about Mantle and the Yankees. Reading those books led to other baseball books and I eventually wrote Roger Maris a letter asking for his autograph and he kindly sent me his signature only a few years before his early death from smoking. Mickey would eventually succumb to the drink and both habits can be witnessed in the painfully accurate Billy Crystal movie. I saw it again last night for the 5th or 6th time. Will McGwire, Sosa and Bonds someday die from the effects of Steroids? Crystal uses CGI to great effect and he has a real love for the material. Mel Allen and Scooter Rizzuto are fun. Yogi has a couple of Yogi lines. Whitey Ford pipes in from time to time. It's hard to get over how much Barry Pepper and Thomas Jane look like Maris and Mantle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)