EXPERT VOTER
This is a great site that allows you to watch the candidates talk about their positions on issues.
(Hat Tip: Brain Terminal)
A Blog of Current Events and Ancient Issues.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
BASEBALL POLLING
Some interesting baseball poll results at gallup.com. While the proportion of Americans calling themselves baseball fans has been steadily falling, gate receipts have been steadily rising. In marketing-speak, it appears the "passionate minority" is fueling the sport's growth, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but you never like to see the general interest in your product declining.
I'm reading a book on the sociological characteristics that define twentysomethings and one could argue it doesn't bode well for baseball. I may expand on that some other time. Right now I am hungry.
Lots here on a variety of topics if you like polls.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
DIE HARD 4 BOURNE 3
I saw them back to back last weekend. They were both entertaining and they make great companion films.
The Bourne movies follow the idea that the American government’s power is so absolute that they can manipulate world events through the use of their mind-altered automatons. The latest Die Hard movie takes the approach that the government is so inept in seeing possible dangers that private individuals like John McClain have to step up to save the country.
Neither idea is new, but using Damon’s earlier quote about “smart” movies, which one is the smart movie? The action in both movies is equally implausible with the one difference that Bruce Willis stops for the occasional punch line.
In the Bourne universe the world is so beaten down by our prowess that they can barely live their own lives. We have these assassins all over the world ready to push the hair trigger on any perceived threat. And we must have hundreds of them, because you can reach one in any decent sized city in the world.
In McClain’s universe, the government red tape and inaction spawned the bad guy angry that no one would take him seriously inside the government. When the madman attacks no one really knows how to respond or what might happen next.
I think the Bournce universe may have been truer during the cold war or it was at least possible. Maybe the CIA held out against the Russians until Reagan could provide the death blow. But the events of 9-11 suggest that the Bourne universe is a total myth today. That’s probably why conspiracy theorists say that American attacked itself. Because if jihadists can destroy the World Trade Center then their vision of obtrusive CIA domination in the world is bogus.
If you accept that Islamists attacked on 9-11 then the Die Hard movie is the smart one jokes and all. Bourne Director Paul Greengrass made the exceptional United 93 last year and that movie suggest a DIE HARD worldview. No one was ready for the attack that day.
I really like the Bourne movies, despite the overused super close up frenetic camera. I like the series because I want the CIA to be that engaged in the world. Bourne wants us to question the validity of CIA power, but I can hate the villains inside the system and still support the idea and goals behind it as a net win. Every organization run by humans is going to have the flaws of humans. CIA abuse is a natural by-product of people having power over people. The best we can do is run the bad eggs out, which happens in every installment.
I think the filmmakers fail to understand their own implications when they attack government agencies like the CIA. If people are abusing power in the CIA, then there is no reason to think that doesn’t happen in every other government organization. And therefore, it would be foolish to give the Federal government any task that can be handled in some other way. If the film makers want to stop government abuse then you have to reduce the size of government, something we all know they certainly oppose. To follow their logic, bureaucrats in other government agencies are heroes there to help, but those in the CIA are megalomaniacs like on Pinky and the Brain. A more simplistic view of government would be hard to find.
Of all the Bourne movies I think this is the weakest mostly because he returns to American and the action scenes in New York City seem a stretch. Would the CIA really order their gunmen to kill people in front of New York cops? At least in Berlin I can rationalize the lack of oversight.
You can’t beat the first Die Hard movie, but the current one is certainly better than the third one. Bruce Willis said a few years ago that he gave up action films. I’m glad he’s back because fewer people can pull them off anymore.
I saw them back to back last weekend. They were both entertaining and they make great companion films.
The Bourne movies follow the idea that the American government’s power is so absolute that they can manipulate world events through the use of their mind-altered automatons. The latest Die Hard movie takes the approach that the government is so inept in seeing possible dangers that private individuals like John McClain have to step up to save the country.
Neither idea is new, but using Damon’s earlier quote about “smart” movies, which one is the smart movie? The action in both movies is equally implausible with the one difference that Bruce Willis stops for the occasional punch line.
In the Bourne universe the world is so beaten down by our prowess that they can barely live their own lives. We have these assassins all over the world ready to push the hair trigger on any perceived threat. And we must have hundreds of them, because you can reach one in any decent sized city in the world.
In McClain’s universe, the government red tape and inaction spawned the bad guy angry that no one would take him seriously inside the government. When the madman attacks no one really knows how to respond or what might happen next.
I think the Bournce universe may have been truer during the cold war or it was at least possible. Maybe the CIA held out against the Russians until Reagan could provide the death blow. But the events of 9-11 suggest that the Bourne universe is a total myth today. That’s probably why conspiracy theorists say that American attacked itself. Because if jihadists can destroy the World Trade Center then their vision of obtrusive CIA domination in the world is bogus.
If you accept that Islamists attacked on 9-11 then the Die Hard movie is the smart one jokes and all. Bourne Director Paul Greengrass made the exceptional United 93 last year and that movie suggest a DIE HARD worldview. No one was ready for the attack that day.
I really like the Bourne movies, despite the overused super close up frenetic camera. I like the series because I want the CIA to be that engaged in the world. Bourne wants us to question the validity of CIA power, but I can hate the villains inside the system and still support the idea and goals behind it as a net win. Every organization run by humans is going to have the flaws of humans. CIA abuse is a natural by-product of people having power over people. The best we can do is run the bad eggs out, which happens in every installment.
I think the filmmakers fail to understand their own implications when they attack government agencies like the CIA. If people are abusing power in the CIA, then there is no reason to think that doesn’t happen in every other government organization. And therefore, it would be foolish to give the Federal government any task that can be handled in some other way. If the film makers want to stop government abuse then you have to reduce the size of government, something we all know they certainly oppose. To follow their logic, bureaucrats in other government agencies are heroes there to help, but those in the CIA are megalomaniacs like on Pinky and the Brain. A more simplistic view of government would be hard to find.
Of all the Bourne movies I think this is the weakest mostly because he returns to American and the action scenes in New York City seem a stretch. Would the CIA really order their gunmen to kill people in front of New York cops? At least in Berlin I can rationalize the lack of oversight.
You can’t beat the first Die Hard movie, but the current one is certainly better than the third one. Bruce Willis said a few years ago that he gave up action films. I’m glad he’s back because fewer people can pull them off anymore.
Friday, August 10, 2007
I CAN REACH MY OWN BACK IF YOU CAN'T PAT IT FOR ME
The historical Hollywood struggle has been a balance between film as art and film as commerce. But these “smarter” movies that Damon applauds strive to be neither art nor commerce, they are more like advocacy. I think what Damon fails to realize that this approach makes movies disposable products locked in their own times. Classics like Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, and Citizen Kane are political, but they aren’t concerned with persuading the audience on a particular point. It makes them timeless in a way that today's "smart" movies won't be.
A few years ago Rod Lurie made a quintessential “contemporary” political film, THE CONTENDER. It was the least subtle dramatic defense for Clinton’s personal shortcomings. If you haven’t seen it, President Jeff Bridges considers nominating Joan Allen to be the new Vice President after the death of the incumbent. We’re introduced to Joan in a pretty lurid sex scene that we later discover was with her husband, but we’re lead to believe that she’s promiscuous. During talk of her nomination, charges of an earlier sexual impropriety surface and they have what looks like photos of a younger Joan Allen involved in an orgy.
A movie like this has a lot of places to go dramatically, but the singular point of the film is that Joan Allen doesn’t have to answer the charges because her private life is private. In fact, she’s willing to lose the nomination simply because she refuses to discuss the issue. Her refusal is treated as some sort of principle, but it lacks motivation when you learn later that it wasn’t her in the photos and the charges were false.
What person anywhere falsely accused of something takes the stance that it’s a personal matter? In the real world only guilty people say such things. Innocent people laugh it off. Once you learn that Allen was simply grandstanding, the character becomes unbelievable. The better dramatic choice is for her to have done the orgy and confront it. She could have said that it was a youthful indiscretion and she regrets it. She could have said that she doesn’t see anything wrong with the behavior and dare people not to judge her. Either way, she is confirmed not for some phony principle, but because she was genuine.
THE CONTENDER had to be about the heroism of avoiding the accusations because then Ken Starr is the bad guy for bringing the matter up. The movie became dated the moment that pet issue died which happened somewhere around the evening that Gore's team told the press of Bush’s 25 year-old DUI charge.
A couple of funny notes. Gary Oldman played the opposing Senator and blasted the movie when it was released as liberal propaganda by Spielberg and Geffen. On the commentary track, Lurie tells us that Oldman didn’t mean it. He just gets so into the characters that he plays that he becomes them and therefore he was just saying what the senator would say. The commentary is also funny because it’s around the time that Christian Slater was arrested for knocking around his girlfriend and Lurie tells us what a sweetheart that Slater is. I don’t know if that is an endorsement of Slater or an endorsement of knocking girls around since Clinton had just recently been accused by Juanita Broderick of knocking her around. The movie was produced too early to have anything to say about pardoning billionaire fat cats like Mark Rich, but I’m holding out hope for the 10th anniversary edition.
Read this quote again:
Syriana and The Good Shepherd say exactly the same thing, I saw the enemy and the enemy is us, a groundbreaking idea in Hollywood. A bolder idea we haven’t seen since the monks suggested a prayer before dinner.
"I think films have gotten better since everything started to go off the rails a few years ago. Suddenly all these people are coming out with things to say."
(Matt) Damon said filmmakers were making smarter movies that grappled with contemporary political issues, including two he had acted in - "Syriana" and "The Good Shepherd."
The historical Hollywood struggle has been a balance between film as art and film as commerce. But these “smarter” movies that Damon applauds strive to be neither art nor commerce, they are more like advocacy. I think what Damon fails to realize that this approach makes movies disposable products locked in their own times. Classics like Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, and Citizen Kane are political, but they aren’t concerned with persuading the audience on a particular point. It makes them timeless in a way that today's "smart" movies won't be.
A few years ago Rod Lurie made a quintessential “contemporary” political film, THE CONTENDER. It was the least subtle dramatic defense for Clinton’s personal shortcomings. If you haven’t seen it, President Jeff Bridges considers nominating Joan Allen to be the new Vice President after the death of the incumbent. We’re introduced to Joan in a pretty lurid sex scene that we later discover was with her husband, but we’re lead to believe that she’s promiscuous. During talk of her nomination, charges of an earlier sexual impropriety surface and they have what looks like photos of a younger Joan Allen involved in an orgy.
A movie like this has a lot of places to go dramatically, but the singular point of the film is that Joan Allen doesn’t have to answer the charges because her private life is private. In fact, she’s willing to lose the nomination simply because she refuses to discuss the issue. Her refusal is treated as some sort of principle, but it lacks motivation when you learn later that it wasn’t her in the photos and the charges were false.
What person anywhere falsely accused of something takes the stance that it’s a personal matter? In the real world only guilty people say such things. Innocent people laugh it off. Once you learn that Allen was simply grandstanding, the character becomes unbelievable. The better dramatic choice is for her to have done the orgy and confront it. She could have said that it was a youthful indiscretion and she regrets it. She could have said that she doesn’t see anything wrong with the behavior and dare people not to judge her. Either way, she is confirmed not for some phony principle, but because she was genuine.
THE CONTENDER had to be about the heroism of avoiding the accusations because then Ken Starr is the bad guy for bringing the matter up. The movie became dated the moment that pet issue died which happened somewhere around the evening that Gore's team told the press of Bush’s 25 year-old DUI charge.
A couple of funny notes. Gary Oldman played the opposing Senator and blasted the movie when it was released as liberal propaganda by Spielberg and Geffen. On the commentary track, Lurie tells us that Oldman didn’t mean it. He just gets so into the characters that he plays that he becomes them and therefore he was just saying what the senator would say. The commentary is also funny because it’s around the time that Christian Slater was arrested for knocking around his girlfriend and Lurie tells us what a sweetheart that Slater is. I don’t know if that is an endorsement of Slater or an endorsement of knocking girls around since Clinton had just recently been accused by Juanita Broderick of knocking her around. The movie was produced too early to have anything to say about pardoning billionaire fat cats like Mark Rich, but I’m holding out hope for the 10th anniversary edition.
Read this quote again:
"I think films have gotten better since everything started to go off the rails a few years ago. Suddenly all these people are coming out with things to say."
Syriana and The Good Shepherd say exactly the same thing, I saw the enemy and the enemy is us, a groundbreaking idea in Hollywood. A bolder idea we haven’t seen since the monks suggested a prayer before dinner.
DUDE'S REVIEWS
These are going to be quick, just to give Biff his fix before I leave town. As always, these are the ten films I have seen most recently, ranked in order of enjoyment. The number ratings come from AllMovie.com:
THE KARATE KID (1984) 4.0
This is one for the ages. There is so much to like here. I loved it as a teen and I got to share it with my kids as they will someday do. The setup takes awhile but it's worth it for the wax on, wax off payoff - an all-time great scene. The only negative is the constant onslaught of bad '80's music.
V FOR VENDETTA (2006) 3.5
Good stuff. I used to love Alan Moore graphic novels and this is him to a tee. He can spin a yarn with panache. The film has a great visual flair and tells a good tale. I am also in love with Natalie Portman who supplants Winona and even Keira as my favorite waif.
ONCE (2007) 4.0
The filmmaking is crude but the characters are winners and the songs are great. The scene in which they duet on Falling Slowly is an all-time great and should garner a nomination for the song.
LOLITA (1963) 4.0
Never seen it, always wanted to, finally did. Very much enjoyed it though it felt anticlimactic in the end when James Mason is ultra-possessive and we already know Peter Sellers is the other fella. Still, has a wonderful slyness to it throughout.
NOW, VOYAGER (1942) 5.0
This may possibly be the first Bette Davis film I've ever seen. She is a dynamic character portrayed with aplomb. Notable as the origin of the trick where the dude lights two cigs and gives one to the lady. Pleasant melodrama from the day.
SURF'S UP (2007) 3.5
Better than expected and much better than Dreck the Turd. It starts out in a fun documentary style but totally loses that motif as it goes. More about relationships than funny sidekicks - something worth watching with the kids.
STRANGER THAN FICTION (2006) 3.5
I enjoyed this more as I was watching it than later when I thought back on it and found it ridiculous. It's an enjoyable fable.
SHORTBUS (2006) 3.5
Lots of sex and not simulated. Everybody's got problems and all the solutions are the same - insert penis/dildo/vibrating egg and watch troubles melt away. First time I've actually seen real gay sex (not for the timid) and only time I will ever see the National Anthem sung into a bunghole.
SLITHER (2006) 3.5
I love horror/comedy. Netflix told me I would love this film. I did not. It was weak. I did love Shaun of the Dead, Tremors, and Evil Dead 2. Rent those instead.
SHREK THE THIRD (2007) 3.0
The first one was good. The second one had me laughing out loud. The third one was a total waste of my time. The kids liked it.
These are going to be quick, just to give Biff his fix before I leave town. As always, these are the ten films I have seen most recently, ranked in order of enjoyment. The number ratings come from AllMovie.com:
THE KARATE KID (1984) 4.0
This is one for the ages. There is so much to like here. I loved it as a teen and I got to share it with my kids as they will someday do. The setup takes awhile but it's worth it for the wax on, wax off payoff - an all-time great scene. The only negative is the constant onslaught of bad '80's music.
V FOR VENDETTA (2006) 3.5
Good stuff. I used to love Alan Moore graphic novels and this is him to a tee. He can spin a yarn with panache. The film has a great visual flair and tells a good tale. I am also in love with Natalie Portman who supplants Winona and even Keira as my favorite waif.
ONCE (2007) 4.0
The filmmaking is crude but the characters are winners and the songs are great. The scene in which they duet on Falling Slowly is an all-time great and should garner a nomination for the song.
LOLITA (1963) 4.0
Never seen it, always wanted to, finally did. Very much enjoyed it though it felt anticlimactic in the end when James Mason is ultra-possessive and we already know Peter Sellers is the other fella. Still, has a wonderful slyness to it throughout.
NOW, VOYAGER (1942) 5.0
This may possibly be the first Bette Davis film I've ever seen. She is a dynamic character portrayed with aplomb. Notable as the origin of the trick where the dude lights two cigs and gives one to the lady. Pleasant melodrama from the day.
SURF'S UP (2007) 3.5
Better than expected and much better than Dreck the Turd. It starts out in a fun documentary style but totally loses that motif as it goes. More about relationships than funny sidekicks - something worth watching with the kids.
STRANGER THAN FICTION (2006) 3.5
I enjoyed this more as I was watching it than later when I thought back on it and found it ridiculous. It's an enjoyable fable.
SHORTBUS (2006) 3.5
Lots of sex and not simulated. Everybody's got problems and all the solutions are the same - insert penis/dildo/vibrating egg and watch troubles melt away. First time I've actually seen real gay sex (not for the timid) and only time I will ever see the National Anthem sung into a bunghole.
SLITHER (2006) 3.5
I love horror/comedy. Netflix told me I would love this film. I did not. It was weak. I did love Shaun of the Dead, Tremors, and Evil Dead 2. Rent those instead.
SHREK THE THIRD (2007) 3.0
The first one was good. The second one had me laughing out loud. The third one was a total waste of my time. The kids liked it.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
DEBATE REPORT
About 15 minutes of shameless pandering to the unions was all I could stomach. That was long enough to see that the Democratic nomination is going to Hillary, everyone knows it, neither the glistening John Edwards nor Black Obama will be her running mate, and the other Senators on the stage have started throwing their support behind her in hopes of payback later. Now the only question is how many more thousands of times Hillary will say "experience" and "hit the ground running" between now and November 2008.
Phils 11, Marlins 1. Harry Kalas was much more interesting than anything being said at Soldier Field last night, and Ryan Howard, unlike the Democratic candidates, was knocking curveballs out of the park.
About 15 minutes of shameless pandering to the unions was all I could stomach. That was long enough to see that the Democratic nomination is going to Hillary, everyone knows it, neither the glistening John Edwards nor Black Obama will be her running mate, and the other Senators on the stage have started throwing their support behind her in hopes of payback later. Now the only question is how many more thousands of times Hillary will say "experience" and "hit the ground running" between now and November 2008.
Phils 11, Marlins 1. Harry Kalas was much more interesting than anything being said at Soldier Field last night, and Ryan Howard, unlike the Democratic candidates, was knocking curveballs out of the park.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
JOE MORGAN KNOWS BASEBALL
Not long ago E talked about how you get more credit for talking smart than being smart. Phil Mushnick at The New York Post has been exposing Joe Morgan lately on that front. The article starts with the Bonds/Aaron thing, but it’s actually more interesting near the end.
Yesterday he gets Morgan again --
Priceless
(Hat Tip FJM)
Not long ago E talked about how you get more credit for talking smart than being smart. Phil Mushnick at The New York Post has been exposing Joe Morgan lately on that front. The article starts with the Bonds/Aaron thing, but it’s actually more interesting near the end.
On July 15, as ESPN was televising the Phils' first-to-10,000-losses game, Morgan spoke a detailed account about how, in his first game, he played a significant role - a game-ending hit - in extending the Phils' infamous 10-game, late-season losing streak, a collapse that cost them the 1964 pennant.
But Morgan's first hit was in 1963, when he ended a game against a Phils' team that was not in the hunt. His historic first hit that furthered the Phils' '64 calamity never happened. The Phils didn't even play Houston during that losing streak.
ESPN, unsurprised by Morgan's latest historical fantasy, said Morgan would issue a correction during his next telecast. Morgan could have said, "My bad, last week. I confused '64 with '63. My first hit was against the Phils, but had nothing to do with that big collapse in '64." End of story.
Instead, when Morgan's solicitous partner, Jon Miller, eased into it - and Morgan knew it was coming - Morgan barely responded; he pretended to not quite know what Miller was talking about.
But he did leave Miller and ESPN's producer out to dry. Three times Miller delicately urged Morgan to explain that his tale, the week before, was incorrect. And every time, Morgan acted as if Miller was talking nonsense, as if Miller had the problem. And that stinks.
On that same telecast, Morgan lent credibility to Gary Sheffield's claim that Joe Torre is a racist by stating that Torre must answer Sheffield's claim.
Morgan might have noted that Sheffield has long been a wild-talker, which could explain why such a talent is with his seventh team, or that Sheffield's integrity is such that while with the Brewers, he claimed to have intentionally made throwing errors.
Instead, Morgan gave Sheffield's claim wings. Go ahead, Joe Torre, prove you're not a racist! But Barry Bonds and Gary Sheffield, two fingered BALCO suspects and post-prime sluggers, owe Morgan no explanations.
Yesterday he gets Morgan again --
Joe Morgan remains relentless in providing expertly stated nonsense. Last night, during Mets-Cubs on ESPN, Luis Castillo stuck with a windblown popup, making a nice catch. But Morgan explained the play as the result of Castillo being unfamiliar with the winds in Wrigley Field because, “Castillo has played his entire career in the American League.”
But Castillo played 10 years in the NL, all with the Marlins. In fact, it was Castillo who hit the infamous fly that spectator Steve Bartman caught - before Moises Alou could - in the 2003 NLCS at Wrigley. Last season, with the Twins, was his first in the AL.
In the top of the fifth, Morgan’s partner, Jon Miller, noted that Castillo has played before in Wrigley. Morgan said nothing.
Priceless
(Hat Tip FJM)
Thursday, August 02, 2007
TAX CUTS KILL AMERICANS
It is hard to know sometimes whether I am reading liberal columnist or conservative parody of liberal columnist. The writer even managed to work the "money being spent in Iraq could have fixed this bridge" angle later in the article. You could have counted in seconds how long it would take before the bridge collapse was Bush's fault.
UPDATE: Today's Minneapolis StarTribune reports on its front page that Gov. Pawlenty, who previously vetoed a 7.5-cent per gallon tax increase, has agreed to break his No New Taxes pledge and approve a gas tax increase to fund infrastructure construction, despite [as reported yesterday by Rush] a massive current surplus in his state budget - which of course means that the state's citizens are already overtaxed, when even the government can't spend it all.
It is hard to know sometimes whether I am reading liberal columnist or conservative parody of liberal columnist. The writer even managed to work the "money being spent in Iraq could have fixed this bridge" angle later in the article. You could have counted in seconds how long it would take before the bridge collapse was Bush's fault.
[The bridge collapse] was avoidable."Millions were lost." That damn governor and those stupid voters stole the government's money. A 5-cent gas tax increase would cost me about $145 a year at current gas prices. That's money I'd rather decide on my own how to spend. Watch out for these do-gooders who think that it's okay to tax everyone as long as everyone is being taxed, and don't employ them in your accounting department either.
That means it should never have happened. And that means that public anger will follow our sorrow as sure as night descended on the missing.
For half a dozen years, the motto of state government and particularly that of Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been No New Taxes. It's been popular with a lot of voters and it has mostly prevailed. So much so that Pawlenty vetoed a 5-cent gas tax increase - the first in 20 years - last spring and millions were lost that might have gone to road repair.
UPDATE: Today's Minneapolis StarTribune reports on its front page that Gov. Pawlenty, who previously vetoed a 7.5-cent per gallon tax increase, has agreed to break his No New Taxes pledge and approve a gas tax increase to fund infrastructure construction, despite [as reported yesterday by Rush] a massive current surplus in his state budget - which of course means that the state's citizens are already overtaxed, when even the government can't spend it all.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
INGMAR BERGMAN 1918-2007
I’m not as versed in Bergman as I should be. Maybe his death will give me a chance to visit his work some more.
THREE STRANGE LOVES (1949) –You wouldn’t figure it for a Bergman film, but the love –triangle subject matter was treated in a much more European manner although I remember the interiors and cinematography seemed like a 1940s Hollywood. It just happened to be one of the few Bergman movies the Pensacola library owned and it’s overall mediocrity kept me from trying other lessor known films like THE MAGICIAN.
WILD STRAWBERRIES (1957) – This was my first Bergman film. I couldn’t figure out how a man’s travel with his daughter-in-law could make for a classic film, but I gave it a run. It turned out to be a great introduction to Bergman, because his approach to material is usually superior to the plot itself. It had a funny effect on me at the time. I liked it a great deal and I wanted to watch it again soon after. I decided that I watch some of his other films first, but his best films were unavailable in Pensacola. I’ve slowly watched a few here or there on Netflix, but I have a way to go. I would still consider it to be my favorite of his movies.
THE SEVENTH SEAL (1957) –It’s hard to set a film in the middle ages and make it work. I can hardly think of another off hand. Bergman not only captures small villages and great areas of desolation, but intertwines the black death quite well too. This was the first one I saw on Netflix and it’s understandable why it’s his most iconic. Death as a character could be quite hokey in the wrong hands, but Bergman makes it believable and haunting and compelling.
CRIES AND WHISPERS (1972) – After THREE STRANGE LOVES I thought I would check out something more well known and Cries and Whispers was nominated for Best Picture and Director. A movie full of death and near death and pain and remorse can get to you. I think I gave up on it after 45 minutes. It did more than anything else to quell my Bergman appetite for a while.
FANNY AND ALEXANDER (1982) – This is the one I’ve seen most recently. Although 3 hours long, the story arc and tertiary characters work well enough that it didn’t seem overlong. I understand he did a 4 hour version for Swedish TV. It also helped me to understand why critics point to certain Woody Allen traits and call the Bergmanesque. Woody’s scene at the end of Match Point where the Tennis Player talks to the deceased is a clear homage to Bergman and one that I would have missed without watching this film. Although it's longer than most of his work, it's also less dark than the others I have seen.
I’m not as versed in Bergman as I should be. Maybe his death will give me a chance to visit his work some more.
THREE STRANGE LOVES (1949) –You wouldn’t figure it for a Bergman film, but the love –triangle subject matter was treated in a much more European manner although I remember the interiors and cinematography seemed like a 1940s Hollywood. It just happened to be one of the few Bergman movies the Pensacola library owned and it’s overall mediocrity kept me from trying other lessor known films like THE MAGICIAN.
WILD STRAWBERRIES (1957) – This was my first Bergman film. I couldn’t figure out how a man’s travel with his daughter-in-law could make for a classic film, but I gave it a run. It turned out to be a great introduction to Bergman, because his approach to material is usually superior to the plot itself. It had a funny effect on me at the time. I liked it a great deal and I wanted to watch it again soon after. I decided that I watch some of his other films first, but his best films were unavailable in Pensacola. I’ve slowly watched a few here or there on Netflix, but I have a way to go. I would still consider it to be my favorite of his movies.
THE SEVENTH SEAL (1957) –It’s hard to set a film in the middle ages and make it work. I can hardly think of another off hand. Bergman not only captures small villages and great areas of desolation, but intertwines the black death quite well too. This was the first one I saw on Netflix and it’s understandable why it’s his most iconic. Death as a character could be quite hokey in the wrong hands, but Bergman makes it believable and haunting and compelling.
CRIES AND WHISPERS (1972) – After THREE STRANGE LOVES I thought I would check out something more well known and Cries and Whispers was nominated for Best Picture and Director. A movie full of death and near death and pain and remorse can get to you. I think I gave up on it after 45 minutes. It did more than anything else to quell my Bergman appetite for a while.
FANNY AND ALEXANDER (1982) – This is the one I’ve seen most recently. Although 3 hours long, the story arc and tertiary characters work well enough that it didn’t seem overlong. I understand he did a 4 hour version for Swedish TV. It also helped me to understand why critics point to certain Woody Allen traits and call the Bergmanesque. Woody’s scene at the end of Match Point where the Tennis Player talks to the deceased is a clear homage to Bergman and one that I would have missed without watching this film. Although it's longer than most of his work, it's also less dark than the others I have seen.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
THOU SHALT NOT KILL THE CUTE ONES
Irony is never lost on the Dude.
Irony is never lost on the Dude.
Hai Nguyen, 24, was fishing off a Newport pier about 12:30 p.m. Friday when the sea lion snatched the bait from his fishing pole.Nguyen argues that the sea lion was in the act of committing a felony while Nguyen himself was in the act of killing sea creatures so no harm, no foul. Meanwhile, Pacific Marine Mammal Center employees are pushing to classify this as a hate crime and the woman who got raped on the pool table in THE ACCUSED wishes she had these witnesses in the bar that night.
"It was close enough so he could just reach out and stab it in the water," said Sgt. Evan Sailor, a police spokesman. "A number of people witnessed it and called police."
The sea lion, a six-foot female weighing about 150 pounds, was stabbed in the heart and was euthanized. Nguyen could face a $25,000 fine and up to a year in prison if convicted on the animal cruelty charge.
THE SUPREMES
Senator Chuck Schumer says that the Senate should not confirm another Supreme Court Justice during Bush’s time in office. It would be a disaster he says to see another Roberts or Alito replace a Stevens or Ginsburg.
I ran through the constitution again and I didn’t see the word “precedent” anywhere. Do they use a different constitution in the senate? It does say 1789, maybe the country was overthrown between then and now and I've got the wrong document.
According to Webster, "precedent" means, “prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance.” It seems that precedent is just another word for tradition, defined by Webster as, “an inherited, established, or customary pattern.”
Webster says a conservative is someone “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions.” So why are conservatives delighted that the new court isn’t upholding tradition?
Charles Schumer was born in 1950 so he probably had other things on his mind when the Earl Warren Supreme Court started knocking down tradition after tradition. He would probably be angered to know that school prayer, a long time tradition, was outlawed with the decision Engel v. Vitale (1962)
It also might burn him to know that the court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) that you had to read a suspect his rights making it tougher to extract confessions. In the old days you could simple ask the guy if he did it.
You can’t just blame Warren though. In 1971, the Burger court ruled Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education that school districts can and should bus children to schools far from their homes so people who look different could be bused in the other direction. It ended the traditional idea that a school was a part of a shared community. The court instead saw school as a laboratory for social engineering.
Lucky for Schumer the solution is in front of him. According to the Constitution, he's actually a member of the only government branch allowed to create federal law. Just write the law very simply in a few pages so that even the dumbest court member will know just what you mean. The power is all with you gentle warrior.
Senator Chuck Schumer says that the Senate should not confirm another Supreme Court Justice during Bush’s time in office. It would be a disaster he says to see another Roberts or Alito replace a Stevens or Ginsburg.
Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.
Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.
The term that ended in June was notable for several rulings that reversed or chipped away at several long-standing decisions, delighting conservatives but enraging liberals.
Breyer has publicly raised concerns that conservative justices were violating stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave precedents undisturbed.
I ran through the constitution again and I didn’t see the word “precedent” anywhere. Do they use a different constitution in the senate? It does say 1789, maybe the country was overthrown between then and now and I've got the wrong document.
According to Webster, "precedent" means, “prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance.” It seems that precedent is just another word for tradition, defined by Webster as, “an inherited, established, or customary pattern.”
Webster says a conservative is someone “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions.” So why are conservatives delighted that the new court isn’t upholding tradition?
Charles Schumer was born in 1950 so he probably had other things on his mind when the Earl Warren Supreme Court started knocking down tradition after tradition. He would probably be angered to know that school prayer, a long time tradition, was outlawed with the decision Engel v. Vitale (1962)
It also might burn him to know that the court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) that you had to read a suspect his rights making it tougher to extract confessions. In the old days you could simple ask the guy if he did it.
You can’t just blame Warren though. In 1971, the Burger court ruled Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education that school districts can and should bus children to schools far from their homes so people who look different could be bused in the other direction. It ended the traditional idea that a school was a part of a shared community. The court instead saw school as a laboratory for social engineering.
Lucky for Schumer the solution is in front of him. According to the Constitution, he's actually a member of the only government branch allowed to create federal law. Just write the law very simply in a few pages so that even the dumbest court member will know just what you mean. The power is all with you gentle warrior.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
NUGGETS FROM THE YOU TUBE DEBATE
I didn't watch it so I cannot comment on the whole, but these quotes struck me.
This blanket diplomacy panacea is a total fraud. The candidates never tell us what they'd say in these talks, but we're to assume that it would be thoughtful and measured and the world's madmen would nod and embrace our tender leader.
You can see how Hilary's time in the White House has given her a much more realistic outlook in these things.
Let's pull the troups out of the Middle East where the war is and create a bloodbath so we can send them to Africa to end one.
What will you call yourself when "Progresive" becomes the pejorative term for more taxes and less freedom?
Another nonspecific attribute that he assigns himself, perspective. What perspective? Every Democrat is trumpeting change.
Obama has perspective, but Hilary is an agent. The professor versus the operative.
Think the media will hold her to this one if she's elected?
I didn't watch it so I cannot comment on the whole, but these quotes struck me.
Obama said he would be willing to meet individually with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of his presidency. "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous," Obama said to applause.
This blanket diplomacy panacea is a total fraud. The candidates never tell us what they'd say in these talks, but we're to assume that it would be thoughtful and measured and the world's madmen would nod and embrace our tender leader.
Clinton immediately disagreed and said she would send envoys first to find out their intentions. "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes," she said. Her campaign quickly posted the video on her Web site, trying to draw a distinction with her chief rival and show she has a different understanding of foreign policy.
You can see how Hilary's time in the White House has given her a much more realistic outlook in these things.
On another foreign policy topic, Biden said he would send 2,500 U.S. troops to Darfur to try to end the civil war there. It took three tries to get Clinton to answer the same questions. She finally said U.S. ground troops don't belong in the fight because they are overextended in Iraq.
Let's pull the troups out of the Middle East where the war is and create a bloodbath so we can send them to Africa to end one.
She also refused to call herself a liberal. "I prefer the word progressive, which has a real American meaning ...," she said.
What will you call yourself when "Progresive" becomes the pejorative term for more taxes and less freedom?
Obama, a freshmen lawmaker trying to appeal to the public's thirst for change, replied, "One of the things I bring is a perspective ... that says Washington has to change."
Another nonspecific attribute that he assigns himself, perspective. What perspective? Every Democrat is trumpeting change.
Clinton claimed she has a 35-year-record as an agent of change. "The issue is which of us is to lead on Day One."
Obama has perspective, but Hilary is an agent. The professor versus the operative.
When was the last time a presidential candidate was forced to promise to work at minimum wage? That is effectively what happened when a voter asked whether the candidates would serve four years at $5.85 an hour rather than the president's annual $400,000 salary.
"Sure," replied Clinton.
Think the media will hold her to this one if she's elected?
Sunday, July 22, 2007
ZOMBIE-IN-LAW
From the Newsweek article: "I was there one minute and the next thing I know, it's a few days later and people are telling me I was dead and came back," says Duffield. But Duffield's memory and intellect and personality all returned intact from his brush with death, as did Bondar's. This is, on some level, deeply mysterious. We experience consciousness embedded in time, a succession of mental states continually re-created in our brains, even during sleep. But when the brain shuts down, where does the mind go?"
Great question. Dude, you are holding out on us. Surely you have a theory?
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
MAMA AND DADDY
Hello faithful readers of the Junto Boys Blog. SirSaunders here, I'm back from a wonderful family vacation (the first real vacation in 3 years). We went to BEAUTIFUL Savannah, Georgia and visited Fort Jackson. We then journeyed to Augusta, Georgia to visit my sister-in-law and her family. Then to the Lake House on Lake Seminole for a few days. I went to my 20 year high school reunion and realized again why I left Bonifay 20 years ago. Then we finalized our two week extravaganza on Panama City Beach where I laid under an umbrella and delighted in my happy life. But all that moving around got me to missing the Junto Boys and thinking about you fellows. I've enjoyed the recent blogs particularly Tom's "Secret" comment (I noticed that too) and Kevin's Lazarus brother-in-law article (speculation: does this hypothermia technology bring us closer to cryogenic storage of humans and thus possible long term space travel Ala "Alien?"). But I digress.
My thoughts lately have been with an eye toward the election next year and what the American People want/need out of a candidate. Truthfully, after spending a lot of time in the country and in Bonifay on my vacation, I concluded it boils down to a simple truth: Mama and Daddy. You see the American People are like children in a big family. When times are good and everything is right with the world, you want Mama. You want Mama to tend to you, care for you, wipe your mouth, clean your table, mend your clothes, bathe you, tuck you in at night and tell you that all is good with the world. You need Mama. You love her because she rocks you and makes you feel wonderful, nurtured, and loved. But then...night comes... It's 2:33am and you are awakened out of a dead sleep. You hear a crash down the hall. Has someone broken in? Is there an intruder? Hairs stand on end and you brake out in a cold sweat. Who is it you call for? It sure ain't Mama, it's Daddy. You want big strong Daddy to get his gun and search the house and defend the homestead. You want Daddy to chase off the monsters and tell you all will be fine with the world. You are glad to have him. Whew! Thank goodness for Daddy. Then the sun rises, the glass is cleaned up, the window is repaired. Life goes on. Hmmmm...it's not scary now. I guess I'll ask Mama for some breakfast. And the cycle continues.
This is why, Baring a new attack and baring a complete foul up by the candidate, a Democrat will win in '08. We've forgotten (or don't want to remember) the broken window, we just want Mama to fix breakfast again. Because really, if that bad man comes back again, then we'll just holler for Daddy, Daddy!!!
Hello faithful readers of the Junto Boys Blog. SirSaunders here, I'm back from a wonderful family vacation (the first real vacation in 3 years). We went to BEAUTIFUL Savannah, Georgia and visited Fort Jackson. We then journeyed to Augusta, Georgia to visit my sister-in-law and her family. Then to the Lake House on Lake Seminole for a few days. I went to my 20 year high school reunion and realized again why I left Bonifay 20 years ago. Then we finalized our two week extravaganza on Panama City Beach where I laid under an umbrella and delighted in my happy life. But all that moving around got me to missing the Junto Boys and thinking about you fellows. I've enjoyed the recent blogs particularly Tom's "Secret" comment (I noticed that too) and Kevin's Lazarus brother-in-law article (speculation: does this hypothermia technology bring us closer to cryogenic storage of humans and thus possible long term space travel Ala "Alien?"). But I digress.
My thoughts lately have been with an eye toward the election next year and what the American People want/need out of a candidate. Truthfully, after spending a lot of time in the country and in Bonifay on my vacation, I concluded it boils down to a simple truth: Mama and Daddy. You see the American People are like children in a big family. When times are good and everything is right with the world, you want Mama. You want Mama to tend to you, care for you, wipe your mouth, clean your table, mend your clothes, bathe you, tuck you in at night and tell you that all is good with the world. You need Mama. You love her because she rocks you and makes you feel wonderful, nurtured, and loved. But then...night comes... It's 2:33am and you are awakened out of a dead sleep. You hear a crash down the hall. Has someone broken in? Is there an intruder? Hairs stand on end and you brake out in a cold sweat. Who is it you call for? It sure ain't Mama, it's Daddy. You want big strong Daddy to get his gun and search the house and defend the homestead. You want Daddy to chase off the monsters and tell you all will be fine with the world. You are glad to have him. Whew! Thank goodness for Daddy. Then the sun rises, the glass is cleaned up, the window is repaired. Life goes on. Hmmmm...it's not scary now. I guess I'll ask Mama for some breakfast. And the cycle continues.
This is why, Baring a new attack and baring a complete foul up by the candidate, a Democrat will win in '08. We've forgotten (or don't want to remember) the broken window, we just want Mama to fix breakfast again. Because really, if that bad man comes back again, then we'll just holler for Daddy, Daddy!!!
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Monday, July 16, 2007
ZOMBIE-IN-LAW
Marci's sister in Tucson phoned last year to announce that her husband was in the hospital after suffering cardiac arrest. This was shocking news as he was only 40 years old and physically fit. He swims every morning at the U of A pool. One morning after his swim, he collapsed in the shower. There was one other guy in the locker room and he decided to not ignore the thud. He checked it out and found dead Brian then went looking for help. The first person he ran into happened to be a paramedic who tended to Brian and called for backup. He wound up at the U of A hospital which is one of a handful of hospitals with the necessary equipment to induce hypothermia for cardiac patients. They shot him up with chilled saline and wrapped blankets around him which are infused with the chilly stuff. They kept him in a coma for a few days at 92 degrees and when he woke up the only lingering effect was a great story. Now he is on the cover of Newsweek - and this so soon after he was named Time's Man of the Year.
Marci's sister in Tucson phoned last year to announce that her husband was in the hospital after suffering cardiac arrest. This was shocking news as he was only 40 years old and physically fit. He swims every morning at the U of A pool. One morning after his swim, he collapsed in the shower. There was one other guy in the locker room and he decided to not ignore the thud. He checked it out and found dead Brian then went looking for help. The first person he ran into happened to be a paramedic who tended to Brian and called for backup. He wound up at the U of A hospital which is one of a handful of hospitals with the necessary equipment to induce hypothermia for cardiac patients. They shot him up with chilled saline and wrapped blankets around him which are infused with the chilly stuff. They kept him in a coma for a few days at 92 degrees and when he woke up the only lingering effect was a great story. Now he is on the cover of Newsweek - and this so soon after he was named Time's Man of the Year.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
TOM’S MOVIE REVIEWS SINCE MAY
*** Superior Film
** Solid Effort
* Same ole
# Sleep Aid
***A MAN ESCAPED (1957) – I decided to try another Robert Bresson film after getting enjoyment from PICKPOCKET last time. The setting is World War II, our hero is a French resistance member in prison and dying to get out. The plan and the time that it takes to find a way out are the gist of the movie. It’s all in style and tension and Bresson serves up another winner.
**ARMY OF SHADOWS (1969) – French Resistance again, but this time from my pal Melville, of Le Samurai fame. The Nazis were not kind to the Frenchies that didn’t play ball. It follows the journey of a resistance fighter raising money and pulling schemes. Like the Andy Garcia movie I review later, it’s uplifting and scary watching a guy trying to get his country back.
*BREACH (2007) – Based on a true story of Robert Hanssen, the FBI agent turncoat in bed with the Russians. Chris Cooper plays Hanssen effectively. Ryan Phillipe is cast to annoy Dude as the young aide planted to get the goods on Hanssen. Cooper/Hanson’s intelligence and observation are so keen that he proves to Phillipe that he can tell when he’s lying and soon thereafter fingers him for snooping around in his office. That’s on the first day and it makes Phillipe’s quest look hopeless. But after that scene, Cooper never really calls the aide out on any of his lies or suspects any of the subterfuge. The setup is solely to make us uneasy in their confrontations rather than introduce a real character trait that will play out later in the plot. The actor that plays Phillipe’s wife is supposed to be East German but her accent sounds Scottish when she bothers to use it, and her looks are not the least bit European. I have to comment on the politics. William Hurt already starred in the TV version of Hanssen’s tale and while I’m sure that would have been enough usually, this movie arrives so that Hanssen’s personally conservative manner can be construed to be a part of his overall deficiencies. He chastises Phillipe for noticing the beauty of another woman and pressures him to bring his non-catholic wife to mass. He also comments on not liking to see women wear pants and disparages Hilary Clinton. Only a rotten spy could think these things. CIA spy Aldrich Ames gave something like $5,000 to the Democrat National Committee and that didn’t get mentioned in his TV movie starring Timothy Hutton. The reliable Laura Linney is kind of wasted as the boss that puts Phillipe up to all this. The rarely seen Anne Archer plays Cooper’s wife. Overall it’s probably a little smarter than the typical piece in this genre, but there is nothing new in approach. It’s just a matter of waiting around for the capture.
*THE GOOD SHEPHERD (2006) – We have moles in the CIA too, but before we get to that director, Robert DeNiro shows us the early history of the CIA through a young agent played by Matt Damon. It follows along pretty nicely for the most part, but becomes too much near the end when the web encompasses Damon’s family. Did we really need such melodrama? Good turns by John Turturro as the loyal aide, Michael Gambom as his college professor, and Alec Baldwin as his contact in the FBI. It has all the style and presence of a great movie, but the plot eventually gets in the way. No amount of makeup makes Matt Damon look 50 years old. The scene with his grown son makes them look like school chums. Like BREACH it begins with a flashback. Does no one read Syd Field? I guess it’s rare to see any biographical movie not flashback. WALK THE LINE is another recent example.
**THE LOST CITY (2005) – Actor/Director Andy Garcia is entirely out of step. How else do you explain that this biographical movie doesn’t begin with a flashback? But that’s not his only deviation. Unlike regular Hollywood that embraces Castro and idolizes Che, Garcia makes a movie about what frauds they were. He doesn’t sugar coat Batista and his corruption, but instead shows how that corruption brought about an opportunist Castro who proved even worse. Since the OCEANS movies are more about attitude than character and since Garcia hasn’t made any other A list movies in ten years, I forgot what an effective actor he is. And if you think about him being 2 years older than Alec Baldwin and still capable of playing leading men, you wonder if he hasn’t been blacklisted for his political beliefs. Maybe he’ll get a documentary in 20 years about this injustice. The acting is uneven in the other performances and cameos by Dustin Hoffman and Bill Murray are entertaining but although disruptive. Hoffman just always seems like he’s acting to me even when he’s entertaining. Murray is really quite a hoot, although there is no real purpose for his character and the tone changes in any scene he’s in. It’s funny what passes as bravery these days. Michael Moore is considered brave for making movie’s that aligns with every Hollywood prejudice. Sure sure the Cuban revolutionaries had some missteps, but this is wonderful health care. Actual bravery is portraying Che in a negative light when your peers think the opposite. I mean OCEANS director, Steven Soderbergh is making his next movie about Che and I don’t think it will be about how he liked shooting people for the kick it gave him. I expect a wonderful little movie from Soderbergh, directed much more skillfully with a softer poetic side of the brute, pure fiction of course but a boon to those T-shirt makers. Garcia’s movie is a little long, but the cinematography is first rate. And you root for Garcia the whole way especially as he puts himself in peril by opposing the revolution. This movie gives you the cost of utopianism, the people trampled, the families split apart, the businesses lost all so the worker’s paradise can begin. It’s a grown up movie about what really happens in socialism and the cost of romanticizing it.
*SUPER SIZE ME (2004) – If you need to learn that eating McDonalds is bad for you maybe this is educational. For me, it’s just funny to watch him eat Big Macs and act surprised at the results. Seeing his vital signs wither after a month of McNuggets shows the resilience of the human body more than anything else. The implication in the movie is that the grim reaper had a hand on Morgan’s shoulder. But we all know that people eat like this for years without dying. Maybe I could get famous by making a movie about how taking a bath makes you wet.
**LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA (2006) – I think patriotism can boil down to one moment in this film. Were you happy the first time Americans bombed the Island? I found the Japanese soldiers very compelling and their challenge daunting. But when the bombs fell I could only say, sorry boys, you were born in the wrong century. It’s a tribute to Eastwood’s filmmaking that he didn’t let the sympathy that would be very easy to feel for individual soldiers translate into a hope that they’d beat back the Americans. And the Japanese are sympathetic. They don’t want to be on the island either. Some of them have been to the United States and they remember it fondly. They expect to die and want to do so honorably. The material surprises me considering Eastwood said that his friendship ended with Ronald Reagan after Reagan visited the Bitburg Cementary in 1986. Does this movie mean that Eastwood is ready to forgive our enemies in World War II or just ones that bombed us in the first place? Overall the movie is a little long. There isn’t much going on. We see flashbacks on the two main characters and learn a little about a few others. It’s not a movie that many people would have attempted. I felt that it was a solid effort overall, although I think I would have nominated FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS instead.
**LITTLE CHILDREN (2006) – I got the impression from marketing and nominations that this was some sort of intense drama when it’s actually a sly and subtle comedy. The main characters played by Patrick Wilson and Kate Winslet are the Little Children of the title. Both have child/adult relationships with their spouses, Wilson especially, and that frustration leads to their eventual affair. The subplot of child molester Jackie Earle Haley is also an example of adult infantilism as he still lives with and is cared for by his mother. His mother is worried about Haley. She sends him off on a date with a disturbed but otherwise sweet girl. He’s going to need a new mother when his real mother dies, she reckons. The date goes well at first. The two talk easily and the troubled girl opens up. He’s gentle with her and they quickly form a bond. What happens next only happens when a writer is having fun with us. And he’s having a lot of fun on this one. The last part of the movie is just nothing but symbolism on top of symbolism. There’s the obvious breaking of the porcelain kids. Haley’s solution in how to be a good boy made a bell ring in symbolville. And that the leading man misses his clandestine meeting with Winslet due to a skateboarding accident isn’t without meaning either. It’s almost like the movie opens with the children being sent out to play and although they all get dirty and hurt, they all come right back home to the parents.
*THE SENTINEL (2006) – It’s today’s generic modern action/suspense movie. Take a decent idea and fire it up into an interesting plot and then start adding elements that make the whole thing a cartoon and somewhere settle for an ending that’s forced, hollow, or uninspiring. Secret Service Agent Michael Douglas saved Reagan’s life and was subsequently passed over for promotion. Currently Douglas is taking it out on the country by banging the First Lady (Kim Basinger). Since we know that Douglas is capable of such treachery then it shouldn’t be surprising that his former best friend and fellow agent, Kiefer Sutherland, hates him because he suspects that Douglas was banging his wife too. That’s not even the plot just the background. The plot has some other secret service agent conspiring to kill the President and frame Douglas for it. So Douglas has to escape the clutches of Sutherland to clear his name. Chase, gunplay, explosion and Douglas gets to Basinger who believes him and she eventually tells Sutherland that Douglas is a good man even if he’s capable of banging a first lady. Would you be surprised to learn that Douglas makes it all the way to Toronto on the run and then almost single handedly saves the President’s life? Would you further believe with a line or two of dialogue that Kiefer suddenly believes that Douglas didn’t bang his wife and that they could be friends again? Somewhere in there we also get to believe that Eva Longira is an agent too. Still it’s entertaining enough once you forgive the writing shortcuts.
*NOTES FROM A SCANDAL (2006) – Cate Blanchet plays the free spirited teacher coming to a new school and Judy Dench plays the veteran that takes her under the wing. Though British the conflict is somewhat topical with the U.S. school system. Blanchett shows that she can play more than graceful beauty. Dame Judy has that presence you expect. Those two make the movie more interesting than its mediocre material would let on.
*** Superior Film
** Solid Effort
* Same ole
# Sleep Aid
***A MAN ESCAPED (1957) – I decided to try another Robert Bresson film after getting enjoyment from PICKPOCKET last time. The setting is World War II, our hero is a French resistance member in prison and dying to get out. The plan and the time that it takes to find a way out are the gist of the movie. It’s all in style and tension and Bresson serves up another winner.
**ARMY OF SHADOWS (1969) – French Resistance again, but this time from my pal Melville, of Le Samurai fame. The Nazis were not kind to the Frenchies that didn’t play ball. It follows the journey of a resistance fighter raising money and pulling schemes. Like the Andy Garcia movie I review later, it’s uplifting and scary watching a guy trying to get his country back.
*BREACH (2007) – Based on a true story of Robert Hanssen, the FBI agent turncoat in bed with the Russians. Chris Cooper plays Hanssen effectively. Ryan Phillipe is cast to annoy Dude as the young aide planted to get the goods on Hanssen. Cooper/Hanson’s intelligence and observation are so keen that he proves to Phillipe that he can tell when he’s lying and soon thereafter fingers him for snooping around in his office. That’s on the first day and it makes Phillipe’s quest look hopeless. But after that scene, Cooper never really calls the aide out on any of his lies or suspects any of the subterfuge. The setup is solely to make us uneasy in their confrontations rather than introduce a real character trait that will play out later in the plot. The actor that plays Phillipe’s wife is supposed to be East German but her accent sounds Scottish when she bothers to use it, and her looks are not the least bit European. I have to comment on the politics. William Hurt already starred in the TV version of Hanssen’s tale and while I’m sure that would have been enough usually, this movie arrives so that Hanssen’s personally conservative manner can be construed to be a part of his overall deficiencies. He chastises Phillipe for noticing the beauty of another woman and pressures him to bring his non-catholic wife to mass. He also comments on not liking to see women wear pants and disparages Hilary Clinton. Only a rotten spy could think these things. CIA spy Aldrich Ames gave something like $5,000 to the Democrat National Committee and that didn’t get mentioned in his TV movie starring Timothy Hutton. The reliable Laura Linney is kind of wasted as the boss that puts Phillipe up to all this. The rarely seen Anne Archer plays Cooper’s wife. Overall it’s probably a little smarter than the typical piece in this genre, but there is nothing new in approach. It’s just a matter of waiting around for the capture.
*THE GOOD SHEPHERD (2006) – We have moles in the CIA too, but before we get to that director, Robert DeNiro shows us the early history of the CIA through a young agent played by Matt Damon. It follows along pretty nicely for the most part, but becomes too much near the end when the web encompasses Damon’s family. Did we really need such melodrama? Good turns by John Turturro as the loyal aide, Michael Gambom as his college professor, and Alec Baldwin as his contact in the FBI. It has all the style and presence of a great movie, but the plot eventually gets in the way. No amount of makeup makes Matt Damon look 50 years old. The scene with his grown son makes them look like school chums. Like BREACH it begins with a flashback. Does no one read Syd Field? I guess it’s rare to see any biographical movie not flashback. WALK THE LINE is another recent example.
**THE LOST CITY (2005) – Actor/Director Andy Garcia is entirely out of step. How else do you explain that this biographical movie doesn’t begin with a flashback? But that’s not his only deviation. Unlike regular Hollywood that embraces Castro and idolizes Che, Garcia makes a movie about what frauds they were. He doesn’t sugar coat Batista and his corruption, but instead shows how that corruption brought about an opportunist Castro who proved even worse. Since the OCEANS movies are more about attitude than character and since Garcia hasn’t made any other A list movies in ten years, I forgot what an effective actor he is. And if you think about him being 2 years older than Alec Baldwin and still capable of playing leading men, you wonder if he hasn’t been blacklisted for his political beliefs. Maybe he’ll get a documentary in 20 years about this injustice. The acting is uneven in the other performances and cameos by Dustin Hoffman and Bill Murray are entertaining but although disruptive. Hoffman just always seems like he’s acting to me even when he’s entertaining. Murray is really quite a hoot, although there is no real purpose for his character and the tone changes in any scene he’s in. It’s funny what passes as bravery these days. Michael Moore is considered brave for making movie’s that aligns with every Hollywood prejudice. Sure sure the Cuban revolutionaries had some missteps, but this is wonderful health care. Actual bravery is portraying Che in a negative light when your peers think the opposite. I mean OCEANS director, Steven Soderbergh is making his next movie about Che and I don’t think it will be about how he liked shooting people for the kick it gave him. I expect a wonderful little movie from Soderbergh, directed much more skillfully with a softer poetic side of the brute, pure fiction of course but a boon to those T-shirt makers. Garcia’s movie is a little long, but the cinematography is first rate. And you root for Garcia the whole way especially as he puts himself in peril by opposing the revolution. This movie gives you the cost of utopianism, the people trampled, the families split apart, the businesses lost all so the worker’s paradise can begin. It’s a grown up movie about what really happens in socialism and the cost of romanticizing it.
*SUPER SIZE ME (2004) – If you need to learn that eating McDonalds is bad for you maybe this is educational. For me, it’s just funny to watch him eat Big Macs and act surprised at the results. Seeing his vital signs wither after a month of McNuggets shows the resilience of the human body more than anything else. The implication in the movie is that the grim reaper had a hand on Morgan’s shoulder. But we all know that people eat like this for years without dying. Maybe I could get famous by making a movie about how taking a bath makes you wet.
**LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA (2006) – I think patriotism can boil down to one moment in this film. Were you happy the first time Americans bombed the Island? I found the Japanese soldiers very compelling and their challenge daunting. But when the bombs fell I could only say, sorry boys, you were born in the wrong century. It’s a tribute to Eastwood’s filmmaking that he didn’t let the sympathy that would be very easy to feel for individual soldiers translate into a hope that they’d beat back the Americans. And the Japanese are sympathetic. They don’t want to be on the island either. Some of them have been to the United States and they remember it fondly. They expect to die and want to do so honorably. The material surprises me considering Eastwood said that his friendship ended with Ronald Reagan after Reagan visited the Bitburg Cementary in 1986. Does this movie mean that Eastwood is ready to forgive our enemies in World War II or just ones that bombed us in the first place? Overall the movie is a little long. There isn’t much going on. We see flashbacks on the two main characters and learn a little about a few others. It’s not a movie that many people would have attempted. I felt that it was a solid effort overall, although I think I would have nominated FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS instead.
**LITTLE CHILDREN (2006) – I got the impression from marketing and nominations that this was some sort of intense drama when it’s actually a sly and subtle comedy. The main characters played by Patrick Wilson and Kate Winslet are the Little Children of the title. Both have child/adult relationships with their spouses, Wilson especially, and that frustration leads to their eventual affair. The subplot of child molester Jackie Earle Haley is also an example of adult infantilism as he still lives with and is cared for by his mother. His mother is worried about Haley. She sends him off on a date with a disturbed but otherwise sweet girl. He’s going to need a new mother when his real mother dies, she reckons. The date goes well at first. The two talk easily and the troubled girl opens up. He’s gentle with her and they quickly form a bond. What happens next only happens when a writer is having fun with us. And he’s having a lot of fun on this one. The last part of the movie is just nothing but symbolism on top of symbolism. There’s the obvious breaking of the porcelain kids. Haley’s solution in how to be a good boy made a bell ring in symbolville. And that the leading man misses his clandestine meeting with Winslet due to a skateboarding accident isn’t without meaning either. It’s almost like the movie opens with the children being sent out to play and although they all get dirty and hurt, they all come right back home to the parents.
*THE SENTINEL (2006) – It’s today’s generic modern action/suspense movie. Take a decent idea and fire it up into an interesting plot and then start adding elements that make the whole thing a cartoon and somewhere settle for an ending that’s forced, hollow, or uninspiring. Secret Service Agent Michael Douglas saved Reagan’s life and was subsequently passed over for promotion. Currently Douglas is taking it out on the country by banging the First Lady (Kim Basinger). Since we know that Douglas is capable of such treachery then it shouldn’t be surprising that his former best friend and fellow agent, Kiefer Sutherland, hates him because he suspects that Douglas was banging his wife too. That’s not even the plot just the background. The plot has some other secret service agent conspiring to kill the President and frame Douglas for it. So Douglas has to escape the clutches of Sutherland to clear his name. Chase, gunplay, explosion and Douglas gets to Basinger who believes him and she eventually tells Sutherland that Douglas is a good man even if he’s capable of banging a first lady. Would you be surprised to learn that Douglas makes it all the way to Toronto on the run and then almost single handedly saves the President’s life? Would you further believe with a line or two of dialogue that Kiefer suddenly believes that Douglas didn’t bang his wife and that they could be friends again? Somewhere in there we also get to believe that Eva Longira is an agent too. Still it’s entertaining enough once you forgive the writing shortcuts.
*NOTES FROM A SCANDAL (2006) – Cate Blanchet plays the free spirited teacher coming to a new school and Judy Dench plays the veteran that takes her under the wing. Though British the conflict is somewhat topical with the U.S. school system. Blanchett shows that she can play more than graceful beauty. Dame Judy has that presence you expect. Those two make the movie more interesting than its mediocre material would let on.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
SECRETS AND MORE
Trish uses SECRET deodorant. The ad campaign from my childhood was “strong enough for a man but made for a woman.” I saw a TV ad for Secret today and it said “Secret, strong like a woman.” What? The original meaning was that men smell like oxen and their deodorant has to be strong. The secret behind SECRET is that it’s strong enough for a man, but made for people who shouldn't stink as much, but just might. I can’t help but think that someone must have decided the original wording was offensive because it implied that women weren’t “strong.” But what does it mean to be "strong like a woman?" It’s like saying, “Sensitive like a man.”
Unless something has happened elsewhere in the country where women have taken over chopping wood, mowing the lawn, and bench pressing, I just don’t see the point. Can women be physically strong? yes. Can men be sensitive, yes. But that’s not how you associate those attributes, because each is less so than the other. Other similar examples would include “sweet like cheese”, “angry like a priest”, and “erudite like an uncle.”
------------------------------------------------------
The Left is always down on corporations, but I think we libertarians have been the first to notice that corporations are adhering to political correctness at an alarming rate. Other than making money, there are very few things that corporations do anymore that are overtly right wing. Still, they are evil and greedy and heartless. Years ago when the union guy (I should do an entire entry on him sometime) was trying to recruit me I saw him sitting in our cafeteria with his boss, the VP of the local. I introduced myself and asked why the union gives 98% of their money to Democrats. Because Democrats have traditionally supported the working man etc. and corporations are greedy and we need someone on our side. But what exactly are we getting for our money considering that our CEO is a Democrat? So, ah how long have you worked here . . .
------------------------------------------------------
Back in graduate school, my professor of American politics was a Democrat. I think he worked for Carter at some point or was somehow connected to that circle. He made the case in class one day that it didn’t matter if the United Nations was ineffective, a point I suppose he was ceding, because having a forum to keep the discussion open is valuable. That crosses my mind often when I’ve had it with the U.N. I tend to think that his 1994 analysis was dead-on in a cold war world. But in a world of rogue nations and terrorists I think the United Nations is becoming a barrier to solving problems. The organization is outmoded because it’s chartered on the idea that everyone is reasonable. Sting was right that the Russians loved their children and it turned out they loved them enough to surrender to Reagan. But today’s villains don’t get that channel. There is no Whitehouse hotline to Osama’s mountain cave or Saddam’s palace. The U.N. cannot be effective in bringing them together for meaningful dialogue. What they can do is get a group of nations together to disagree about strong action and since they have somehow become the only arbiter of international law, we become the rogue nation for being sober and decisive. I don’t know how we’d be any worse without them.
------------------------------
The FAIRNESS DOCTRINE is irksome, but with the rise of the Internet and Satellite Radio, the biggest victim will be AM radio. So many small stations became profitable simply because Rush Limbaugh was worth listening to.
The government once split up the Hollywood Studio System that produced, distributed and shown pictures under one umbrella. What if movie theatres had to balance their product with an equal number of pictures of opposing view? A Clooney movie about McCarthy runs next to a film about Kennedy botching the Bay of Pigs while spooning some mob mol. A Stone movie about the CIA’s assassination of JFK runs next to a film about how the de-funding of the CIA led to 9-11.
Have you ever seen HBO produce a conservative documentary? It would irk them no little to have to start producing them.
What’s really great about the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE debate is how the Left fears actual political speech, but will consider every verbal and even nonverbal vulgarity to be fully protected. We right-leaning individuals have for so long expected movies and TV to be slanted that we laugh it off under most circumstances. We’re so use to having to defend our views we’ve become good at it. They just cover their ears and chant “la la la la la” until they can reach the tuner.
------------------------------------------------------
And what happened over at NBC? Jack Welch’s legacy is not in the news division. Covering the Live Earth concert, NBC said that it didn’t consider climate change a political issue. Wow. That’s what we mean when we say liberal media. There was a time when fighting our country’s enemies wasn’t a political issue. The only thing beyond question these days is misapplied science presented in the form of a church revival.
------------------------------------------------------
David Beckham is Becks. Prince William is called Wills. Is that a common British nickname idiosyncrasy or do they only speak plural about larger than life characters?
------------------------------------------------------
Back to talk radio, Walter Williams guest hosted Rush on Friday and I had to run to my afternoon appointment and I didn’t get to listen to any of it. What a big disappointment. He doesn’t host often and I always look forward to it. He’s brilliant and as a bonus Thomas Sowell nearly always comes on with him for 30-60 minutes to talk issues. You never see Sowell on TV or only hear him on radio when Williams is the host. It’s almost worth breaking down to order Rush 24/7 just to hear Williams do his thing. With my luck, he doesn’t archive the guest hosts.
------------------------------------------------------
I owe this blog movie reviews going back to early May. They are mostly written, but I have 2 or 3 to go. Maybe later this weekend.
Trish uses SECRET deodorant. The ad campaign from my childhood was “strong enough for a man but made for a woman.” I saw a TV ad for Secret today and it said “Secret, strong like a woman.” What? The original meaning was that men smell like oxen and their deodorant has to be strong. The secret behind SECRET is that it’s strong enough for a man, but made for people who shouldn't stink as much, but just might. I can’t help but think that someone must have decided the original wording was offensive because it implied that women weren’t “strong.” But what does it mean to be "strong like a woman?" It’s like saying, “Sensitive like a man.”
Unless something has happened elsewhere in the country where women have taken over chopping wood, mowing the lawn, and bench pressing, I just don’t see the point. Can women be physically strong? yes. Can men be sensitive, yes. But that’s not how you associate those attributes, because each is less so than the other. Other similar examples would include “sweet like cheese”, “angry like a priest”, and “erudite like an uncle.”
------------------------------------------------------
The Left is always down on corporations, but I think we libertarians have been the first to notice that corporations are adhering to political correctness at an alarming rate. Other than making money, there are very few things that corporations do anymore that are overtly right wing. Still, they are evil and greedy and heartless. Years ago when the union guy (I should do an entire entry on him sometime) was trying to recruit me I saw him sitting in our cafeteria with his boss, the VP of the local. I introduced myself and asked why the union gives 98% of their money to Democrats. Because Democrats have traditionally supported the working man etc. and corporations are greedy and we need someone on our side. But what exactly are we getting for our money considering that our CEO is a Democrat? So, ah how long have you worked here . . .
------------------------------------------------------
Back in graduate school, my professor of American politics was a Democrat. I think he worked for Carter at some point or was somehow connected to that circle. He made the case in class one day that it didn’t matter if the United Nations was ineffective, a point I suppose he was ceding, because having a forum to keep the discussion open is valuable. That crosses my mind often when I’ve had it with the U.N. I tend to think that his 1994 analysis was dead-on in a cold war world. But in a world of rogue nations and terrorists I think the United Nations is becoming a barrier to solving problems. The organization is outmoded because it’s chartered on the idea that everyone is reasonable. Sting was right that the Russians loved their children and it turned out they loved them enough to surrender to Reagan. But today’s villains don’t get that channel. There is no Whitehouse hotline to Osama’s mountain cave or Saddam’s palace. The U.N. cannot be effective in bringing them together for meaningful dialogue. What they can do is get a group of nations together to disagree about strong action and since they have somehow become the only arbiter of international law, we become the rogue nation for being sober and decisive. I don’t know how we’d be any worse without them.
------------------------------
The FAIRNESS DOCTRINE is irksome, but with the rise of the Internet and Satellite Radio, the biggest victim will be AM radio. So many small stations became profitable simply because Rush Limbaugh was worth listening to.
The government once split up the Hollywood Studio System that produced, distributed and shown pictures under one umbrella. What if movie theatres had to balance their product with an equal number of pictures of opposing view? A Clooney movie about McCarthy runs next to a film about Kennedy botching the Bay of Pigs while spooning some mob mol. A Stone movie about the CIA’s assassination of JFK runs next to a film about how the de-funding of the CIA led to 9-11.
Have you ever seen HBO produce a conservative documentary? It would irk them no little to have to start producing them.
What’s really great about the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE debate is how the Left fears actual political speech, but will consider every verbal and even nonverbal vulgarity to be fully protected. We right-leaning individuals have for so long expected movies and TV to be slanted that we laugh it off under most circumstances. We’re so use to having to defend our views we’ve become good at it. They just cover their ears and chant “la la la la la” until they can reach the tuner.
------------------------------------------------------
And what happened over at NBC? Jack Welch’s legacy is not in the news division. Covering the Live Earth concert, NBC said that it didn’t consider climate change a political issue. Wow. That’s what we mean when we say liberal media. There was a time when fighting our country’s enemies wasn’t a political issue. The only thing beyond question these days is misapplied science presented in the form of a church revival.
------------------------------------------------------
David Beckham is Becks. Prince William is called Wills. Is that a common British nickname idiosyncrasy or do they only speak plural about larger than life characters?
------------------------------------------------------
Back to talk radio, Walter Williams guest hosted Rush on Friday and I had to run to my afternoon appointment and I didn’t get to listen to any of it. What a big disappointment. He doesn’t host often and I always look forward to it. He’s brilliant and as a bonus Thomas Sowell nearly always comes on with him for 30-60 minutes to talk issues. You never see Sowell on TV or only hear him on radio when Williams is the host. It’s almost worth breaking down to order Rush 24/7 just to hear Williams do his thing. With my luck, he doesn’t archive the guest hosts.
------------------------------------------------------
I owe this blog movie reviews going back to early May. They are mostly written, but I have 2 or 3 to go. Maybe later this weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)