home > blog
Fri May 08, 2009
A Movie Mission: To Seek Out New Life for an Old Favorite
The camera rose up over the body of the USS Enterprise, and then the screen cut to black. It was the first trailer for the new Star Trek movie, and I was hooked -- after all of 15 seconds of an online teaser. As a lifelong Trekkie -- I don't know who came up with the term Trekker, but I greatly prefer the former to the latter -- I was just thrilled that the franchise hadn't totally died with the relative failure of the last TV series. There had been rumors it would be more than a decade before we'd see more Trek on screens of any size.
Several weeks after that, I made a conscious choice to tone down the enthusiasm. The film was, after all, going to be helmed by J.J. Abrams, whose credits include directing Mission Impossible III and writing Armageddon. My hopes ran a significant risk of being dashed in a thoroughly immature yet potent way. It was going to be getting dumped by my "girlfriend" in middle school all over again. J.J. was going to wreck my little fantasy world. I knew it.
Fast forward to last night and the shock and awe that took place at the 7pm "sneak preview" showing of Star Trek.
Shock: Mr. Abrams didn't ruin my life.
and...
Awe: What a spectacle he made of his new Star Trek universe. Beautifully assembled.
Analyzing the experience a little more deeply, there was a lot to like about this "re-imagination" of the Star Trek universe: The entire team behind this picture did a marvelous job of including the types of inside jokes and recurring one-liners from the films and the original television show to tickle die-hard fans who simply wanted to get another glimpse of characters they've grown to love. The burgeoning relationship between a young Spock and a young Kirk was absolutely flawless, avoiding the trappings of making either seem too weak or too implausibly perfect, making it clear instead how much they have to learn from one another. The appearance by Leonard Nimoy delighted the entire audience but added to, rather than detracted, from the movie, which is always a risk with big name cameos and film crossovers. The acting was surprisingly solid, and each of the main characters from the original series was portrayed enough like the original characters to not alienate anyone while being young enough and unique enough that these people never seemed too familiar or stale.
Indeed, fellow Trek dorks who were concerned over Chris Pine as Kirk needn't worry. He and Zachary Quinto (Spock) not only captured the relationship between those two characters, they paid great homage to the originals while resisting any temptation to be pulled too far in any undesirable direction. That is, neither is a charicature of the former version of the parts, neither is a carbon copy, and neither creates something so different that it's simply "wrong." And I think Karl Urban as Bones McCoy is going to be a show-stealer in future movies. You heard it here first. Or tenth or twentieth, at least.
And of course, there's nothing bad one can say about the overall aesthetic of the film. Mr. Abrams has painted a beautiful landscape across the black of outer space. Visual effects were realistic; the props and set designs were gorgeous; everything paid an appropriate amount of homage to the original television show; the ship designs were breathtaking; and the camera and lighting effects actually made the movie feel truly unique, something that for all its re-inventions and new films Star Trek hasn't been able to really accomplish since the first show in the 60s.
However, there really can be too much of a good thing, and Mr. Abrams' love of the visual aspects of film and of action were embraced a bit too much in the editing room where some of the action sequences were spliced together with such quick cuts, such a frenetic pace, and such camera shake that viewers can only get a feel for the action instead of actually getting to see the action unfold in front of us. This happens a few times -- most notably in the opening battle scene of the movie involving Kirk's father, in an early bar fight involving a young Jim Kirk, and during some of the climatic battle scenes late in the movie. And each time, I found myself wishing that Michael Bay, J.J. Abrams, and every other idiot who employs these techniques have their eyes forced open and made to watch these scenes non-stop for 24 hours -- like the father who makes his kid smoke 10 cigars or drink a case of beer to violently illustrate the hazards of overindulging oneself.
Star Trek also now borrows heavily from Star Wars: When Kirk, not yet captain of the Enterprise, is marooned on an icy planet, he has an encounter with a large bear-like creature that conjures images of Luke Skywalker on Hoth. This creature happens to be eaten, just as its about to get Kirk, but a giant, red, insectoid-looking monster that then chases Kirk across the icy plains a bit longer. That type of action is a hallmark of all George Lucas action films, but most notably and importantly, it's a significant element of Star Wars. Of course, borrowing from Star Wars isn't all bad: The visual scope of planets and battlefields look more like Star Wars than old Star Trek films or shows, and more importantly, a lot of aliens in Star Wars have never been particularly different from humans, presumably because of limited budget in the past. In this new iteration, we see some new faces, new shapes, and new sizes in terms of alien lifeforms, which is a welcome change. But even then, one of those new faces appears to be an awkward, short sidekick type of character, a classic Star Wars element that seems unnecessary here. And I'm not sure if Abrams thinks he can create a lightsaber for the 21st century or if he simply has a facination with phallic objects, but at one point, one of the main characters uses a fold-out sword, presumably crafted as an alloy from iron and a metric ton of terrible ideas. Naturally, he battles an alien with a pop-up axe.
With an ounce of restraint, J.J. Abrams could have created my favorite Star Trek movie of all time, but the devil is in the details, and for all his attention he pays to such things, folding swords don't cut it movies that are trying to break out of archaetypes. And while Abrams successfully broke out of the traditional Star Trek mold, this film is rooted in the contemporary Hollywood tradition of the "origin movie," which I can't stand because it introduces characters to us in a fairly predictable, formulaic way, and it often includes cheesy scenes from those characters' childhoods. We didn't need origins stories for Star Wars or Lord of the Rings or X-Men or the Star Trek television shows, so why utilize this tool here? It simply serves as a box to restrict Abrams' obvious creative talents.
Still, it's a new vision of a series that had admittedly gotten a bit tired. I do still firmly believe someone other than J.J. Abrams -- possibly Star Trek and Battlestar Gallactica veteran (and visionary) Ron Moore -- could have done a better overall job, perhaps by subverting the origin movie paradigm. But nevertheless, there can be no denying that he's done excellent work and that perhaps no one could have created the visually unique, stunningly beautiful motion picture that he did. From the subtlest lens flare to some sweeping, panoramic shots of cornfields and starships, it's one-of-a-kind on the actual screen. His work behind the screen is noteworthy too. In particular, his writers are impressive -- and clearly fans of the original shows and movies. For the handful of awkward moments, there are a number of genuinely touching scenes and plenty of bones thrown to hardcore fans. Perhaps the most subtle but most important is a brief mention of the Klingons in the film's opening scenes leading this Trekkie to salivate over the likely prospect of some subsequent films with legendary Klingon bad guys versus the man himself, Captain James T. Kirk. So long as later movies don't devolve into a series of battle scenes and maintain some integrity of a fairly enlightened human race, I'll be beyond happy. After all, Star Trek needs to have its grounding in both a positive view of the future as well as some great action as that great future is preserved by the USS Enterprise.
So there are more minor quibbles I'll continue to fester over -- not enough exploration of Star Fleet's peaceful mission, the ridiculous car chase scene with an adolescent Kirk, a fairly flat villain in "Nero," and a handful of awfully cheesy, terribly written lines -- but by the by, this is going to do for Star Trek what nothing else ever has: Keep us nerds entertained, laughing at our inside jokes and loving our sci-fi gizmos and toys while the rest of the world watches a beautifully produced action movie. It's not a perfect film. But's a damn fine start to what could be a perfectly good series.
Go boldly, indeed.
[3] comments (1631 views)
Sun Feb 22, 2009
Oscar Live Blog
8:36 -- I've started this live blog late because I've been left stunned by the lack of police surrounding Tim Gunn. If he weren't clearly gay, his continual insistence on ogling the women would have been much more uncomfortable and probably worth an arrest on harassment charges.
8:38 -- Hugh Jackman manages to make the focus of the end of his opening number not any of the actors or any of the movies but rather his own movie, "Wolverine." On the plus side, celeb crush Anne Hathaway is looking fine.
8:39 -- My mom called to say, "I think Billy Crystal would be looking pretty good right now" in response to a discussion from last night where I claimed that Billy Crystal sucked as host of the Oscars. I cast my vote for Jon Stewart or Ellen DeGeneres, personally.
8:43 -- Are there five uglier outfits than those currently being worn by the five previous "supporting actress" winners? Is Tilda Swinton wearing a burlap sack? And does anyone need to see that much cleavage from Goldie Hawn?
8:48 -- Supporting Actress is often an upset category, but the favorite won -- Penelope Cruz. I'm sure she deserved to win, but I'm pissed off because I didn't pick her in either of my pools. Nice speech, though.
8:53 -- Speaking of good potential hosts, Tiny Fey and Steve Martin are doing reasonably well.
8:54 -- Scientology joke. EPIC WIN!
8:55 -- In Bruges should win this category for original screenplay. But it won't. If you haven't seen it, you should. One of the five best movies of 2008.
8:57 -- Milk won for screenplay. Fortunately, I picked it in both my pools. Sean Penn looks incredibly dour for a man associated with a picture that just won an award.
9:00 -- Yay. I won again. Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog. Three awards, no surprises. His tux is awfully shiny.
9:06 -- Shocker. WALL-E wins for animated feature. I haven't seen it yet, but so many people have said it's upsetting it didn't get nominated for best picture. Sorry - if Princess Mononoke wasn't even nominated as a top film in a year where fucking Titanic won for best picture, I can't feel bad for any animated snub, good as it may have been.
9:15 -- Woah. Sarah Jessica presenting for Art Direction. Are those beachballs in your dress or are you just feeding an entire orphange? I picked "The Duchess" for this -- annnnnd I lost.
9:18 -- David Fincher got a shoutout from his art director. I love him too. Yeah, I even dug Panic Room.
9:19 -- Daniel Craig is sexy when he says the word "authenticity." I picked Benji Button for Costume Design, and it appears that I had this and Art Direction flip-flopped wrong. Should have picked these in reverse. I'm clearly not going to win anything this year. If I were at the Oscars, I'd be the grumpy looking loser in the 4th row.
9:22 -- Craig and Parker are still up there? Seriously? I picked Button again, and deservedly so, I think. Brad Pitt was transformed over and over and over again in that film. Amazing stuff, really.
9:23 -- Whew. My losing streak was halted! Vive la Oscar!
9:25 -- I don't know what either of these people's names are, but the young woman on screen played Lily Kane on Veronica Mars, and she is (a) terribly hot and (b) wearing a dress with a bow that could have easily been perched atop the Xmas tree at Rockefeller Center.
9:27 -- A montage of love scenes from 2008 included a few bits from Revolutionary Road. I need to re-iterate right now: IT IS AN UNSPEAKABLE SHAME THAT THIS MOVIE WAS NOT NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE.
9:29 -- Commercial Break. Time to make a fresh cocktail for yours truly. I'm sure my lone reader, the Google Bot scanning this page, will be lonely without me.
9:32 -- Ben Stiller and Natalie Portman are on stage. Ms. Portman is stunning as always, and Ben Stiller is making fun of Joaquin Phoenix in a rather clever way. I'm not a Ben Stiller fan, but if this was his idea, it was pretty brilliant.
9:50 -- Free tip: One half lime, one quarter grapefruit, two oz gin, and some muddled basil makes for a delicious drink.
9:52 -- Hugh Jackman thinks he's at the Tonys. He made a joke about "Doubt: The Musical" and used it to subtly reference "Nunsense" while proclaiming that Mamma Mia's success meant the musical was back. Now I'm watching him and Beyonce go through a full musical revue consisting of numbers from Singing in the Rain, Hair, Chicago, Grease, Evita, and so on...
9:56 -- ...WHAT THE FUCK ARE THESE TWO NITWITS FROM HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL DOING ON STAGE AT THE OSCARS?
10:03 -- Actor in a supporting role... We get the same treatment as we did 90 minutes ago, having five prior winners discuss the nominees. While some of these miniature tributes have been funny -- Cuba Gooding, Jr, asking if Robert Downey Jr's next movie would be "Shaft" -- it's all really irrelevant, isn't it? Heath Ledger's going to win.
10:08 -- And he won.
10:09 -- Heath Ledger's father is reading his speech, and the camera is panning across a number of people in the audience. At first, one can't help but notice how genuinely riveted each of them is. Then you realize they're all actors. I should imagine and hope it's legit.
10:10 -- This is definitely legit: Kate Ledger is hot. I said it. It's uncouth to do so at this moment of all moments, but that doesn't make it untrue.
10:14 -- Bill Maher has one purpose in life: to host "Politically Incorrect." Now that this purpose has been negated, he should really shut up. Seriously, stop pimping your "documentary" during other people's big moment. And stop laughing at your own jokes when no one else is laughing at them.
10:22 -- Commercial break featuring ad for Dancing with the Stars. Am I the only person who's never seen that show?
10:27 -- YES! Benji Button wins for visual effects. Not only did I pick this in both my pools, I saw all three nominees (including The Dark Knight and Iron Man), and I genuinely believed that it should win. Presenter Will Smith said it best -- they turned Brad Pitt into a garden gnome.
10:28 -- I can't pretend to really understand the nuances of sound editing. But I picked the Dark Knight, and it won. Sound mixing, on the other hand, is something I understand incredibly well, and I am STUNNED to learn that Slumdog Millionaire won over The Dark Knight.
10:47 -- Suz just observed, "I'm not really feeling the Oscars this year." Neither am I. Hugh Jackman just isn't a terribly interesting host, and the funniest and best moments thus far have come courtesy of Tina Fey, Steve Martin, and a handful of others. And there haven't been any really stunning upsets or really stirring speeches. On the plus side, I've seen the first ads for "Castle," the new ABC show starring Nathan Fillion, formerly Cpt. Mal Reynolds of "Firefly."
10:50 -- Suz has been put to sleep by the montage of nominated scores. I doubt she'll bother to note this in her own live blog, so I'll do her the courtesy of mentioning it here. Also, I heard Peter Gabriel boycotted the Oscars because they trimmed the music down to little snippets. For once (and in stark contrast to Mr. Gabriel), I get to thank the Academy. (For the record, the one song that I thought should have really been nominated was the Boss' tune, "The Wrestler" from the film of the same name. Frakkin' Academy.)
10:54 -- The winner will get to hug or briefly kiss Alicia Keys, who is looking quite lovely this evening. And that person is... A.R. Rahman. Slumdog. Another stunner.
10:55 -- Zac Efron is going to tell me that the music is the narrative of a film and that a single song is its punctuation? I've been looking for knowledge sources on nuclear physics and artistic critiques of sculpture as well. Maybe he can hook me up.
10:57 -- A.R. Rahman is singing one of the songs he wrote for Slumdog. This is likely to be one of the only things I think is cool about the Oscars and one of the few things I'm happy about regarding Slumdog's meteoric rise.
10:59 -- "Jai Ho" sucks. It's annoying. However, I'm banking that the old farts who vote for this crap will think they're hip each time they tap their toe to it's tune.
11:02 -- I played those old farts like a fiddle.
11:05 -- Laim Neeson is holding onto the woman from Slumdog in a way that means one of two things: (1) He's nervous to be on stage or (2) He's a royal pervert.
11:07 -- Woah. Waltz with Bashir lost. I was counting on that winning for foreign language film. But then, I'm partial to his earlier work in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
11:11 -- Queen Latifah's "dress" gives the appearance that she has been thoroughly wrapped in black electrical tape.
11:12 -- No references to Roy Scheider's work on SeaQuest:DSV in the obituary montage?
11:13 -- Conversely, kudos to the Academy for having the first footage of Ricardo Montalban's snippet being from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn.
11:15 -- It's easy to forget how many talented people passed away this past year -- Sydney Pollack, Paul Newman, Issac Hayes, Michael Crichton, et cetera...
11:21 -- Danny Boyle's great, though I'm not sure thanking the guy who choreographed the sprinkler dance at the end of Slumdog is a good thing. I was thinking about suing the same guy for the damage my eyeballs incurred when I tried to remove them from their sockets with the hardened, unpopped kernels of popcorn at the bottom of the bucket. Also, I think David Fincher might be one of the best directors working today that's never won an Oscar: Seven, Fight Club, Curious Case, et cetera... hello!?!?!?
11:28 -- Unlike the supporting actress and actor circle jerks, this best actress presentation is pretty good. Perhaps it's because I have crushes on both Kate Winslet and Anne Hathaway (and genuinely hope that either of them win, especially Winslet), but these seem more genuine.
11:30 -- WOAH! Sophia Loren looks like Frankenstein would have looked if Botox has been around when Shelley initially wrote the book. Since she's talking about Meryl Streep, I have to ask: Is it just me or does Streep seem incredibly fake when she touches her heart every 5 seconds?
11:32 -- YESSSSSS! I haven't even seen The Reader, but when one considers I thought she should win Best Actress for Revolutionary Road, I'm absolutely thrilled Kate Winslet won. One of the best actresses today, I should think.
11:42 -- Best Actor. Here we go. Good speeches by the presenters -- Kingsley, Hopkins, Brody, DeNiro, Douglas -- and the winner is...
11:43 -- Sean Penn. Boo. Hiss. I got it right in one pool, but I'm angry that I did.
11:44 -- Penn says, "I did not expect this." You fucking liar. LIAR! FAKE! FAIL! You even said at the SAG awards that it was going to be a showdown between you and Rourke. Just shut the fuck up.
11:47 -- Steven Spielberg is going to present Best Picture? Seriously? What are they going to do next year? Bring Brando, Chaplin, and John Ford back from the dead to present?
11:49 -- Nice montage of all the nominated films and films with similar themes throughout history. Very nice, actually.
11:52 - Here we go...
11:53 -- Surprise, surprise... Slumdog. What a joke. A perfectly fine movie to be sure, but best picture material? I think not. (See previous post for more on why I think that.) I'm quite happy for all the hard-working, previously unknown people who were involved in making this movie, and I'm thankful to have seen a "feel good" type of movie be made seriously. But best picture? Hrm.
11:55 -- If tonight was any indication, Wolverine is going to suck ass -- that is, unless they late Jackman as Wolverine make a series of unfunny jokes about Australian accents to the tune of Moon River.
11:56 -- Good night!
[6] comments (3215 views)
Sun Jan 25, 2009
Slumdog Oscar-Winner?
Best picture films aren't supposed to end with flamboyant line dances. Especially not flamboyant line dances including a prominent step that bears more than a passing resemblance to the sprinkler dance. True, in the pages of the "Snooty Academy Voter's Guide to Film," there's likely no rule explicitly forbidding the nomination of films that feature gleeful outbursts interjected into the closing credits.
But there should be.
Slumdog Millionaire is a well-shot, well-acted picture. I enjoyed it. But already, the buzz surrounding this picture is overwhelming. In a year of nominations dominated by so-called art house films, Slumdog seems out of place. Where the snubbed drama Revolutionary Road is nuanced and elegant in its portrayal, Slumdog is just a bit over the top. Where The Wrestler carefully develops an intriguing ending, Slumdog closes exactly as you expect it to five minutes into the movie. Where Rachel Getting Married has raw emotion, Slumdog is stylized.
None of this is to say that Slumdog isn't a great film. It is. "Great" is ostensibly the cinematic watchword of the past year. The great films I have seen -- Revolutionary Road, The Wrestler, Rachel Getting Married, Frost/Nixon, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button -- and the allegedly great films I have yet to see -- Doubt, Milk, Gran Torino, and Synecdoche, New York -- give hope that Hollywood and the mainstream world of film are willing to produce, market, and reward interesting productions. Instead of Titanic, Forest Gump, and Gladiator, we'll get No Country for Old Men.
The problem is that Slumdog Millionaire is simply a better version of the former rather than being on par with the latter.
While Slumdog may have started as a small film, its status has grown to grand heights. But does the fully considered final product justify the position as Oscar nominee and (dare I say it?) best picture favorite? Hardly.
Its merits are well-documented: Indeed, Slumdog is a feel-good film with solid acting, an engaging story, and fun writing. But where other great films of 2008 treat the audience as an intelligent equal, Slumdog treats us like morons. In a closing scene, we are offered flashbacks to earlier in the film, presumably to reacquaint us with the material and perhaps to follow a pattern throughout the film of looking into the protagonist's past to explain moments in the present. My own interpretation, however, is that the audience loses the moment through the brief interjection of old footage. Why interrupt the crescendo with another instance of the refrain? And of course, that "crescendo" is so sickly sweet and so impossibly hopeful that I couldn't help but frown.
Perhaps Slumdog is this year's Crash, a perfectly fine, entertaining movie that is nothing more than just that -- perfectly fine and entertaining. It follows a clear pattern. (Flash to the past: Jamal is a nice kid, his brother acts like a prick, something funny/cute happens. Flash back to the present: Jamal is in the midst of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." Repeat.) It has a happy ending. It utilizes the historically successful device of destiny to explain away a ridiculously implausible story.
But it also wants for something more.
No grand themes, no overwhelming performances, no truly human drama. In other words, it has immeasurably significant capacity to entertain, but it has undoubtedly limited capacity to reach into one's soul and really tug at one's heart strings. For all Jamal's desire to reunite with his long-time friend and love interest, Latika, the emotional significance pales in comparison to the internal struggle rooted deeply in The Wrestler. Or the pure American marital drama of Revolutionary Road. Or the raw humanity of Rachel Getting Married. Or the more realistic mix of love and hope, despair and hopelessness of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Or the genuinely clever but perversely black humor in the lives of the characters from In Bruges. Indeed, it even cannot match the heights of tension portrayed in Frost/Nixon, my least favorite of the aforementioned films.
In other words, Slumdog Millionaire is the happy, feel-good tale that it's easy to root for and easy to love but, for me, hard to respect. It's a great movie for a mainstream flick, but it's "merely" a good film for an art picture.
3.5 stars out of 5. You'll love it. But don't question it or you'll only find yourself frustrated with what you really see.
Evan's Best Films (So Far) of the 2008 Oscar Year -- in order of personal preference:
(1) Revolutionary Road
(2) The Wrestler
(3) Rachel Getting Married
(4) The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
(5) In Bruges
(6) Frost / Nixon
(7) The Dark Knight
(8) Slumdog Millionaire
[0] comments (818 views)
Thu Aug 14, 2008
The Professional Solider
On a forty-four mile drive through the abandoned buildings of Detroit and the soulless landscape of its western suburban highways, there is no tool for maintaining one's sanity more necessary than a decent car stereo -- a nice six-disc player with mp3 capability, an assortment of pre-programmed channels, and solid speakers. I do that drive, and I have those things.
Somewhere around mile 30 this morning, I heard over those speakers the gasping breath of an exhausted NPR reporter discussing an evolving military situation taking place in Georgia. Since agreeing to tentative cease fire terms, the Russian and Georgian soldiers had apparently been quite neighborly, smoking cigarettes together, playing cards, and speaking as friends do. As people do. This same winded reporter went on to describe how tensions immediately rose when the Russian leadership began intimating that the cease fire may be ending. There was to be no more bumming of smokes, no more card games, no more laughing, chatting, and speaking as friends do.
Instead, there was to be guarded behavior, itchy trigger fingers, and glaring at the enemy -- as soldiers do.
The professional soldier is an interesting concept when you really stop and think about it. They are guardians of the state, focused on missions and outcomes -- on the whats and the hows but rarely the whys. Perhaps never the whys.
These soldiers -- in my country alone -- have defended the American union from obliteration, have defended part of Korea from a burgeoning dictatorial movement, have defended huge swaths of the world from the minions of one of history's most menacing, most threatening villains.
But that same villain required soldiers of his own. And so did America when it recently invaded Iraq. And so did the British when they extended their rule to half the world, when they oppressed the Scots and Irish, when they forcibly pried open the gates of China's tea kingdom.
Much like religion, the professional soldier can be a beacon of hope for the hopeless or a weapon of great power for the already powerful. I cannot imagine the Russian men and women and the Georgian men and women staring at each other down the barrels of their rifles have hardly any ill will toward one another. Certainly there may be some bad blood here and there, but one does not play cards with one's mortal enemy except perhaps in the cinema over a bottle of expensive whiskey and appalling predictable dialogue. In this case, these valiant men and women have become nothing more than pawns of the powerful. I have to wonder if a Georgian soldier who bummed a cigarette from one of the Russians might not care more for the soldier in his gunsights than the Russian President who sent his soldiers there in the first place.
In light of these events and in light of America's own war efforts, I find myself asking the question: Do professional soldiers have the right employer? In both Russia and the United States, the governments are ostensibly based on a democratic model whereby government is by and for the people. And professional soldiers are ostensibly paid to protect those people and the interests of those people.
But that's not what happens, is it?
George W. Bush, Dmitry Medvedev, any of the long dead kings of England -- these men are more systems than people. They build, maintain, and trade power, as "leaders" do. As power brokers do. Whether the country is "free" or "oppressed," the result is the same: Professional soldiers act professionally and are sent not to protect the interests of the people, as they are at least intended to "on paper." Rather, they are sent to aid in the building, maintaining, and trading of power on behalf of those who have it.
So again, one has to ask oneself: Do these professionals really have the right employer? Those Russian soldiers almost certainly share more with those Georgian soldiers than they do with their President in terms of needs and wants, dreams and fears. But it seems increasingly possible that they will be asked to shoot those people, not because the soldiers have been wronged, not because any massive and egregious offensive occurred against Russia, but because the President says so. Sounds awfully familiar to me.
Paraphrasing the famous quote from Churchill, we already have the best form of government to ever exist. But I can't help but ask myself every day, isn't it possible there's something a little better out there?
[4] comments (7358 views)
Fri Aug 08, 2008
Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself — and Ronald Reagan
Franklin Roosevelt was afraid of precisely one thing: Fear. At least, that's what one might gather from the famous quote, now something of a cliche, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Cliche or not, FDR was on to something.
Consider the United States' current perdicament: After the attacks against America on September 11th, 2001, did the average American have much reason to actually fear Islamic terrorists than he or she did five years prior? Plots against American soil have been planned and executed for years, some successfully -- like Oklahoma City -- and some not -- like rumored attempts to destroy LAX. One "successful" assault against our homeland was all it took to shackle us to our fear.
Certainly, the death and drama of those events warranted emotional reaction. But if its how we face difficult circumstances that help define us as people, it can be said that Americans are a fearful lot.
But what has done more damage? The attack or our fear of another attack? The attack killed more than 3,000 people and destroyed a symbol of American economic freedom and dominance. Our fear enabled an imbicile-warlord to take us to conflict that has cost five times as many American lives and dozens of thousands of foreign lives, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars and possibly the very economy for which that symbol stood. Our fear has paralyzed us and made us tolerant of abuses of civil liberties, ignorant of the abhorent government action taken against our fellow man in secret, and desensatized to torture.
Fear is powerful.
I couldn't help think of all of this when I was engaged in a discussion of Ronald Reagan at a recent family dinner. Often given credit for single-handedly ending the Cold War, one of the reasons Reagan is revered is that he took our fear of the Soviets away by crumbling their Empire within his mighty fist.
But were the Soviets the thing to fear -- or was it our fear itself?
Was it a Soviet attack that drove thousands, if not millions, to prepare bomb shelters? Was it Soviet propoganda that drove us to believe that if the USSR launched a nuke there'd even be a reason to try to survive a world-ending nuclear holocaust? Was it a Soviet invasion of France or England or Canada that had us worried that they would impose their militaristic will even age-old countries and allies and that we would be next?
Or was it our own government that made us afraid?
It's easy to look back, not paralyzed by any fear of my own, of course. But it's precisely that hindsight that is so important to our learning process as a country. It's now widely accepted that we have known, even as far back as Truman, that the Soviets were not economically viable. But our own military, our own CIA, used a post-WWII environment to argue for a wide variety of reforms that favored their own particlar branches of bureaucracy. And before we knew it, our government was telling us to be afraid of the big, bad, babushka wearing folks from across the pond -- in part because they were a large country with nasty weapons and a form of government in direct opposition to our own, but perhaps in larger part because it was simply politically expedient.
If that's even remotely true, is Reagan's role -- which has been debated even without this discussion of fear -- all that impressive? And whether it is or not, can that possibly outweight the atrocious things the man did as President of the United States?
A quick stroll down memory lane:
Reagan broke a government union, sending air traffic controllers, who work hard and have historically been underpaid for the stress of their jobs, back to work under threat of losing their jobs.
He literally ignored the entire AIDS epidemic, not acknowledging it, not respecting it, and not discussing it at all. And oh yeah, not funding any research or analysis of the disease or its social impact whatsoever.
His signature adorned the law that opened the door for companies like Clear Channel to destroy small media and tiny radio stations. If you have ever begrudged the lack of quality, diverse, unique radio programming, blame Reagan.
In the early 80s, his work in deregulating the so-called S&L business lead to a rush of S&L's getting into business in which they had no business being. The result? The S&L crisis. (By the way, it's more than a little similar to Bush's deregulation of mortgage rules and the 2007 subprime crisis. Rich bankers make a bunch of money, and some of the ones that fail even get a government bailout. The common person? They got shit.)
Put Rhenquist and Scalia on the bench.
Two words: Iran Contra. Sure, he's got plausible deniability, but he appointed those people and if he didn't actually know what was going on, it speaks volumes regarding his leadership.
Started the war on drugs -- thank you, Nancy, for the green t-shirts -- and initiated the first mandatory minimum laws, which were overtly racist, offering virtually no penalty for white cokeheads while it sent black crack users to jail for years.
Oversaw the SEC when it "deregulated" to allow institutions to engage in "mark to market" accounting, whereby one essentially counts hypothetical future prices as the current market price. The most notable example of such accounting? ENRON!
Does overseeing the eight year period under which one of the most diplomatic Russian dignitaries of the 20th century was his counterpart make Reagan a good President? Wouldn't we still have been better off without him and his cadre of former Nixon advisors? And didn't the fear of the USSR, the fear of drugs, the fear of government over-regulation lead to our belief that he was great?
Nothing to fear but fear itself, indeed.
[1] comments (2076 views)
Mon Jul 14, 2008
Favorite TV Shows
Been watching West Wing repeats lately after having finally caught up in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica television show. I have a lot of rants building, but before I post any of them, I thought I'd put forth a quick list of my top 10 favorite programs of all time:
Honorable mention: Seinfeld, Home Improvement, Frasier, NewsRadio, SpinCity, Murphy Brown, Star Trek: Voyager, Babylon 5, Nip/Tuck
10 - ER
Oh, seasons 1-4, where have you gone? The show died when Carter and the teenie-bopper chick got stabbed in the bathroom. But it really went over the edge when Dr. Greene died. If you would have just ended the f-ing show then, it would have been the single greatest series finale in the history of television. But now? The series will probably end with Carter coming back from Africa with Ebola and placing the whole ER in lockdown except Abby will escape to get a drink and have lesbian sex with Neela while Pratt argues with Kovac and Weaver over who gets to be head of the ER. Sigh.
9 - Firefly
Absolutely hilarious sci-fi western. Intentionally disjointed, this is 100% quirky and 100% delicious television.
8 - Heroes
Only one real season and one writer's strike-shortened season in, I absolutely love this show. As long as they avoid over-extending themselves in coming seasons, this ought to be a real classic. Thus far, they've refused to cave into pressure to push the story faster than it needed to go, doling things out in a more realistic timeframe, giving the characters time to adapt in meaningful ways. Great combination of comic-style superpowers with fairly elegant drama.
7 - Star Trek: The Next Generation
The rebirth, sans Shatner. Great because it gave sci-fi a chance in the modern television world again. Better than great because of Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner. Fricking awesome because of Q and the Borg. Still, it's just shy of DS9 in my mind because it never really learned how to use all the characters and kept the show too episodic.
6 - Gilmore Girls
Fast-paced, hilarious show that actually makes excessive use of pop culture references work and work well. Thank you, Amy Sherman-Palladino. I know of no other writer that can make references to from Adolph Eichmann to Paul Anka and manage to always be both funny and touching.
5 - The West Wing
The first four seasons (and bits of season 7) are some of the best drama ever. But when it jumped the shark, it jumped HARD.
4 - SportsNight
Sorkin's best writing. He's been recycling jokes off this show for years now, and the people on this show were just so freaking loveable.
3 - Battlestar Galactica
Ron Moore is a genius.
2 - Veronica Mars
Noir-themed detective show with a hot actress and absolutely flawless, sharp writing? What's not to love.
1 - Star Trek: Deep Space 9
As good as it got with Star Trek, especially once it hit season 3. A darker, more brooding series that put humans out of their perfect, cozy Roddenberry nest.
[0] comments (649 views)
Tue Jul 08, 2008
Jesse James, Chief Executive Officer?
About ninety minutes into Andrew Dominik's film The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, I remarked, "If Jesse James were alive today, he'd probably be a fucking power tie-wearing executive."
I haven't the slightest clue if the film's portrayal offered by Dominik and Brad Pitt captures the essence of Jesse James or not, though it seems fair to point out that James' descendents are effusive in their praise of the movie. But should this incarnation of James be anything like the mythical criminal anti-hero of American legend, it might be fair to stand by my comment.
Jesse James, CEO.
Why not? Despite his saintly portrayal in popular literature as a southern Robin Hood, James essentially stole to line his own pockets and did so with a ruthlessness that is as at home in the boardroom as it is in a bank robbery. In the film, he leads a member of his gang to the middle of a deserted, wintery woodland trail where James shoots the man in the back with a coldness unmatched even by his snowy surroundings. And he beats a child, perhaps in rage or perhaps simply because he can. His weapons travel everywhere with him, and his trust extended not far beyond his own person. How is that much different than the nearly crazed, psychopathic attitude it must take to helm an international conglomerate that thoughtlessly rapes the environment or engages in "marketing" by creating quasi-addictive childhood snacks that share commonalities with adulthood foods? How is that much different than a person who would cut his employees loose in a heartbeat because of a bad economy while taking an eight-figure bonus for himself? How is that much different than an executive who will literally cheat in his books, accounting, and tax figures to save a little money for himself and his shareholders while denying the public the funds it so badly needs?
If there be one point on which to base criticism of my comparison, I suppose it would be that James seemed to target banks and luxury trains, the home of the wealthy. Screwing the wealthy to make oneself wealthy isn't necessarily admirable, but I can think of worse things James could have spent his time doing, especially in the mid-1800s.
What would someone like that think of today? He seemed bent on doing what pleased him and what suited his needs like any good CEO, but it seems that he was decidedly against the consolidated wealth both of the north and in those passing through Missouri like any equally good rogue.
So what the hell would he make out of insurance companies refusing to pay because a company neglects to inform an employee of changes to his policy? What would he make of a government that allows it to happen and refuses to allow people to sue the company for restitution beyond the smallest amounts?
Sadly, it seems that these arguments are older than the legend of James himself, like the ancient threads of the cloth that form our banner of stars and stripes. Why are we constantly torn between our selfish desires and recognizing our common needs? How is it that many of the aspects of the freedom sought by people like James and the Confederacy have been lost by virtue of extending that freedom to companies and capitalists? And why on earth do today's people seem OK with that?
I suppose I know the answers to those questions, but that's what makes them all the more puzzling. If I know the answers, certainly other people do as well -- so why can't we deal with these issues in ways that aren't as violent as James (or school shooters or riots or civil wars) and that aren't as ruthlessly elitist as insurance companies (or corporate farms or advertising agencies or oil conglomerates)?
Dominik couldn't have cared less about these issues when making The Assassination of Jesse James, I'm sure. But I can't help but see today's America in virtually every historical film I watch. This one dressed it nicely in the epic feel of a grand western, in superb cineamatography, and in excellent performances by Pitt as James and Casey Affleck as Robert Ford. Despite all those great things, perhaps this movie's greatest achievement is that it achieved a realism in portraying America in the faces of each of its characters -- from the wealthy train passengers with fear in their eyes to Jesse James, CEO.
Or perhaps I just need to shut up and watch something like Superbad.
[0] comments (720 views)
Wed Jul 02, 2008
Bad Blogger. Very Bad Blogger!
Oh, where, oh, where have all the blog posts gone?
Over the past two months, I've had countless ideas for what I could write about -- what I should write about -- but endless hours of extra work merged with immeasureably quantities of personal laziness and a newfound love of Battlestar Galactica to keep me from doing my bloggerly duties. I also haven't eaten, showered, or used a restroom in over 17 days and 4 hours now.
I kid. Sort of.
Some random thoughts to get me back on the right track:
Can Barack Obama continue to be the good person I've believed him to be, or are these early, minor slippages in his commitment to quality -- somewhat renegging on his pledge to use public funds, for example -- the first sign that every politician, no matter how "outside" the system, is destined to be macerated and disfigured by the acid of national politics?
My current favorite bands/music acts in no particular order: Nirvana, The Gits, Johnny Cash, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, The Animals, Alice Smith, Fiest, Erin McKeown, Richard Hell, Wallace Roney.
George Carlin is dead. Fucking eh.
Do not ever question Joe Dumars, no matter how much your sports talk ratings depend on it. You will go to hell.
Creationists continue to annoy the living shit out of me.
Bureaucracy sucks, especially when you're a cog in it all and you recognize there's little to nothing you can do to help stop the machine. All my accomplishments are trivial.
I recently made perfect pulled pork. As in tapped-with-a-knife-the-meat-crumbled-like-my-will-before-Battlestar-Galactica-DVDs perfect. This is the most important thing I've done with my life lately, other than perhaps fix Suz's computer, which is still a work in progress.
I still think Mac sucks and Apple is no different than Microsoft, but I'm considering buying one. I can reconfigure it with more variety of types of tools and probably better overall performance. If only someone could build a computer that was powerful, configurable, easy to use, and had broad industry support. ARGH.
Th-th-th-th that's all folks.
[0] comments (365 views)
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
