IntoFilm

The Art And Crimes Of Ron English

2006-06-07T19:29:00.000-07:00

In this endless stream of images, that we exist in, in a world where kids are growing up where their entire visual landscape is bought and sold and entirely co-opted, you can either have an acquiescent, passive approach to it and sort of enjoy the spectacle or you can try to confront it in some way.
-Carlo McCormick, editor Paper Magazine

In American society where art isn't a part of people's lives, I feel like I'm almost on a mission to bring art back to people. Everywhere I looked, I saw billboards so I started co-opting billboards to put my art on.
-Ron English

Corporations don't deserve free speech, people deserve free speech.
-Ron English

These are some of the quotes that open the film Popaganda: The Crimes and Art of Ron English, along with quotes of passers-by who say things like, "This is truth, ads are lies.", and the kid who observed that the billboard satirizing Joe Camel will make kids laugh the next time they see a real Joe Camel billboard. And there were lots of them in the poor neighborhood that black kid lived in. Camel faced the pesky problem of its customers dying off and it became increasingly desperate to capture the youth market. The made their models younger but it still didn't appeal to kids so they began a campaign using a cartoon character, Joe Camel, which was hugely "successful", for them anyway.

Ron English didn't like this, none of us do, but Ron actually did something. He went after their billboards (and all cigarette boards) using their look, logo, taglines, like "Smooth Character", or “Salem Spirit” but incorporating his own ghostly, garish images that show the death and lies these images really represent. He also twisted their tags into things like "Cancer Kid". He would change the warning label to stuff like, "Courting kids leads to early retirement", or ask “Hook any new kids today?”. Camel did indeed discontinue the billboards, and Joe Camel, after a while.

He also went after Apple which, at the time, was appropriating the images of great, but conveniently dead, artists and thinkers like Einstein, who may or may not have wanted to endorse their products. They were using the motto "Think Different". So did Ron English, who put up similar billboards, only with faces of Charles Manson and Bill Gates.

One of his favorite targets is McDonalds because, like the cigarette companies, target children. He has attacked them many times with numerous images such as the one pictured on this blog below. He paints each public ad individually on canvas to hang in front of a billboard, almost all of which are dead ads, meaning the advertiser on there has received the time on the board he has paid for. Once the time is up, billboard owners typically just leave it up there for free because blank boards indicate to potential advertisers that it's not a location that sells well.

One of his McDonald's billboards was the inspiration for Morgan Spurlock's excellent film, which I reviewed on this blog, Super-Size Me. Morgan noticed the billboards in his neighborhood. Ron has inspired other artists who are featured in the DVD such as the Billboard Liberation Front, who wear bandanas and disguises and paste up messages on public spaces, including billboards, where they worked with English to put up the mileage statistics on SUV ads along with comments on how pleased Saddam would be, such as, “Saddam’s SUV Oil Dependence Day Sale.”.

Speaking of Saddam, Ron learned that he is the living person with the most songs about him, many probably written at gunpoint. Ron, while not at all competitive with his fellow renegade artists, did apparently want to best Saddam here and implored similarly minded musicians to write songs about him and his art. These little ditties run all through the film, and are pretty funny, as are the sayings on Ron’s billboards, in a sad sort of way. Mostly, they just make you think about the corporate messages that are usually up there in a different way. Here are a few:

The media is the massage.

You are what you own.

America: Home of the homeless

Your apathy is our strength. (image of the Capital)

Shop while they drop. (image of bombs)

Ron tackles all the sacred cows and powers that be, including the church and Bush administration. His goal is to take back the media and the message from those who seem to have the only real access to most mediums of communication in our society. People have asked why Ron risks the arrests and doesn't just rent the billboards. The boards, owned by huge conglomerates like Viacom, Clear Channel and Ted Turner, who made his fortune off billboards, won’t sell the ad space to Ron.

Sure, you can paint your little painting and hang it in the gallery, or your studio, for a few eggheads, but people like Michael Moore and Ron English have no real access to media that has any sizable audience. Those entities take too much money from McDonalds and gas guzzling car companies.

There’s a commentary track with Ron English and the film’s editor talking about they had no idea that the director, Pedro Carajal, would ever really make a film out of all this. Apparently, he just followed them around with a camera a lot,. There’s no shortage of footage of these illegal capers, or anything else. Being an indie filmmaker myself, I’m pretty sure why Ron and the editor, not the director, did the commentary track. It’s all in the editing people! It’s the most under-appreciated endeavor there is, and the most necessary.

I’m sure it was a huge job on this project because you could make a four-hour film just showing Ron’s art at a pic a second. Talk about prolific, he works twelve hours a day and is a very popular and strong selling fine artist, hanging in galleries all over the world,. Originally, he just wanted to bring his art to the people and put his incredibly detailed pop art up for free. After a while he realized he could raise awareness of social and political issues and do what any good artist is supposed to do, encourage free and original thought.

The beauty of this art form is that you get something immediate and real. The artist just goes up there and plasters their message, like graffiti art. No editors, no censors, just the comment of someone willing to stand up and be counted. Ron puts his website address on all his boards, he doesn’t live in hiding and in fact refers to himself as a soccer dad.

I have nothing but respect and awe for Ron and all artists willing to be that .01% of the population willing to say that the Emperor has no clothes, that consumption is costing us our planet, and we need to think about how much we really need, what we’re eating, what we’re doing to our bodies and minds and spirits and souls. They are competing with corporations that have the only meaningful “free” speech in this world and whose existence depends on our continued consumption.

We’ve come a long way since Andy Warhol replicated soup cans to show how mundane our lives had become. Ron has replicated Andy and his muse, Marilyn, over and over and over. They are some of his most requested pieces. Even art dealers want what is familiar. Of course, Ron’s Marilyns have Mickey Mouse boobs… but doesn’t everybody? We all live in the house of mouse, for now, but with a little more satirical, low-brow art, we at least have hope.

Get Rich Or Die Trying

2006-06-05T08:55:00.000-07:00

He's smart and absolutely driven. If he was born to Fred Trump, he'd be The Donald. Instead he was born to an alluring and adept NY drug dealer who was murdered when 50 was 10, and an unknown father. Instead of living in a penthouse on Central Park South, he lives on an immense estate with the proceeds of his first album, which sold a mind-boggling twelve million copies, and a dozen other lucrative business deals. He's 50 Cent, born Curtis Jackson, he's an artist, a multimillionaire, a drug dealer and an ex-con. He's been shot nine times and lived to tell about it.... in this movie named after his album and his philosophy.

It's the American dream; no matter where you start, with enough hard work and dedication, you can make money, lots and lots of money. If the American Dream was to find happiness and peace of mind maybe we wouldn't be facing the inconvenient truth that we squandered our planet in a few generations. But that's not the American dream. The American dream is wealth and now it's not just the American dream, it's the dream of everyone, all over the world.

It's all about making smart deals and giving your customers what they want. Trump's customers want the best quality New York housing available, 50's wanted crack. Like any other successful entrepreneur, 50 worked long hours and managed his crew well. Dr. Phil says the difference between winners and loser is that winners do things that losers don't want to do. Other dealers didn't want to take coins, or go to the trouble of ironing bills in order to give crisp change, but 50 did.

Now, I would argue that people who spend a lifetime doing things other people don't want to do isn't necessarily a winner, no matter how rich and powerful their sacrifice makes them. But, again, in this country, in this world, with the values we've developed, wealth is considered success and the lack thereof is considered failure... and this is the subject of this post.

Looking at 50 Cent begs the question, what is success? Anyone trying to argue that 50 Cent is not successful would have a hard time of it, yet, the guy is an unapologetic criminal... a Gangsta. Not only is he unapologetic about it, it's vaunted. Unlike Usher, who went with a traditional vanity project, In The Mix, to capitalize on his fan base, 50 went the route of his mentor, Eminem, and did a story loosely based on his life. He made this choice because he knows what sells, it's not just the melodic, hypnotic raps, it's his story, and his reality, his cred.

He's the real deal, a true artist. A true artist, in my book, is one who can expose. Exposing one's pain, particularly in an aesthetic way, is one of the hardest things in the world to do. Very few do it. John Lennon was brilliant at it, how can you listen to his music and not realize the deep pain he felt all his life over the lack of his mother? People have pain, all of us do, but we often don't know how to understand it, process it, heal it. Artists help us do that, or are supposed to. When an artist really exposes their pain, it helps us relate to our own pain and heals us, makes us feel that we are not alone in our human situation.

Who buys 50's albums? Twelve million black kids? Hardly. He sells big all over the world. It's your own suburban white kids, folks. Why do they buy it, relate to stories from the inner city? Because it's real... like their pain. The pain they feel from parents who see them as little success machines, who must rep them well to the neighbors with stellar grades and lots of extracurricular activities. Unlike adults, who get used to the idea of living in an unreal world of getting paid to be a cog in the wheel, kids want a life that feels immediate and meaningful.

They want to live for today, be in the present, feel their emotion and struggle and humanity. 50, with his close relationship to his maker, the one he encountered after being shot, and his unwillingness to alter his image or himself inspires kids to be real, to be genuine. Kids are battened with morality and rules every moment, some of which don't even make sense to them, there is no room for them to go outside the lines. But, 50 gives them permission and safety to do that, or at least experiment with boundaries.

What's interesting to me is how modest 50 is as an artist. Lennon knew his ability to expose and write music was genius. Though lacking parental love, John had full confidence in his identity as the tortured artist. 50 sees himself as a businessman first, something almost unique to hip hop and rap artists. He credits his ability to sell to white America to his scary image, not his art. So does Disney, that's why there's always a scary scene in their movies. In his own words, he thinks kids go into the store looking to pay $17.99 for a fear thrill. They want a dangerous thug image to pretend to, in order to make themselves feel tough and cool.

I think kids know what's real. You just can't fake it to the kids cause they're at school all day talking to each other. Now, with the internet, the buzz goes faster, stronger, and wider than ever. Kids don't just follow trends, they make them, and they are the only ones to make them, that's why advertisers seek them out. They loved Lennon, they loved Cobain, and they love 50 because those guys put their pain and weaknesses and mistakes out there for all to see.

So, is 50 successful? Hell yeah, but not because of the money, or even the drive, but because, like Lennon and Cobain, he was transformed by the love of his child to be a caring human being and expresses himself as a true artist.

The New World

2006-05-17T09:25:00.000-07:00

Some of the Native Americans that participated in this film objected to the title. It's not a new world to them. Their culture has been around for some 10,000 years here. They have lived in ecological harmony with this land for a long time and lead a lifestyle of grounded simplicity and joy in the natural world. To native, indigenous societies it is certainly our world, based on raping the planet for riches, that is the newer one. The old one was working just fine for thousands of years, how is this new one working for us? Global warming and its resulting hurricanes, heat waves, landslides of ravaged hills, $3. gas.... not to mention a world of people cut off from their connection to nature and their god-given instincts and intuition.

Before I launch into a review of this exquisite film, I must disclose my deep affection for Terrence Malick and his 1978 film Days of Heaven. I saw Days Of Heaven in the theater, back when I used to go to the movies a lot. I had returned from a three month car trip through this country earlier that year and watching his film filled me with so much longing for the American landscape that I packed up my car, saw the film again three days later and then took off the following day for another long car trip West.

The setting for Days of Heaven was Texas, in my view, not nearly the most beautiful part of this country, but Malick has an absolutely unparalleled genius for bringing out the peace and majesty of nature. There is no one who can put nature onto film like Terrence Malick and I would hate to think of this world, old or new, without him in it. Ansel Adams captures some beautiful forms in little black and white pics that enhanced our appreciation of what's out there, but Malick understands the color, the movement, the scope. I can't even use the word capture for Malick, he presents, he embodies, he translates something that is one of the hardest things in the world to duplicate on film... the absolute awe-inspiring feeling of being entranced and encompassed by nature.

I really regret not seeing The New World on the big screen and will look for it in art theaters, though the DVD is definitely worthwhile because there is a long section on the making of this film. Malick, who was strangely absent from the documentary feature must have spent the last eight years from Thin Red Line looking for financing for this project because it sure doesn't look like they spared much expense. Jamestown, the entire settlement, was completely re-created for the film, Native Americans were brought in to act and consult. Every attempt was made to be completely authentic; using a few journals from the time.

The story is basically a love story, about John Smith (Colin Farrell) and Pocahontas. The latter is played almost silently, but strongly, by fourteen year old Q'orianka Kilcher and she does a good job of conveying a girl completely in touch with herself and the world around her, even after she is removed from her tribe to be, in effect, a hostage of the English. She is well treated and eventually marries, even has a son, and goes to England to be feted by royalty, but never loses her center or her love. For most of the story she loves John Smith, even though he returns to England without her and has her told that he is dead.

She later discovers he is still alive and with that her love for him re-blossoms. She is honest with her husband and, unlike most men, he acts in a very loving and selfless way. He re-unites the pair to see where it goes. She realizes, when she re-connects with Smith, that what she has with Rolf is actually truer and she returns to loving him. He was very wise to let her follow her nature and allow her to love freely. He realized that love can't be forced. Maybe living close to the land, with Pocahontas, taught him that.

Days of Heaven also featured a love triangle and a woman who loves two men interwoven into such an incredible natural landscape that you really don't even need a story or plot. I remember in Days of Heaven about twenty minutes into the film I was saying "Wow... a plot too!" It was like an extra bonus. I would have been more than happy spending two hours just watching how Malick films water or wheat.

It's sad to me that this film, while receiving lots of critical acclaim, went unnoticed by viewers and the Academy. In my mind this film does everything a film is supposed to do. It's stunning, enchanting and engrossing even on just a visual level. It educates our minds about important events that changed the course of history. It speaks to us about love and its difficult choices, its pain and confusion and longing, its deep and unchanging nature that has no pretense to rhyme or reason. It shows clashes of cultures and ideas and their resolution. And this film also does something that very few films can do, it viscerally engages our deepest spirits and brings us a sense of what nature can do to our souls when given half a chance.

I remember on a lot of my young travels watching the tourists who would pull up to the Grand Canyon or some other magnificent natural wonder and say, basically, wow, that's amazing, what's next? They weren't really living and breathing it, they were watching it, like TV. Take the kids, let's visit some museums, some mountains, write a few postcards and there's your vacation. There are tourists, and then there are travelers. Malick is for the travelers, the learners, the experiencers. That's why the film didn't draw crowds, most people are tourists and will miss what Malick is really about, will miss what the world God gave us is all about.

For most, this world is one of offices and cell phones with little spots of beauty and nature thrown in to keep it from being unbearable. How unbearable would life be if we all realized how shallow and detached our lives really are? God gave us so much. And we stupidly decided we could do better. Never satisfied, we grasp always for more and better and newer. Did the British see the world anew when they met the natives? Not really, progress marches on and much of what has been brought is indeed better, making life on this planet more comfortable, predictable and safe... but, at what cost?

To me, the new world is indeed the world seen anew. When we wake up in the morning and see the world a bit differently than we did before, it is an achievement. When we keep our minds and spirits young and fresh and open, full of love and wonder; that is the new world. Watching this film refreshes our world-view if we let it.

Rumor Has It

2006-05-15T16:56:00.000-07:00

I like the fact that this film advances and draws on popular culture while remaining thoroughly original. If you read my blog, you'll see how often I bemoan the way the RIAA has appropriated our popular music, a deep part of our culture, and essentially, held it hostage by charging exorbitant rates to use past hit songs in films, mash-ups and other art forms. This film talks about The Graduate, and incorporates lines and plot points without running afoul of our excessive copyright protections much as Nora Ephron used Bewitched, the TV series, in her eponymous film. The convention worked better in this film because it brought in the real world more successfully.

Whereas Ephron's film felt farcical, this romantic comedy was handled better. I hate to compare Nicole Kidman unfavorably to Jennifer Aniston but the latter brings heart to her parts. Costner, portraying the real life Benjamin Braddock, is playing the same role I've seen him play in the last twenty films and Shirley MacLaine has also atrophied, though at least she didn't try to play seductive, she remains stuck in her Steel Magnolias mode. Some Charity Valentine would have been much better here, but maybe Rob Reiner stuck her in Bittertown. Too bad Anne Bancroft's dead. The Graduate, though it made Dustin Hoffman's career, was all Anne.

I mean, really, she plays an alcoholic who seduces the son of her husband's partner, literally luring him into a room and cornering him stark naked, then telling her daughter that he raped her. Charming... yet she makes us love her anyway. It's not easy to make a story like that work. So, anyway, this film also brings in the aspect of uptight suburban, rich Pasadena and the urban legend that surrounds this tale and its writer, Charles Webb.

Since there's no commentary track, I don't know if Charles Webb grew up in Pasadena, or wrote The Graduate based on a real story told to him by a prep school friend. Maybe that's some of the mystery that makes this film fun. I liked the contrast between these mothers and granddaughters who freely intergenerate and the hausfrau gossips that speculate from the sidelines. OK, I made up "intergenerate" but isn't it a great term to describe those who don't confine their dating and sexual pleasure to those who are the same age?

I'm all for it. The three great loves of my life are all 6-8 years older than me. When I was younger, I had almost no interest in men in their twenties and preferred older guys. As long as they're in good shape, I still prefer men who have interesting life experience to draw on. But now I see all sorts of things in younger guys that I really didn't appreciate before such as openness, enthusiasm, access to emotion, integrity and sexuality etc. They're not so beaten down and pussy-whipped, they don't carry all the bitterness and baggage. They're freer and more idealistic and creative.

So I liked this romp through the many configurations of younger/older and fun/serious relationships. I guess the message we're supposed to get is that sexual experimentation and exploration is great but "building a life together" requires more. Hell yeah, it requires the rock guys, not rock like rock and roll, but the rock, the guy who you can have kids with and depend on. OK but just remember, that's how Mrs. Robinson ended up in her sorry state... by marrying the rock. Not the rocker, the rock.

So, let's look forward to Rumor Has It Two when we see Jen twenty years later hitting on her son's friends...

Munich

2006-05-11T05:49:00.000-07:00

This is the story of a group of Israeli men who were given the mission of executing those responsible for killing eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. Although Golda Meir publicly ordered the execution, the mission was essentially covert. The events of the hostage-taking and subsequent killings in Munich are covered through flashbacks that I found distracting, especially since Avner, the guy having them, wasn't even there at the original crime. The story arc would have been better had Spielberg kept a tighter chronology. I also thought a lot of the violence was gratuitous. The film seemed too consciously paced for the typical young male ADHD theater goer.

At times it just seemed to go mindlessly from one bungled bombing to the next. It's hard to believe they couldn't find one skilled bomb-maker in Israel. One of the more interesting aspects of the film is the way it addresses some of the larger moral issues concerning justification for war and killing. Some of the group have a hard time with what they are doing, on a moral level. Capital punishment is not used in Israel, so these executions violated their own laws. These men were not captured, for trial, they were killed, with bombs, to get press and terrorize the terrorists.

Another creative twist was showing how immorality and violence take a toll on the human being. Avner's wife is seven months pregnant when they approach him and he loves her. At the end, while he is making love to her, you see all the worst flashbacks of killing the athletes. Even as he makes love to the woman he loves, a woman he has missed for months as he was away on his mission of death, he thinks only of violence. How many men think of work as they have sex with their wives? His life had become about killing, justified or no, and it was a part of him, irrevocably.

Then there's the "meet the new boss same as the old boss" aspect. You can go on killing the bad guys forever, and even worse guys will take their place. One of the agents had this response to offer, "Should I stop clipping my fingernails because they will grow back?" So, there are a lot of opportunities to ask moral questions about what is happening in the Middle East and elsewhere. How much violence do we need already? Does endless retribution serve any purpose? When does it end? Every side has it's justifications. The Palestinians want a homeland, and are sick of being mistreated. Their tactics are meant to show their desperation. It's a bit astounding to me that a Jewish director would be so even handed in his treatment of this issue. It's an extremely difficult line to walk, especially in such a public way.

If these Israelis have trouble justifying killing those who plot against innocent athletes, how the hell do we justify killing thousands of Iraqis and Americans for oil? What are we doing to promote peace in the Middle East? I commend Spielberg for smelling blood in the water and being a part of the Hollywood and musician uprising against Bush, which I think accurately describes this film. That guy is gonna stink so bad by '08 that wise to wait Hillary will have smooth sailing.

Did this film deserve a nod for best picture? No, there were far better films made last year. Spielberg feels that whenever he uses his obscene power as the world's most famous film director to shed light on a social issue he deserves an Oscar. We have never seen a director, in all film history, with the power to bring viewers into a theater like he has. He is truly the first rock star director, a phenom. I recently started watching Terrence Mallick's The New World and it's been an interesting contrast because, while both are great directors, their approach is so different.

With every shot of Mallick's, you see art, you see the artist, you see a man who wants to put beauty up there for people, you see a man who wants to paint the natural world in an awe inspiring way. You see the restraint, the eye, the artistry. When you watch a Terrence Mallick film, you see the highest form of what a director can achieve as a visual artist. Spielberg is a disseminator, a populist, a panderer. In his films you see the conscious manipulation of emotion, the pacing for heart-racing, the story, the charm. In his mind he's a storyteller surrounded by kids at the campfire.

So, whether you think Munich was one of the five best pics of '05 depends partly on what you want out of film. For me, I don't look to film to be my thrill ride. If I want to get my heart racing, I don't do it sitting in a dark theater. I want film to be beautiful, I want it to bring me in and capture my emotion and soul and take me to some new knowledge and feeling. On the other hand, as I said, it's not easy to take the unwashed masses and try to teach them a little something. He definitely had to chop a few million off his back end to do it, not to mention all the dough he had to spend to promote himself into the race. But Spielberg already has the dough and fame, he wants to be considered a great director, which to me, means artist, even though he's not.

The Greatest Game Ever Played

2006-05-08T16:40:00.000-07:00

Golf? You want to tell me golf is the greatest game ever played? Why, because Francis Oumet rose from lowly caddy to businessman on the strength of his game? If that's the criterion I guess I'd have to offer the very obvious fact that far more men, and even women, have moved from poverty to prominence in basketball than golf. Even football, violent as it is, as least offers the chance to move up and earn money. For basketball, it moves fast, can be played almost anywhere, offers ten guys the chance to play at once, demands stamina, strength and grace. All this makes it great for spectators and participants alike. It can easily be played indoors, making it year round and all-weather. It requires strategy, quick thinking and an ability to read people and their bodies.

Tennis also offers a lot of these same qualities, which is why I love to play it. Like golf, it offers the chance to hang out with three friends and get some exercise outdoors. Golf, not to mention baseball, is too slow and non-athletic to even be considered a sport. And BTW, the reason Bonds, Sousa and McGwire are breaking long-held batting records is not because of the steroids. That's just what helps them build up more muscle by letting them inflame less from workouts. What's really making the difference are drugs that aid their reaction times. The reason I know this is because I dated someone who helped develop the drugs. They're not used by many, and are known about by even fewer.

Since golf isn't even arguably the greatest game ever played, except by wealthy men looking for the longest possible time away from their wives, what's the deal on the title? Are they saying this particular round of golf, the last in the eighteenth US Open, was the greatest game ever played? Well it may have been the greatest game of golf ever played, at least for American players, because it completely energized the game over here. It was a huge upset for the Brits, who dominated the game, particularly since the title went to an unknown player. Francis Oumet, and his ten year old caddy, did have enormous celebrity after the game. Tiger Woods, black, a phenom since age 5, has certainly had a big effect on the game.

As to the greatest game ever played in terms of whipping up US emotion, that would have to go to the last game of hockey in the 1980 Olympics where the US, a team of college players took the gold over the Soviet Union. In fact, this "miracle on ice", immortalized in the film Miracle, was voted the greatest sporting event of the 20th century by many in 1999. If you're looking for the greatest game in terms of upsets, that would have to be 1969 the year the amazing Mets won the World Series.

If you're looking for an event that radically changed a sport, I would have to point to "the thwack heard round the world" when Nancy Kerrigan took a whack from Tonya Harding's thugs. As has been said, every skater out there today ought to be bowing in Tanya Harding's direction five times a day because whereas before, Olympic champs could barely make a living, now, just about any skater with a name can earn millions. Billie Jean King turned tennis around for women in terms of what they could earn. Certainly her game with Bobby Riggs garnered almost as much attention as the 1913 US Open, which did attract some 25,000 people to the course.

Now I'm not saying this was a bad movie or anything. It's well worth buying on DVD because it's uplifting, inspiring, historical, socially aware and has lots of commentary tracks and other bonus features. One of them is by Bill Paxton, of Apollo 13 fame, who directed and took an interesting approach highlighting the tactical features of the game as well as making a lot of visually interesting shot choices.

Shopgirl

2006-05-05T10:15:00.000-07:00

Steve Martin adapted this screenplay from the novella he wrote in 2000. During the height of the bubble he must have noticed the class differences in LA going full throttle. So he brought to the fore themes he had let lie since LA Story. That ensemble clearly showed us how Martin sees the world, his outsider eye always brings such delightful perspective whenever he presents it, from The Jerk on. I've been a fan of Steve Martin since King Tut, the zany dance meant to spoof the millions of spectators lined up to see the gold of the boy king.

Here he shows the contrast between rich and poor LA. We go back and forth from Ray's aquatic, modern mansion to the austere Silver Lake apartment of Mirabelle (Clare Danes), a young average girl with 40K in student loans and, for some reason, a job selling gloves at Saks (doesn't a college degree get you more than that?). Martin plays a wealthy older man who is attracted to her and they begin to date. The plot is pretty simple, he likes the sex but she starts to get needy and he realizes she doesn't have much else to offer, so breaks up.

She cries but moves on, grows from the experience and by the time all that happens, the younger, more appropriate, I guess, guy (Jason Shwartzman) has a little more maturity and takes her off into the sunset. Ray finds a nice gynecologist his own age and everyone lives happily ever after. I guess we're supposed to see two dynamics at work here, the class differences as well as the age difference, and how they play out.

In anther film that just came out on DVD, which I didn't review but maybe now will if I find a lot to say on this issue, is Prime, where the gorgeous Uma Thurman plays the older woman to a 23-year-old guy. She tells him at the end that she will give him the biggest gift of all by letting him go find someone his own age... she doesn't need his sperm to have a baby that bad, thanks. At least in Prime there's a little twist on on the stereotype, Martin's is pretty true to form. The older guy seems pretty dead emotionally. It's hard to see what he really wants in a relationship. Though he's somewhat enchanted by Mirabelle he doesn't know how to relate to her on an emotional level and since she's clinically depressed, she doesn't have much to offer him in that department to help him understand his emotions and help him grow.

I feel sorry for Ray. He's got lots of money and security but no real passion, no real compassion and doesn't seem to have much going on spiritually. Mirabelle excuses all that because she's poor and young, she probably sees her prospects mostly in terms of marriage. Since she needs help in almost every way, someone who at least offers money, offers a lot. Money can buy a lot, not everything, but a lot. Someone older and wiser would find a lot lacking in Ray. Even if we assume he's pretty good on a mental level, we've still got emotional, physical & spiritual to deal with.

Lots of women, particularly young women do see men in terms of money and security. Guys know this, especially guys with money, and they need to know they are loved for themselves. It's hard to know this when the lady has no dough of her own. Yeah, Ray can see she really cares for him, but would she care so much if he were poor? Maybe not, after all, she blew off the artistic Jeremy until she sees him in a snazzy white suit, and doesn't give him a second look till Ray dumps her and it starts to look like Jeremy might do OK as a provider.

What it gets to for Ray is that all he can get from her is physical, he doesn't see her as a source for anything else. So, at the end, Mirabelle has seen another slice of life, courtesy of Ray, and is a little more worldly and sophisticated but still has a long way to go. I wish her well but don't pity her the way I pity Ray. This guy is well into his fifties, if not 60's and, really, should be a lot further along. I don't get the sense he's ever shown real commitment or known real love. That's what gets me. When I see people waste their lives, that's the stuff that really saddens me.

We are so much more than our intellects, our mental achievements, no matter how much power and money they give us. But, because they give us so much, they can be distracting, alluring, deceptive and addictive. The world, not to mention, Palo Alto is full of guys, and even some women, who are what Antoine St. Exupery calls mushrooms, big heads without much underneath. Their emotional, physical and spiritual sides are like deformed little appendages that never grew, just lying there. But unlike with limbs, most people never see these handicaps, unless you look close up. I have and it's sad.

There are a lot of sad, empty men out there looking for glove salesgirls, and confidantes and intimacy but never really finding it because there's always some deal around the bend. So, Steve's personal comment is on the loneliness and emptiness not only in the lives of young, poor salesgirls but wealthy, powerful men... and everyone in between.

The Family Stone

2006-05-03T16:02:00.000-07:00

More like the family stoned. Most of the all-star cast portrays a liberal northeastern family contrasted against Sarah Jessica Parker's overly uptight, conservative, or maybe just asinine. potential in-law to be. Luke Wilson plays the affable mandatory stoner. After his stint in the even weirder Royal Tenenbaums, he may corner the market on quirky family dramedies. In this one he sleeps with the aforementioned prig, or at least passes the duchy, and, well, she does loosen up a bit. Of course you can see the happy ending coming a mile away.

The liberal, but just as rigid, judgmental clan learns not to be prejudiced against the clueless yuppies of the world because, hey, sometimes they show some sensitivity and throw you off completely. And the blind ambition tour realizes there's more to life than career, she realizes she's a mere cog in the corporate machine and marries her new fun dealer. The original date also needs some loosening up via the sister and by the end, everyone's happy. Anyway, there are even more issues than this. What with a cast of seven principals above title, there's a lot of dialogue, a lot of issues... including the meandering nature of the plot, if there is one.

Maybe it's just a warm heartfelt exploration in family dynamics, or at least that's what they probably had to tell Diane Keaton to get her involved. She certainly wasn't thinking clearly when the hair colorist came around, that's for sure. I preferred her in her last major role in 2003, with Jack Nicholson, in Something's Gotta Give, where she was at least vibrant & healthy & had some actual interests, other than matriarchy. As for the rest of the cast, Clare Danes is far better in Shopgirl. Rachel McAdams was better in Red Eye and Parker, you got it, her sex was much better in the city.

This is the place in the review where I normally veer off into my personal views on some social issue and use the film to support and reflect my views. Unceasingly unwilling to let my readers settle for mere plot summations and erudite twaddle on film history or something, I offer full out propaganda and incitement. So, my choices are (1) a discussion of liberal vs. conservative values (no need to wonder where I'll come down on this one), (2) the difficulty of fitting into a different social group, especially someone else's family (3) the complexity of interpersonal relationships, or... (4) the results of my recent personality tests.

So, one thing they said was that while I was unlikely to become the president of a company I would very likely become president of the revolting faction the company. Therefore, I will avoid going off on item #1 above. It also said that because I have really high intuition about people, I often think others see into me, when, in reality, they don't. Since people so rarely see anything hidden (or even unhidden) in me, much less my film reviews let me just trot this out for you (and watch how I, as usual, bring this back to the film at hand). Prejudice is bad.

Whether you're a liberal or an unthinking, unchanging, stick with the status quo cause I'm rich or scared, conservative, we should keep an open mind because, as we see in the syrupy epilogue to this film, you just never know your friends from your enemies and which will make you grow more. To wit, by the next Christmas Mom is but a memory, two babies are added, and the new people making the kids happy have both been brought in by the uptight conservative asshole and even she has found redemption in the form of a stiff joint and flexible guy.

So, as they say in the movies, this only happens in the movies. In real life people stay in their own little worlds where things are safe and predictable and everything labeled different ends up on the scrap heap. But, if you're in a Christmas-y mood in May, check this one out cause it moves well and has lots of commentary tracks and other bonus features.

Brokeback Mountain

2006-04-28T07:42:00.000-07:00

There's so much to love about this film. First off, the landscape is captured beautifully. The majesty of nature is one reason we'll never lose the theatrical experience for movies. Seeing this film definitely made me long for the time I spent in Montana & Idaho. For all this film is to so many, for me, it's a film about contrasting attitudes and approaches to life. Jack wants to feel his life, be himself, have courage and boldness toward life, take chances. Ennis was traumatized by his father as a child and lived the rest of his life in fear and denial, never knowing what to do with his emotions and needs.

It's almost amazing to me that the Oscars so often get it right. It's such a political game that films, particularly indies, hire year-round Oscar consultants. We are a busy nation, a busy world, and most of us have only enough attention to pay to a few big winners. There are millions of incredible athletes out there we'll never know about because they don't have a gold medal and thousands of great films we'll never discover. So, producers will do almost anything to break the waves. The Brokeback Mountain screenplay, written by the revered best-selling western author Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, was known for many years in Hollywood as the best screenplay never made.

Producers were as afraid of homosexuality as Ennis was. McMurtry said when he read Annie Proulx's short story in the New Yorker, his first reaction was that he wished he'd written it. How had he missed such an obvious facet of the west when he'd written about it all his life? I mean, guys up on mountains alone for months.... But, more than that, I think this is a story a lot of authors missed because it's a twist (pun intended) on a classic fable. The progeny of Romeo & Juliet and West Side Story show young lovers willing to face a small-minded, prejudiced family and society... together. It's the kids against the parents, so to speak.

This is the classic fable modernized, we're now ready to see what it looks like when there's only one real protagonist and he has to, essentially, fight not only a culture frightened of its sexuality, or anything different, but his lover, who embodies more buckling than bravery. This makes Jack all the more courageous and ahead of his time, or maybe it just shows his desperation or naivete. Jack has a focus and desire to be himself that guides his life and will not be silenced. Like Gwen Aruja, the transsexual killed several years ago, he insisted on authenticity and paid for it with his life. They are martyrs, they brought awareness and change, and emboldened others. They're heroes.

It's funny cause even though we're all waiting for the big sex scene, when it comes, it's both shocking and natural at the same time. Man, that's a lot of testosterone. No wonder people find lesbians easier to swallow. I must say, this is one film that, watching it on the small screen, I really longed for a bigger one. When it comes to Heath and Jake romping in the Rockies, bigger is better, and much bigger is much better. Let's get some IMAX in here.

But, I digress. Here's why I think this is a great story, I said it up top, it shows the contrast between a brave man and a coward. Yeah, the bold one gets his face bashed in and the scared little mouse faces his small unlived life for many years, but, who do you sympathize with here? Who do you admire? Jack loved. He lived his life, rode horses he loved and wanted to live his life with a man he loved. He loved Ennis. I totally related to him when he said the line that's already become a cliche, "I wish I could quit you". I've been there, loving someone I wish I didn't. But there's satisfaction in knowing that you are living your life in a full, deep and feeling way and that you can be honest about it.

Someone said to me once that in the end, it's all about the love we felt. Jack was able to feel love. Was Ennis? What did love feel like to Ennis? Did he, in fact, love Jack Twist? In many ways, that's the intriguing "twist" to this film. When we look at Jack, it's clear, he has a certain integrity, despite living, basically, a lie with his wife. Ennis is cloudy. We never know quite who he is or how he feels. Something got turned off, way down, way deep, very early and I get the feeling no one will ever really know Ennis, including himself. Who is this guy? What does his life stand for? What does his life mean? He is just existing. He doesn't want awareness. His life is a process of shutting down.

He loves his daughter and, through knowing Jack, he musters up enough love for her to show up at her wedding, or at least promises to. Now we clap and that endless guitar loop comes up bigger than ever. Ennis smiles at his daughter and agrees to go to her wedding. Wow, what growth. I think of characters like Celie in Color Purple, or even many of the characters in Crash. Maybe Annie Proulx should have thought of that before making all those tacky comments about Crash. I think if anything shortcuts the film, it's the story and character development. We see the emotion come out of Ennis as, literally, retching. So, it's a realistic ending for such a sad, empty man, but, I guess we expect more out of our big Hollywood movies these days.

Hustle and Flow

2006-04-26T09:06:00.000-07:00

If you liked Walk the Line and Memphis music, this is a great companion. Here we are in modern, if you call cassette tapes modern, Memphis as we watch a fabulous performance by Terrence Howard depicting a hustler on the lowest rungs of the city. He sells whatever he can: his women, his pride, weed. He's a promoter with the chutzpah of Bill Graham, Steve Jobs & Bill Gates, just with none of the other skills they possess. All he's got is raw drive and raw emotion and when he puts it into a rap, a producer friend layers the track and they go about promoting the song. The song didn't do bad. 3-6 Mafia won an Oscar for it, the first Oscar to ever go to rappers.

While watching this film I thought of lots of things I wish I'd included in my review of Walk the Line. It's about the comments of the director that, although Johnny only spent one night in jail, he wrote about prison extensively, recorded a live album at Folsom and many people think he did do hard time. But what Johnny wrote about are the prisons of our own mind. He was himself tortured by the ghost of his brother who was killed under mysterious circumstances as a child and Johnny suffered from the loss all his life. He had been very close to his brother.

But Johnny recognized all types of mental prisons and I definitely saw them at play in this film. I have known people who lived in the same type of mental prison DJ lives in. The small time hustler, always looking for some little one-up but never really understanding what is needed to make fundamental change that would alter their social status or milieu or the deeper aspects of their personality and soul.

But, the prisons small-time hustlers and tortured artists live in are not really that different from the prisons the unfulfilled housewives and workaholics live in. When I'm in book group, I always hear the women commenting on the trapped, unhappy lives of the fictional protagonists. All the while I look at these women and the walls that bind their own minds and hearts, walls they do not see. I talk to powerful businessmen who are filled with self-importance who never seem to see their lack of heart or courage or creativity or openness. I see people in prison everywhere I look. I used to live in one myself, and probably still do, in ways I don't see. Though at least I talk to people who can, and do, point out my blind spots to me.

We look into our real prisons and see a lot of guys like DJ, born into poverty they'll probably never rise above. But, DJ does try to raise himself and he does accomplish something meaningful, creative, expressive and real. I don't see people for the place they inhabit, I look at them for the distance they've travelled. I look to the efforts they have made to love, to extend themselves, to grow, to change. I look for people who are self-aware, who value self-knowledge, who can talk intelligently about their emotions, responses, childhood, family and who show an understanding of how their life experience has shaped them but moreover, who have shaped their life experiences.

I look for masters of their own destiny, who understand that they are the directors of the film of their life, and that their life is supposed to stand for something, something more than making money and using stuff. DJ, low-life that he is, shows growth, shows some love, some creativity, he's real. He's an unseen, unwanted part of our society but has meaning and redemption in his own life, so who are we to judge?

The commentary track adds a lot and I really enjoyed the film itself, particularly watching how they made the tape. 3-6 Mafia is a platinum selling rap group and represent a lot of what is going on in the south today musically. In many places, music and basketball are the only roads out and there is a lot of hip hop production in almost every city but the south has the best crunk as far as I'm concerned. I happen to love Outkast and the Atlanta scene, but each city has good solid layered tracks which are rich with sound. So check out this DVD.

Fun With Dick and Jane

2006-04-19T17:15:00.000-07:00

I definitely had at least as much fun with Dick and Jane as I did with Johnny Cash or Ed Murrow, the subjects of the two films I just reviewed, both of which were Oscar darlings. Comedies always get the shaft (pun intended), but this Dick was Jim Carrey. He's fabulous and the movie was both funny and thought-provoking. The commentary/comedy track was less so, but the self-admitted Hollywood pinkos get most of their shots off in the film, which sets the remake in the wake of an Enron-like company implosion.

Despite the overblown sets and physical gags, there's a serious irony at play here and the barbs are no-holds-barred. A list of world-class cons is thanked at the end and includes such luminaries as Ken Lay, Skilling, Fastow, Koslowski, Ebbers and more. We see the wide pendulum swings up and down in the life of the capitalistic middle class at the turn of the century in America. Lovely and funny as it is portrayed here, it's not easy to watch because it is recent, it is real. Should we be shouting "too soon", like those watching the 9-11 films?

Certainly Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and Adelphia directly and indirectly affected as many lives as the bombers. You can't compare economic disaster to loss of life, but both are real and lasting tragedies. The latter isn't as photogenic, but, it was made so here and I commend Dean Parisot for allowing us to look at losing one's career, house, pride and just about everything else in an easily digestible, entertaining way.

We watch compassionately as this happy go lucky couple who has everything deals with true loss and hardship. The farce doesn't give us anything that rings true except the embarrassment, cover-up and desperation. Robbery dressed as Sonny and Cher or working at Wal-Mart are not options for most, though this concept was beautifully covered before in Albert Brooks' classic Lost In America. Most of us face the less telegenic task of phoning and emailing all day, trying to get careers and lives and security back. But, if you're looking for humor in massive heartache, and we all do... this DVD is true to its name - fun, and well worth watching.

Walk The Line

2006-04-18T18:47:00.000-07:00

I walked the line between two streams of thought during this film: number one; why do I have to sit here listening to Joaquin Phoenix instead of the Cash voice and two; Ray was better. Having said that, it's hard for me to not like a musical biopic, even though I'm not a particularly big fan of Johnny Cash or country music. Despite the choice of vocals, I liked this film, particularly its focus on the road shows Cash played with Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbison and Carl Perkins, all his contemporaries who were then signed with Sun Records in the early 50's.

Once Cash sung for Sam Phillips my interest in watching the Johnny Cash story diminished and my desire to watch the Sam Phillips biopic grew. While Taylor Hackford fleshed out a solid portrayal of Ahmet Ertegun in Ray, this film teased with a scene of Sam Phillips taking Cash from a flat, ordinary gospel singer to the true artist by telling him to look inside and find his true voice. This is when we hear Joaquin launch into such a poor rendition of Walk The Line we wonder why Phillips would have been interested, but then, he got to listen to Cash, no such luck for us.

Why should Cash license for a biopic when they would have clearly preferred the money from the makers of some hemorrhoid ointment, to whom they licensed Ring of Fire for a commercial a few years back? For God's sake, June wrote that about her burning love for Johnny. I mean really, have they no pride? They did give the rights to their music for this film and I can't understand why the performances weren't used. On the whole commentary track, Mangold offered no clue.

But back to Sam Philips, this is the guy who brought us B.B. King, Howlin' Wolf, Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbison and Carl Perkins, in addition to Cash. When you think about what music was in Memphis, and throughout the south, in the early 50's... it was slow dirge gospel in a slow paced culture. We are talking upright basses here. These traveling road shows of souped up music and screaming teens jumping around in gymnasiums were quite a stretch. To this day, we've rarely seen a performer like Jerry Lee Lewis, the guy was truly out there and this film does point to an enormous change in the musical landscape that was happening in that time and place.

I think this was the true birthplace of rock and roll. Maybe Alan Freed coined the term and got radio more involved, maybe Dick Clark was the ultimate popularizer, once it got to TV, but Sun and Sam is the real seed change, as he tells these turned on white boys to tune in and then recorded them, set up shows and let them go. One night in '54 Elvis was recording the same old country tunes in basically the same way they'd been sung forever and got bored, so he picked up a guitar and started speeding up That's Alright Mama. This is when Sam heard what he'd been waiting for. He knew it when he heard it. He recorded it on his two Ampex 350s. And the rest is history. Music was forever changed from that point on. Rockabilly soon became rock and roll.

This film did help me understand the relationship between country and rock in a deeper, fuller way. I hadn't realized that Cash was country music's biggest seller, at least till Garth Brooks, and I didn't find it out from this film, which focused exclusively, unfortunately, on his early years. He is also one of only three artists to be included in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Country Music Hall of Fame and the Songwriters Hall of Fame. Again, that fact, and his unique ability to crossover into so many types of music, was not included in the film or commentary.

The film did help me understand the man, the role of his brother, who died as a child (something he shares with Ray Charles, Elvis and Joaquin Phoenix) and the role that Johnny Cash played in musical history, at least early rock music history. There was too much time spent on the first marriage and the kids, who played no real historical role and didn't do much to help us understand the man, much less the music. His relationship with June and the love and admiration he felt for her was portrayed well and Reese was able to convey some of her strength and spunk.

Although this film has flaws it is certainly worth seeing on DVD. The commentary track adds lots of personal insight from Jim Mangold, who directed and co-wrote the script over a four year period as they tried to get a studio to back this film. With a $28M budget, which is extremely low for a musical with two bankable stars, who were attached, it took four years to get this film made. Ray had not yet come out, and even with the success of this film and Ray, which won many awards and was a hit, it is still incredibly tough to get a biopic financed in any major way. The Janis Joplin biopic with Pink was shelved, as well as the Hendrix biopic with Andre 3000. These are two musicals that would have been fascinating, and it is truly sad that they fell apart. How can you go wrong with Pink and Andre for god's sake.

So, go out and buy this DVD, because, as Mangold points out, that's what you have to do if you like films like this and want to see more, which I do. It's either this or more comic book and video game derivatives.

Good Night And Good Luck

2006-04-17T11:25:00.000-07:00

This slow moving, black and white ode to when newsmen had balls is definitely more appropriate for the DVD set. Watching Frank Langella's face 30 feet high is something I don't need to see. Yes, he's commanding as the towering Bill Paley, who did indeed allow Ed Murrow to tackle Joe McCarthy head on, but then you would miss George Clooney's commentary track. I did find it interesting to find out that they put that vapid Rosemary Clooney-like singer in because they "needed a girl".

Clooney also points out that what ultimately took McCarthy down were the Republicans, once he started targeting their heros, like Eisenhower. And perhaps that is what he hopes for here. It is happening. Bush is losing the support of his original backers and this is, increasingly, a problem for him.

You can't help liking George Clooney. No one can. While Paul Haggis, Ang Lee, Philip & Reese skulked around, George was the man of the hour at the Oscars this year, and this movie is the main reason why. George kowtows to no one, when Diana dies, and Gawker Stalker abounds, George is willing to stand up and be counted. He was brought up by a button down newsman dad who taught him to stand up for what he believes and not be afraid to speak out. So, I guess it's not surprising he would make a film glorifying someone like this. Murrow definitely had the same quality.

We live in an age of such ass-kissing phonies that folks just find people with guts refreshing, even if they don't particularly care about the issue at hand. Let's face it, paparazzi annoyance is something the general public does not relate to, but George is still willing to speak out, so he's the darling of Hollywood. I like him too because the fakely self-effacing, affable guy is almost always on the right side of the issue. The issue discussed in the movie ripped at our freedoms in a way paparazzi don't, McCarthy was a Senator and had power, people's lives were destroyed and those in the media were indeed buckling to the red-baiting, turning in friends, changing editorial and artistic product.

He takes on the politicos who rise up on the fears they can monger among the unwashed masses. Gee, if I were studying this in some college class, and I'm sure it will be, although I had some shmuck law professor tell a whole class once that McCarthyism had little affect on mainstream America, the first question they would ask is why is this movie being made in 2005? What is going on today that mirrors this situation? Can you say Rumsfeld, Rove, Bush? Why can't we launch a decent investigation anymore? The GOPs got their big extravaganza... can't we get some fucking public embarrassment big enough for closure here?

These little dribs and drabs with Scooter and the Dissident Generals (good band name) is not cutting it at all. We do need some McCarthy/ Lewinskygate type denouement to galvanize all the right-thinking people who have been on autopilot for the past six years. Unfortunately, we're gonna need something prettier and more interesting than Good Night and Good Luck to do that. It's a good DVD, nice features, had good buzz and press, I recommend renting it, but it's just to old looking and irrelevant feeling to get much color up.

The companion feature discusses the way TV news has changed over the years. Just as money and technology have changed music, they have changed news. News used to stand for truth and objectivity. The American public used to have far less options and far more trust in terms of its news. Straight news is, by nature, somewhat repetitive and dry. Murder, mayhem, weather, war... that stuff never stops, there are only so many ways you can make it interesting, especially when you're competing with 80 channels, blackberrries, iPods, videogames and 70 hour workweeks (should we really wonder why every content company is tanking?)

The stalwart pillars of television are now in hospitals or de-perking from cooking segments. We've got the fake Fox news, right-wing news and now the new, fledgeling Al Franken left-wing news, and the fake news spots I reported on last week.... it's crazy. No one knows who or what to believe any more. I think more and more, people are seeking security in numbers and are turning to search engines and blogs to ascertain accuracy. Murrow lived in an age where he was widely viewed and highly trusted. His word meant a lot in turning the tide against McCarthy, just as Cronkite played a pivotal role in turning the Vietnam War around. I think Clooney wishes for a day when we had figures like this to help us as a society, maybe would like to play that role in real life, perhaps he can.

Open Mics In April

2006-04-07T19:11:00.000-07:00

The open mics, hosted by the Rodeo Clowns, have been catching on. Last time there was a great crowd with all sorts of excellent music. It was nice to see a number of local musicians. They will be held on the 9th and 23rd of April from 5-8 (though, last time I left after 9 and there was still lots of people/music) at Blue Chalk Cafe, 630 Ramona St. in Palo Alto. Hope to see you there!

Spielberg Gets Real

2006-04-07T06:41:00.000-07:00

The king of fantasy has just signed with Mark Burnett and Fox to do a reality TV show called "On The Lot" which will play like a cross between American Idol and The Apprentice. The idea came from the preeminent film director who is apparently quite a fan of Burnett and Survivor.

As I've said for years now, as the traditional barriers of entry into music recording and film production come down, those in charge of traditional channels will show increasing interest in the next wave of independent filmmakers. I know everyone thinks I'm crazy for making films as a rank beginner, but I know what most people don't; opportunities for gaining visibility and distribution are growing, and will continue to grow. In my film, about Silicon Valley, we see how companies like Google and Apple look for promising young directors. Well, apparently Dreamworks, and probably every studio, has the same idea.

The winner of On The Lot will be given a production deal with Dreamworks. After scouring the country for filmmakers, sixteen finalists will be brought to Hollywood and put into teams for making films in a short amount of time, sort of like CinemaSport. Like Apprentice, each group will choose a leader (director) and prepare a film, I guess in a week, on a particular subject, or perhaps in a particular genre. It will be an elimination game, like all the rest, with the losing team having to lose a member.

The films will be judged by a panel of experts and, of course, the American public, who will start the winner off with a fan base as big as the Idol winners get. Think of all the dough Kelly Clarkson, alone, has made for Simon Fuller and Fox. So, I look forward to this show. Not only do I plan to watch it, but, I'll be entering as well.

Derailed

2006-04-01T20:12:00.000-08:00

As this film pulled me in, first with sex, then with suspense, I kept thinking, damn, why can't I get my plots this tight. You really have to hand it to writers who can pull you along like this, as thrillers often do. It's the oldest plot in the book; what happens when you find yourself in a bed of lies? Again, this film uses two of the most frequent, the affair, and embezzlement. Our "protagonist", Clive Owen, is doing both, and this prevents him from seeking help when victimized by a very, very bad man, who works in a group of con artists.

He runs into the too good to be true Jennifer Aniston on a train and becomes, yes, derailed. Everything goes off track once lured. How many times have we seen this? Fatal Attraction and Crimes and Misdemeanors both go deep into the extended life of becoming embedded in living a lie. Clive is still the good guy, despite the affair, because he's so devoted to helping his daughter and has been dealt an unfairly harsh hand. We cheer for him when he kills all the bad guys in the big climax. Hope I'm not giving away any surprises here, but don't the bad guys get it in every film, or at least every big budget, standard Hollywood film, which is exactly what this is.

It's the right formula, two hot stars, a great script, action, violence, blood. Blood is very big now, so big in fact, that I haven't been too into reviewing films lately. The History of Violence wasn't bad but what really are you supposed to say about it? Nice prosthetics there, good blood spurt? Oh, I know I should get real philosophical about why we are so drawn to violence, why so many wars (testosterone). I even took a class once on the philosophy of war (yes, this was the same professor who had the class in Carlos Casteneda, let's not go there). But frankly, I'm much more interested in sex, and since that sells just as well, albeit in different markets, may as well focus on that.

Apparently, this all started a few years ago when a few execs followed some guys into the men's room to get the sort of real focus group experience and the word was all about blood, blood, blood and more blood. If you go to the movies, they'll be redder, I guarantee it. They took all the cute daughter homey scenes out of this one to get more gore in. Now, my teenage son just loves this, he wants us to go and get some prosthetics for our next film and I have to admit, putting fake blood in condoms does sound fun, but no, even if it brings in twice the viewers, it's so cheap and manipulative. Now, I didn't mind encouraging my actors to be more sexual, but that wasn't just to make it more marketable, it's because to me, sex between consenting adults is basically a beautiful thing and violence is about pain.

So, I would like to see Hollywood rely less on violence to move story or at least make it less graphic. They won't do that. There are too many people who need that shock to engage in the film. So, if you like violence, check out this DVD and History of Violence, which has cooler behind the scenes features. They're brutal but, both tight, well-acted stories.

The Prizewinner of Defiance Ohio

2006-03-16T08:17:00.000-08:00

It's interesting to me that Terry Ryan's account of growing up in poverty with nine siblings mentions her hometown of Defiance. Her mother, the prize-winning protagonist, was anything but defiant. Evelyn Ryan, who fed her ten kids with the winnings of her jingle writing ability, is really glorified in this film, the book, and the two commentary tracks on the DVD. However, her blithe acceptance of her violent, volatile, alcoholic husband is nothing I admire, 1950's Ohio or no.

Yes, I realize things were different then, women had less options. But Evelyn did have options. Hey, how about not having ten kids with a loser guy? Ever think of that one? And once you had those kids and watched your husband drink away their milk money every night, ever consider using your obviously intelligent mind to actually do something about it? Did you ever consider telling him to change or get out?

The more I think about this woman and the accolades she accumulates throughout the telling of this story, the more disturbed I am. The trailer calls her remarkable. Director Jane Anderson lauds her, calling her passive acceptance of just about everything, "mid-west zen". I think Jane needs to do a little reading on Zen. Zen is about mindful awareness. I see Evelyn's attitude as quite the opposite. Cheerful exuberance as your husband goes on violent rampages in front of your ten kids is not mindful, no matter the decade, the Catholic indoctrination, the midwest isolation.

Evelyn's winnings allow her to put a down-payment on a house. But, she lets her clearly irresponsible husband put it solely in his name. Big mistake, he took out a second mortgage without her knowledge and almost lost it. Yes, unbelievably, by some miracle, she won one of the last big prizes given out to clever housewives in a Dr. Pepper contest and saved the day, moments before they had to move out. Would Terry have admired her mom so much had she not won these contests? It was, after all, basically, luck.

Yes, this was a real-life story just made for Hollywood, which treasures its non-probable happy endings. But, without the exciting miracles, this is a story of a woman who is even less sympathetic to me than the average battered woman because Evelyn was smart. She did have options and she spent her whole life with a man who did nothing but drag her down. I'm all for having a positive attitude, but this woman was in denial. She allowed herself and her kids to be impoverished by an out-of-control man without ever really demanding change. I see no prizes there.

The Desperate Optimism of Dan Glickman

2006-03-15T16:47:00.000-08:00

The link is to the transcript of the MPAA President's speech at ShoWest. Most of the news stories covering this speech pointed to the lame website that theater owners are supposed to refer their $6./hr ushers to, in order to motivate them to root out viewers with camcorders.

What I think is most amazing about this speech is his announcement that the MPAA is going to do a study on what theater goers want. Actually, that isn't what shocked me. What floored me is that this is the first time this organization has actually done this!

Hello. Film producers have always spent a lot of effort with focus groups. They've so given up on adult viewers that focus groups generally exclude anyone over thirty. Glickman is so out of touch, he points to the sophomoric Wedding Crashers and The 40 Year Old Virgin as being "adult hits". How sad is that?

The former pork promoter, Glickman, whose previous stint was at the Dept. of Agriculture helped me understand why the Academy had to nominate such low-grossing films. The only high grossing films are for kids! And, sorry, the voters just aren't gonna go there. Thanks for having a little pride.

Our Fathers

2006-03-12T11:29:00.000-08:00

The title of this DVD, taken from David France's best-seller about the scandal that rocked Boston, is perfect. It is time to shed light on the men of the Catholic Church, particularly those who are ordained as "our fathers". Ordination elevates a priest from the ordinary realm most of us live on. According to their doctrine, priests, while not gods, occupy a semi-godlike status. This was impressed upon all Catholics, including the children, 80% of whom were boys, who were abused by these priests.

Most of the activity that goes on in Catholic churches around the world is done by women. However, the Church, as an organization, is run by men and for men. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Catholic church has, and continues to, lose credibility in the modern world because the men will not give up any of their power and the women, indoctrinated for years to be barefoot and pregnant, won't step up to the plate and take it.

This film is a fascinating study in what happens when power goes unchecked. With all the women whose lives have been altered irrevocably and horribly by the Catholic Church, this film takes a look at the devastating effects on some of their most fervent, spiritual, special boys. Thousands of boys were raped, sodomized, and brutalized by their priests. According to Tom Doyle, the whistle-blower priest, there are over 100,000 victims in the US alone. Even according to the church itself, there are over 10,000 victims. Father Birmingham, alone, raped over 1,000 boys.

These were often viscous attacks by KNOWN men. These were not unknown men, in fact they were adored, elevated, esteemed members of their communities. Their identities were known to their attackers and often their families. And yet this savagery ran rampant throughout Boston, LA and elsewhere for many decades without ever coming to light. Think about how shocking this is. We are amazed that Hitler and the Third Reich could kill six million Jews under the world's nose in the thirties & forties and yet we have something as extensive as this happening in the 21st century in the US.

The seminal problem is a seminary problem. St. John's Seminary, in Boston, was one of the worst breeding grounds. Up until the late sixties, the seminary students were taken from their homes at young ages and put into environments that were basically like Lord of the Flies with rapists for counselors, think of the worst juvenile jail you can imagine. John Geoghan, one of the more prolific offenders, was ordained in 1962, one of the worst "classes" for abuse. Most of the offenders were former victims, as is usually the case.

This knowledge helped me to put less of the blame on celibacy itself. I don't think celibacy does anything to help one's sexuality or spirituality, quite the opposite. It only hinders someone's ability to provide pastoral care and counsel others and it is part and parcel of putting shame and secrecy around sex which is a fundamental problem with the Catholic Church. I mean, who came up with this idea of celibate priests anyway, Paul? I don't remember Jesus advising celibacy to anyone. He was a pretty lively, friendly, flirtatious guy... remember the lady at the well? Remember how he liked to have the ladies around, drinking wine, listening to his stories?

There are those who think deviant behavior is somehow intrinsic to homosexuality. As France points out, well integrated homosexuals are no more likely to rape and attack as well integrated, healthy heterosexuals. It's neither celibacy or homosexuality, in general, at the heart of the church's malfeasance. This abhorrent state of affairs grew directly out of the culture and structure of the church itself.

As with Nazi Germany, it has a lot to do with the expectations and mores of the culture, which elevates obedience over listening to one's heart and thinking critically. The German culture, like the church's culture, is very much a top-down, authoritarian affair. The first promise made by a priest in his ordination is the promise of obedience... obedience to the Pope... period. It's like the military. Even the priests have no autonomy, much less the millions of lay Catholics around the world.

In 1968, when Vatican II came out, there was great hope among Catholics, particularly in the US, that the church would somehow enter the real world and loosen its stance on contraception and celibacy for priests. When the Encyclical letters came out two years later, millions of Catholics left their churches and, over the next few years, over a third of all priests left the priesthood, most, to marry. So, who remained? Mostly the old and the gay, who had fewer good options.

I hear so many people these days saying things like, "I'm spiritual, but not religious". They make a distinction between their spiritual fulfillment and their community life. For me, church is, at best, a place where you can congregate with people who have similar ideas about God and worship and spirituality. As with many of my friends, my ex and I church shopped when our kids were young because we wanted to offer them a spiritual community. We have all enjoyed the many wonderful, spirit-oriented events at our Congregational Church and the people we know there.

What I find interesting about the Catholic Church is that, although I know many Catholics, probably more than any other denomination, I have never known a single person to join the Catholic Church. While many members of our church, including myself, were not brought up as Congregationalists, and you see this overlap in most churches and temples, it is very uncommon in the Catholic Church. Most of the people I know who are Catholic, grew up Catholic, and, although they have a hard time with the church's stance on homosexuality, contraception, abortion, women in the seminary etc., still go and take their kids because that's how they were brought up, it's their history, legacy, family. They are uniformly quite dissociative when it comes to their religion. It's like the schizophrenia you see when talking to people from dysfunctional families that never came clean.

It must be something that runs deep in them because god help you if you challenge them on it, they can get very defensive, and nothing seems to dissuade them. Certainly not the logic of asking them why they want to devote so much of their time and money on an organization that opposes the dispensation of contraceptives to rape victims in Africa and that covers up thousands of cases of rape by its own priests.

Cardinal Law had received many complaints about his priests, he paid each of the families a few thousand dollars to keep quiet and moved the priests around. The church enjoys a limit on damages. No one, by law, could receive more than $20K, no matter the charge. The way Mitchell Garabidian, who represented 186 Boston victims, got around this, was to sue Cardinal Law personally. Law lied to the various families, reassuring them that the priests, who frequently had the audacity to rape whole families of boys, were being sent to office jobs away from children when he was, in fact, transferring them to one unsuspecting, trusting, parish after the next. Almost all of the abuse could have been avoided if these rampant priests had been stopped at the first child, instead, hundreds of innocent children were offered up to these priests, the semi-gods.

Law did everything he possibly could to keep his secrets. He called down "the wrath of God" onto The Boston Globe. The august paper had turned a blind eye to the shortcomings of the church for a hundred years, as had every powerful man and organization in Boston, including the police who often busted priests out of uniform for sex crimes and then turned them over to the Diocese without even booking them when finding out they were priests. The Globe won a Pulitzer Prize in 2003 for its reporting. Law never apologized, never even listened, never showed any contrition or awareness of the havoc he wreaked on the lives of thousands, he was finally forced to resign, after hanging onto his position as long as he could. Like most of the church hierarchy, he couldn't care less what the press or anyone else, except the Pope, thought. They live in a luxurious, rarified, unreal, world unto themselves, where they are regarded as gods by all around them. I refer you back to my post on Michael Jackson, who lived similarly, and the Pope.

Think about that one next time you drop your money into the collection plate of your Catholic Church. Doyle estimates the total payout the Church will have to cover is a billion dollars. Insurance would not cover the Boston suits because Law allowed the incidents to continue by not removing the offending priests. Do you think your contributions just stay in your local Diocese? Think again. No one knows where the money goes. There is no transparency whatsoever in the Church, no audits, no disclosure. They have a lot of land and buildings, which they are unwilling to sell, even when laying fallow, as St. John's Seminary is now, with only one or two students per class. But, their only real income is donations. Like Enron, they don't really create value or wealth, they just enjoy living off governments that look the other way until devastation reaches the millions and patrons too unquestioning and powerless to do anything about it.

Remember, individual churches have no real autonomy, they all answer to Rome. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. They can be a pretty persuasive bunch. I'll take the modern world, of enlightened attitudes about sex and morality any day. Catholics can come out into the light of day and try to defend or change their church or show themselves for what they are; meek, unquestioning followers unwilling to change your church from the inside by speaking out for what is right. Let's see you defend your new Pope, who bans gays from the priesthood, giving rise, yet again, to shame and secrecy about sexuality which will distort and disrupt the ability of the many gay priests in the church today who will be called on to counsel adults and care for children.

The psychological scars that go along with this type of abuse are deep and long-lasting. Most of these kids were happy, healthy children whose lives were plagued with rage, confusion, guilt, shame, secrecy and lies from the point of their abuse onward. Whole families were destroyed. The men, as adults, had problem marriages and troubled lives; drug and alcohol abuse, inability to work, to function. Many became abusers themselves. Some committed suicide.

The faith of so many people was irreparably damaged. Most people who I know, who don't believe in God, had some negative experience with religion, usually via their parents or church, as a child. When you abuse someone and use the excuse of God to do it, you strip the person of their natural connection to god, you undermine their most basic birthright. It's the most venal of crimes, to strip someone not only of their human dignity but to destroy their innermost integrity. The scope is vast. Not only is the faith of the families immediately affected compromised, but the faith of all Catholics, the faith of everyone of all religions.

One might think, reading this review, that this film is a documentary. It's not. Produced originally for Showtime, it includes real life Catholics Daniel Baldwin and Brian Denehey. Christopher Plummer plays Law way too sympathetically. I think the story is far more compelling as a drama than it ever could have been as a documentary. The two commentary tracks and additional features, which show the real life characters, make this a DVD well worth buying.

Making Sense of the Oscars

2006-03-06T05:38:00.000-08:00

Confused? Surprised by this year's Oscar nominees and winners? You should be. It represents a fundamental attitude change on the part of the Hollywood elite. After six years of Bush and increasingly onerous studio control, they finally gave a collective finger to the suits, big time. For starters, Crash, the "spoiler" was a Lions Gate Film. Lions Gate releases films in the $1 - $10M budget range, it is part of a new breed of studio and their product was considered preferable to that of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp's formulaic contender Walk the Line, Jack Welch's GE owned NBC Universal's contender Brokeback Mountain and Sony's offering, Capote.

Usually studio marketing has much more effect on Academy voters, they usually walk lock-step up to the plate to vote for the films most heavily promoted "for your consideration". This year it was supposed to be "Walk the Line" which so poorly imitated that which made Ray great (next time try James Brown, focus less on the seamy side and more on the music and please, please, please don't ever make us listen to Phoenix and Witherspoon instead of Johnny Cash). Then of course, Cinderella Man and North Country used popular formulas (Million Dollar Baby and Erin Brokovitch) as vehicles for big stars. All of these films were made and marketed as Oscar contenders and failed.

George Clooney, Hollywood's premiere insider this year, told us all, when he took the first award of the evening, what's going on. As he told us, and New Yorker Jon Stewart, we like being out of touch in Hollywood. They're not out of touch like DC is out of touch. When you get out of touch in DC, you get Bush/Cheney/McCartheyism. In LA, out of touch is giving an Oscar to Hattie McDaniel in 1939, so there. What they're out of touch with in Hollywood is the type of close-minded attitudes and fears that creep into the hearts and minds of people all over this country, all over the world, who trust Wal-Mart, which spends billions for your love and trust, more than their next door neighbor who has a different ethnicity. The next door neighbor would need to be "crashed" into on an LA freeway before any real compassion and understanding could take place.

So, all five nominees for Best Picture this year cumulatively grossed under $187M (Does that include Crash on DVD? Probably not.), less than the gross for Chicken Little. According to my teenage son, to whom all of Hollywood genuflects, Pixar's offering deserves it. And there you have it people, this year the nominations were not run around the teat at which Hollywood suckles. Sure, we know the only people going into theaters these days are teenage boys, but these highly paid actors can only take so much Steve Jobs/Peter Jackson/George Lucas... we want art with heart and if the American public can't make its voice heard because, yes, the Hollywood suits are completely out of touch, the actors, who make of the bulk of the Academy, will do it for us. Thanks!

Show me another year where Oscars went to rappers (for song) and black actors who made pimp films for $12K (yes, that's what Terrence Howard was paid for Hustle and Flow). Dolly said it best, redemption comes in all forms. And last night, Hollywood redeemed itself, just in time. I mean Jon took a very pointed shot, right off the top, and I think it stunned everyone. He said, hey don't pirate the goods people, these millionaires are hurtin'. Jeez, that showed a hell of a lot more balls than the music industry, who has been ranting and raving at the Grammys. Not that Stewart was cleared on that remark, I'm sure he'll never be asked to host again, but, it just goes to show how even the New Yorkers, who have a similar economy, based in the arts, view Hollywood and its product. What a comeuppance!

Poor Jake Gyllenhall looked pretty embarrassed at being the Michael Green of the film industry. Please people, go see the films in the theaters, the last time and place on earth where people are gonna pay ten dollars to see a film. Look how big they are (Hey, on the big screen HDTVs you can see every pore on the faces) and how much fun it is to see them with a bunch of strangers, look, hundred year old Mickey Rooney thinks so. Did you check out the theme? Cinema Paradiso, old time theater, it looked like a black and white ball, everyone got the memo, even the penguins (Enron movie got robbed!!). You know what that was about, don't you? It was the soft sell. They've learned from what happened to their poor cousins in music. No ranting... yet.

I guess the Academy members saw the neutered Grammys, realized that there but for the grace of Bram Cohen go I, and got religion. They've seen one industry go down and they're scared shitless, they're next. Well, at least they're taking matters into their own hands and using the guilds they have created to keep more centered in their art. I hope it will pay off for them. The music industry had its day in the sun and can't survive but the film industry can reinvent itself, as it has done before, and extend its longevity, possibly forever, if they keep doing their job, as they have this year.

Netflix '06

2006-02-27T09:35:00.000-08:00

Netflix grew more than any company in the film industry last year. So, I was intrigued by this article on their current thinking and direction. Personally, I think it's clear their current business model has a limited lifespan. It's only a matter of time before DVDs go the way of vinyl and VHS. But for now, the digital distribution models are not taking hold because there are broadband issues that still need to be resolved and, at this point, most everyone still watches most of their entertainment through cable on TVs because the computer screens are still used primarily for what I'll call "traditional purposes" small screen delivery of applications, web browsing and music... not to mention sex.

In a few years these distinctions will break down and any successful content distributor will need to do so digitally. For now, it's all about Netflix. It's the best alternative out there right now. I left last year, when they started throttling me and went to Blockbuster. Blockbuster is too slow, even without the throttling factor, so, I returned to Netflix. I'm able to watch a full DVD, often with features like commentary tracks and other stuff that makes the mystery behind movie-making so accessible, almost every day for under $20./month.

This fits my lifestyle, and apparently that of many others, since the company's stock tripled last year. Consumers want control. We all want control. We want to watch films on our own timetable. Why should I run my life around theater schedules, traffic, or even VOD rules, which usually force you to watch the whole movie at once, or in one day. With Netflix, I keep the film as long as it takes me to view it, I can stop it, rewind, watch one scene twenty times, skip another entirely. I view the film the way I want to view it, when I want to view it.

You may have noticed I never review the theatrical run of a film, only the DVD, because in addition to the reasons I just mentioned, I want to be able to do a full review of a film, including the deleted scenes and comments of the director, actors, writers, cinematographers and everybody else whose views I've heard expressed on these invaluable tracks.

Seems Reed Hastings and the Netflix guys are typical Valley ideologues who want a revolution. They want a seat at the table, they want to democratize film. They are doing it. Their business model is intimately tied to the trend toward indie films, to public desire for independent art, particularly in music and film. They are responding to to the disconnect Hollywood had with the American public for twenty years preceding Napster. Napster and its progeny brought the public an awareness of the corporate structure shaping the product that was supposed to pass for American art and culture. Our music and film had become pablum, so when artists started responding with something real, and avenues started to develop to distribute it, Madison Avenue and Hollywood were eventually forced to respond.

But meanwhile, Silicon Valley has increasingly realized its own power on this field. I've lived in Silicon Valley a long time and it's a very cyclical place. The last few years of the past two decades saw wild growth, followed by depression and then a deceptive calm before things go crazy again. In another few years (especially if it's Hillary in '08), we're gonna be drunk with power again around here when all these geeks move from the dry, quantitative stuff into content. Welcome to the new Hollywood baby, don't forget where your new king, Steve Jobs, lives. For now, The VCs are still scared shit of content because their poster boy is still Hollywood's whipping post. If Hank Barry and John Hummer are cleared, and they should be, things could change and the vultures could get a taste of the big cash that awaits them.

It's gonna be wild and Netflix will be a big player, if they can fend off a challenge from Amazon, who seems most interested in taking the second big direct attack (Blockbuster being the first). They also need to watch Google, who is clearly going for the young, indie filmmakers. Any big internet company not looking at indie filmmakers today, will be sorry tomorrow, and they are starting to know it.

Being a smart, forward looking company (hey, at least they tried some VOD), Netflix is now going into development and trying to do more with their user data. Just don't make the mistake of producing by numbers and committee or you'll end up where Hollywood is now, films that show no real heart and vision. When the director's vision is undermined too much, the film always suffers. The audience intuitively picks up on the disconnect.

Netflix rents only 30% new releases and the rest is catalog (unlike brick and mortar stores which typically rent 70% new releases), showing that Netflix users are getting enough product to start reaching out. I like to watch the big budget pictures too, and once I have, I have more time to check out smaller films. People will watch the heavily promoted films, they're often very good. Here's the concept that those in control of these huge media conglomerates never seem to get. There is relatively little penetration. The powers that be look at this as a zero sum game, even though it's not, and that's what causes so much of the problem.

While consumers may not spend much more on entertainment than they have in the past, they do have the ability to consume far more and better content. They want to do so, and they will pay for it. There is so much more room in the marketplace for good quality content than is recognized by the big players because they are so intent on keeping the bucks they had before and from the same sources. They refuse to accede to the desire of consumers to spend their entertainment dollars in ways that respect their autonomy.

Take the issue of video windows. Netflix is on the right side of this, demanding these onerous windows, which force people to see a film on the big screen or wait six months to see it at all, to close up. Even though the grosses for home video/DVD are now over three times the size of box office receipts ($10B), all the studios can see is the threat to box office receipts. They are far more attuned to their margins than gross sales. Stop looking at your price points and start looking to overall revenue and alternate revenue streams. Instead of putting all your upfront investment, our equivalent of R&D, into production, use it for development of new business models.

Separate Lies

2006-02-26T08:02:00.000-08:00

This DVD is worth getting for the commentary track alone. It's all so British I felt like I was in some Noel Coward play. Julian Fellowes, first time director, Oscar-winning writer of Gosford Park, showed an interesting blend of British haughtiness and sensitive introspection. He also wrote the screenplay, based loosely on a novel, that explores, as one might expect, separate lies, and the separate lives and perspectives from which they spring. The lies start falling like bricks from a crumbling building once Anne, played by Emily Watson, accidently runs over a neighbor.

She holds her secret a bit until her husband, James (Tom Wilkinson) begins to suspect their bachelor neighbor Bill, (Rupert Everett) was at the wheel. During an all too Martha Stewart-like chopping session, she admits to her husband first, that she was with Bill when the man was hit, then that she was driving (Great Gatsby anyone?) and then that, OK, she fucks Bill. Hubby barfs and then his moral dilemmas begin. Seems that James was all for "doing the right thing" and turning Bill in, even before he knew he was fucking his wife. But, now that his wife is the driver, well, how would that look for a rich, important barrister to have a hit-and-run wife?

So, the lies begin. It's an interesting exploration of morality because, although we have affairs and even a killing, there are no real villains. Fellowes himself says when he's asked who the audience is supposed to root for, his answer is "all of them". One would think the adulterous, reckless Anne would come off pretty badly but we understand her affair. James is a straight up, hardworking guy but insensitive, removed. I can't put it any better than Fellowes who describes the situation as one where Anne is diminished, nothing she ever does is quite right. With Bill, she can breathe. We also forgive the accident, as does the victim's wife, because Anne shows true contrition and wants to confess.

Bill, one might think, could also be viewed askew, he doesn't much care about conventions or black and white morality. He shows no remorse for having the affair. However, I find James, who tries to follow all the rules, until he himself ends up in bed with his secretary, to be the least sympathetic because he represents that rigid, arrogant, rich, upper crust mentality that just assumes everyone should show the benefit of breeding. Anyway, the lies all intertwine like filigree, as we watch how the different characters deal with dishonesty.

We see the impact of each lie as the truth is revealed. Don't we all live lives of little lies we don't even see? Sometimes all the little lies add up to a very dishonest life. We compromise to coexist, we end up as people we never set out to be, we say it's OK when it's not, pretend we're happy when we're not. No one lives without lies and we all have to make judgments every day about how to juggle the various facts and fallacies of our lives. Sometimes people don't even know when they are lying to themselves or others. Lies come from fear. When we tell the truth, we often hear it in return, and the fear of that keeps many in the darkness of secrets and lies.

Who is more honest, the person who tries to follow the rules, but who lives a life of uncomfortable compromise, or someone who flaunts conventions but is willing to present himself as he really is? For me, the latter. Who's more honest, the person who has the affair or the one who lives as though he's happily married when he's not? For me, these murky moral issues become clear when you look for the fear. If you look, you'll find the fear. In my opinion, fear is the measure of a man. Don't look for the lies, we all lie. Look for the fear, that will tell you the trustworthiness of the man.

Valley Fog Blog

2006-02-25T17:40:00.000-08:00

The following is the welcome to my newest blog, which is, yes, Valley Fog Blog.

This blog is all about the film Valley Fog and the long, slow, tortuous history of its route to fruition. As I recall, the idea to do an independent film preceded the actual concept for the film. I was going through a period of creativity which, not coincidentally, came around the time of my divorce. I was exploring several other mediums at the time: music, blogging and painting. Film was the natural fourth, I've been a film buff most of my life.

What made it all feasible was that the barriers to entry for making a good looking, quality film were coming down. I realized it would be possible to tell my story on film for a fairly modest price... but, what story? They say write what you know and that's exactly what I did... finally, about two years later.. when I finally started writing scripts like a dervish. First I had to try several, let's just long tortuous routes, such as trying to get actors to improvise my drama on a line by line basis and generally, learn a lot of lessons the hard way. All of this along with my teenage son, who will probably go on to tell the story in his own way in a few years, and probably with a budget a million times the size.

But, back to the beginning. We started the project in earnest about a year ago, filmed with a cast of four and a crew of three over a few weekends last winter. At that point, with all the issues surrounding the demise of my own marriage fresh in my mind and wanting expression, we focused on the relationships. There was a married, interracial couple, Jason and Shari, fighting over kids, who were having an engaged couple, Greta and Nick, over for lunch. We had no script (that's one lesson I learned the hard way... never again!) and I spent endless hours with the actors going over the intricacies of their various and twisted histories with and without each other... let's just say it was "complicated".

After one of the actors moved out of the area, I shelved the project. I didn't really have enough footage to make anything, despite my occasional lame comments to my son that we did. Finally, I figured out how to use the original story and make a feature out of it without using the actor that had moved. So, about a year after the original shoots, with a much bigger cast and crew, including two of the original actors, we continued the story of the original luncheon by showing the various friends of the foursome discussing it, and what happened, primarily the fact that Jason and Greta end up kissing each other. Then there are additional scenes to illustrate more of the mentality of Silicon Valley and the merging of worlds that happens when Jason's corporate type friends interact with Greta's cool band mates.

There was also more exploration of the way relationships and affairs are viewed by various constituencies, from Shari's PTA mom friends, to the San Francisco independent film community. I also tackle current issues going on in Silicon Valley today surrounding the new distribution mediums for music and film. The company Jason and his buddies work for is "Lime", a thinly veiled Apple-like company which, in the fantasy world of film would be sporting the lime slice that for many is the international symbol of revolution, taken from Limewire.

We see a culture of arrogant executives seeking, or should I say, sucking, the fresh views of the young filmmakers but also wanting to sell them on the corporate values they embody. The young indies recognize the sell-outs for their internal emptiness and lack of creativity, but also try to figure out how long they can hold onto their freedom and expressiveness in a world where money can be made in many different ways from content they provide.

Below is the current draft of the official Valley Fog synopsis:

Valley Fog

Are the elite of Silicon Valley on the cutting edge or do they live in a fog of distorted values? Are those shaping the future of electronic entertainment clearly seeing the needs of the consumer or are they blinded by dead marriages and the desire for stature?

Jason Sanville is a man who grew up with everything and succeeded as a professional musician, a start-up entrepreneur and as an executive at a high profile Silicon Valley company. He has an artistic, intelligent wife, two beautiful kids, a big house in Palo Alto and all the perks of life. But, he is restless and unhappy. His wife is bored and frustrated. They can’t get along.

One day an old friend and former business partner, Nick brings over his bohemian fiancé, Greta. Jason, feeling threatened by Nick, ends up kissing Greta over a game of chess in his family room. Finally, it seems someone cares about him in a genuine and free way.

This gets him thinking about his lost career in music. He asks some of his co-workers if they would like to put together a cover band, the Limetimes, and while they are having lunch, Jason sees Greta. They reconnect and she tells Jason she will be singing at a new, hot nightclub nearby. He comes to see her play and that night they go back to his house while his wife and kids are out of town. Before long, Greta’s band mates, a group of San Francisco artists and filmmakers, show up and things get pretty wild.

The next morning finds them over croissants discussing the evening and saying goodbye at the train, but who knows if the goodbye is final? Jason has never felt more alive. He has finally regained some real connection to his creative self and clearly wants more. Greta doesn’t want to become a cliché or sacrifice her spiritual and emotional needs to become “the other woman”, but is also attracted to Jason and wants to bring out the best in him.

North Country

2006-02-24T07:48:00.000-08:00

Although the crooning Reese Witherspoon, is supposedly a lock for Best Actress this year, Charlize Theron turns in another dead-on dramatic performance in this look at sexism and sex in northern Minnesota mining country. In a normal year, this film and Cinderella Man would have gotten far more attention. But, this was a year to honor gays as a group worthy to be considered an oppressed minority.

Unfortunately, these days it takes a lot more than a twenty year old lawsuit to focus on us the problems women face in this world. This film makes it all too easy to say, yeah, well maybe in the past men could get away with tipping women in porta-potties over on the job, but they could never get away with that again. Maybe in northern Minnesota they can get away with scrawling pictures on the wall of blow jobs, but not around here. Maybe in the 80's women were still afraid to tell anyone when they were raped by a teacher, but, not now.

Maybe this film was overlooked because no one wants to talk about sexism any more. The young women say it doesn't exist. The schools are almost back in the business of openly promoting boys again because it's becoming increasingly obvious they can't compete with girls in the academic environment, particularly at early ages.

North Country is a fabulous film and I find it sad that it was shut out by newer, sexier causes. Sure, gays need rights, and blacks and Hispanics and Arabs, and just about everyone else in some way or another, and sexism gets lumped in right along with prejudice against the overweight and everything else. But, I've always seen this issue in a bigger way. Men and women have to deal with each other in a way the other sub-groups can avoid. Issues between the sexes permeate our society in a different way. While those with small, closed minds can often just avoid dealing with certain race issues, or homosexuality, we all have to interact with members of the "opposite" sex. I mean the terminology gives it away, doesn't it?

The sexes are divided by silence and ignorance that still exists all around us today. As long as we have a society that hides its fears and normal, human urges behind veils we will continue to dehumanize sex and degrade women for owning their sexuality, or as was portrayed in this film, simply for being a young, attractive woman.

Rent

2006-02-23T14:09:00.000-08:00

Although director Chris Columbus protested that a critic can't change his vote, I agree with Roger Ebert that Rent, the movie, now on DVD, is probably best for Rentheads. I'm assuming this is the rough equivalent of a Deadhead, Trekkie and whatever they call the Rocky Horror Picture Show fanatics. Although I'm a fan of musical theatre, I'm also an advocate of filmmakers taking Broadway hits into the real world. I liked what Milos Foreman did with Hair and what Rob Marshall did with Chicago. While this was a very true rendition of the play, it just didn't really add that special justification for making it a movie.

What I did love is the story of Rent and the way it highlights the bohemian lifestyle and what it means. This subject is especially near and dear to my heart right now as we just wrapped my own indie film; Valley Fog, which is also about the bohemian lifestyle. So, what exactly is "La Vie Boheme" that the cast sings about? These are the artists. This is the counterculture. This is the very small group of people, in every society, that directly questions the prevailing values embodied in the culture around them. While the bohemians in Rent live the total underclass lifestyle in an aids and drug-ridden squat in 1989 NYC, the lifestyle has been shown more recently in a film called "Undiscovered", which is about a young musician facing the industry.

Undiscovered and Rent have the typical antagonists, the A&R guy, the landlord, the people who want to rape your talent, who want you and need you to sell out. Valley Fog takes this into Silicon Valley as we see these executive level guys exploring the young SF talent in filmmaking. It's the same vampire game shown so brilliantly in The Graduate; the older, established, burdened, trapped generation trying to suck the life out of the young in order to justify their own sad, fearful decisions. I think Rent is too sad. And, with the story coming out of the Reagan era, it is understandably sad. We are at a similar point today, with the conservative right in full control.

Don't ask about our bohemia today. It doesn't seem to have a strong voice these days. Although the powerful boomers have stood up to the plate with an enormous slate of films this year, and we have label-supported Green Day, Howard Stern, Bram Cohen, and the hackers, I would not call any of that particularly bohemian. We need a grass roots artistic movement and about the closest thing to it that I can see right now, other than possibly the true hip-hop (as opposed to the 50Cent manufactured type) community, also in SF, is the indie film community which is burgeoning beautifully through the film schools, websites, festivals and operations like CinemaSport. This is where many of the brilliant new ideas and observations are springing to life today. So, in the words of Rent, "Viva La Vie Boheme!".

Broken Flowers

2006-02-05T05:57:00.000-08:00

More like broken movie... what is this, some ADHD test for the insane? Every shot in this deadly film was static, silent and way, way too long. It's movies like this that make me glad I don't sink ten bucks up front just because Bill Murray was good in his last movie. Yeah, he's got that deadpan look down pat. It looks like his whole face was dipped in Botox. Any small facial expression would have been appreciated in this bore fest.

He meanders aimlessly from one very slow, quiet old girlfriend to the next even slower, quieter ones looking for meaning and a child he never met, who may be looking for him. It's a good concept, but one I'll never be awake enough to see fulfilled in this movie (and I use that term loosely). Music, a pan, anything. I'm now watching some close up take ten seconds to zoom in on Bill sleeping in a plane. Fascinating stuff. What, is this a student film? Maybe that's why there's no director's commentary, or any commentary, or any movement.

As with In Her Shoes and the trendy hook of shoes running throughout.... this one has... you got it... broken flowers. I'm sure they represent something deep and meaningful about life, boring lives, lives that are slow and boring. Yes, now I think I understand what the director is trying to say. Stop, slow down, smell the broken flowers. Life is painful and disconnected and my boring film is so much better. OK, got it.

In Her Shoes

2006-02-02T14:20:00.000-08:00

Songs that are designed to become big pop hits must have a hook. I guess it's the same for films. In this sentimental big budget comedy with Oscar darling Toni Collette and the ever bankable Cameron Diaz, the hook is shoes. If you don't pick up on that from the title, there's the closet containing countless pairs and of course the big line for the trailer; clothes never look good, food makes you fat, but shoes always fit... or something like that.

It's the story of two sisters dealing with the legacy of a mother who committed suicide in a single car accident when they were small children. I really started relating to the film at this point because I'm familiar with a real life incident like this and I do wonder about the kids and how they grow up wondering about the "crash" that killed their mother. It's hard enough to lose a parent but these two girls had to grow up surrounded by the lie that their mother was killed accidentally when in reality she was mentally ill and committed suicide. Even in progressive towns today, there is still great denial and shame and whispering. If one dies of a physical disease, it's one thing, but we still attach great stigma to mental illness.

What's also interesting is how different these sisters are (yes, they have only their SHOE size in common). Diaz is dumb and dyslexic, Toni is the plain, studious lawyer. But, although Toni is very functional, she can't really connect with Mister Right and carries great pain. The sisters do discover some truth and connection along the way.

There's no commentary track and Shirley MacLaine sleepwalks through this, but, I guess it's worth a pick on Netflix.

Carlos Castaneda: Enigma of a Sorcerer

2006-01-31T07:27:00.000-08:00

This DVD takes a look at the best-selling, controversial author who sold over eight million books in seventeen languages. He wrote, ostensibly, about his experiences with a Sonoran Nualle, holy man, named Don Juan Matus. Carlos is portrays himself in the books as the hapless, hallucinogenic drug imbibing, student trying to understand the magical powers Don Juan uses to make plants come to life and other miracles in these "reports", which earned him a PhD from UCLA in 1970.

It was, in fact, the pedigree of UCLA, with forward written by the Anthropology Department Chair, that gave the books legitimacy. Just as Timothy Leary used his status as a Harvard professor to give hallucinogens credentials, Castaneda parlays his student status into the type of love, power and attention he wanted. Like Leary, he wanted to impart knowledge of the nature of reality. From many of the reports in the DVD, he really did believe his own story.

But, unlike Leary, and more like Steve Glass, the subject of Shattered Glass, the National Review writer who made up his stories, or, more recently, Frey, author of A Million Little Pieces who had to go mea culpa on Oprah... Carlos made it all up. There is no Don Juan.

To me, it's like saying there's no Santa Claus. I mean, I took an entire course on this guy in college. I read all his books, many times, thought about them and what his exchanges with Don Juan meant. Yes, we all had to consider the notion that these far out stories were made up, but, you want to believe there is some proof for what we all know is true.

Someone on the DVD discusses the idea that, like Santa Claus, it almost doesn't matter if Don Juan was a real man. He is a "fictive reality", meaning, so many people understand the concept of this individual it sort of creates it's own reality. No, no. This guy was more like the David Koresh/Jim Jones/Charles Mansons, it's not about enlightenment. It's about ego, and feeling the thrill of minions of women to fuck, women who truly love and believe in them. It's exploitation and that's what Carlos Castaneda was about.

Like the worst of the users of this world, the Jerry Falwells and Jim Bakers, he used good solid spiritual concepts to lure in his victims. They were "new age" concepts, instead of traditional bible stuff, but, it's basically the same thing. Taking truth and beauty and twisting it to your own gain, living a life surrounded, ultimately, by pain and lies. You should hear what all these people who closely surrounded Carlos in his little Sorcerers Circle say about him, "what a relief it was, when he died!".

I want to end on something positive, which is one of the biggest lessons of the books. Even if they were lies, and that's pretty much proven in the DVD by a guy who traced Carlos' writings along with other things being published at the time, the concepts are valid and here's one I've lived by. Don Juan tells us that death is always over our shoulder. Each day we need to keep somewhere in the back of our minds that we must use our time well because our life could end at any time.

If today were your last day, could you really say you've lead your life freely, honestly and without fear? Or have you made a million little compromises and told a million little lies and towed the line and did what you were supposed to, assuming you'll have plenty of time at the end to do what you really love, be with someone you really love, be who you really are?

In2Movies

2006-01-30T16:05:00.000-08:00

Can't these guys at Warners, much less Microsoft, come up with one original idea? Warners new fake P2P movie download service stole my whole concept here. I just had to go grabbing up the blogspot domains, and now I do indeed have:

In2Movies

In2Music

N2Movies

You get the picture... I think I nabbed up a few similar names. But, I've been using this concept of being into stuff, or in2 stuff, or N2, or Nto.... for a long time.

When I googled IntoFilm, it actually came up with tons of stuff on the little sister website, to this one, IntoFilm. I found out that Intervision, IntoFilm and IntoTune are all traded on Blog Shares, some blog stock exchange thing that I didn't even sign up for... and I'm trading up! Now that I'm actually directing my readers there, I hope to see my stock price spike! My little blog has had over 20,000 hits in the little over a year of it's existence and all the linkage is starting to pay off as I write for more and more websites and work with more and more internet companies. More to come on that.

Make sure to check out my main blog:

Intervision

Havoc

2006-01-29T19:06:00.000-08:00

Anne Hathaway trades in her Princess Diaries image for what I'm going to call Crash for kids. Crash showed the relationship between adults of different races in LA today. Havoc takes this to the teens, adds a cohesive plot and even more sobering ramifications to consider. The excellent Hathaway takes us to the heart and soul of a disaffected Pacific Palisades teen, showing the workaholic and alcoholic parents, the blow jobs for the wannabe boyfriend, the desire for anything that feels real and the ability to put it all in perspective for herself and protect herself.

Every social force is more apparent when you look at it through the eyes of the young people. We see an entire culture of white high schoolers more gansta than the east side teens. When 50 Cent was asked about the fact that most of his albums are sold to white suburban kids he replied, "Those kids want the boogeyman, they want to be scared and they're willing to pay $18.99 to do it". It really makes you wonder who's buying into the bling image.

The parents are interested in their own upscale image and protecting their kids, but, hey, these poor rebellious kids have no war to protest, at least not one they're being drafted for so, got to rebel against something, or at least make it look like you are. Was college protest ever serious, or do white kids just pose, as they do in this movie? They go downtown like it's some kind of reality show attraction... but then find that, in some ways, the hispanic community, rife as it is with poverty and drugs, is actually very family oriented... something they lack.

Wedding Crashers

2006-01-28T14:18:00.000-08:00

The opening scene finds our amazingly romantic protagonists, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn, haplessly watching a venomous couple and their noxious lawyers trade barbs. Turns out they crash Washington weddings on the side. Not, as director David Dobkin explains, in an exploitive way, but in an innocent, idealistic way. It's a 35-year-old man coming-of-age story. Well, it does point to some of the hypocrisies of our times, but, I wouldn't draw too much social commentary from this rather predictable Hollywood big-name film.

We all know that, in the end, despite the odds of ever finding true and lasting love in this use it before you lose it world, they'll find their (filthy rich) dreamgirls and happiness ever after. It's lighthearted and mildly entertaining. The commentary track with Vince and Owen is typically lame, the actors never have anything to say except stuff like, "Well, I did feel a bit awkward touching Jane Seymour's tits because, well, she's Jane Seymour." Directors are much better, and Dobkin's track does add a bit to a pretty lame film.

We do see the insides of the Kennedy-like family our crashers end up marrying into. Behind the touch football is real anger and aggression and sadness and pain and darkness. All the stereotypes, from the batty, bigoted granny to the boozing, trampy wife (yes, Jane Seymour), are represented. The men in this film come off pretty golden. Oh well, made by guys, with very high paid guys, for high paid guys to take their dates too. I'd say dream on, except these guys are laughing all the way to the bank.

The Chumscrubber

2006-01-26T11:44:00.000-08:00

Think of Desperate Housewives meets South Park. Marc Cherry's take on the suburbs was supposed to be a morphing of Sex In The City to, basically, sex in the suburbs. Less Cul-de-Sac and more Cult and Sack, this film has an even darker tone and covers not just the secret lives of housewives but goes into the lives of the kids they and their self-absorbed husbands bring up. If you're expecting a chick flick because it features some staples of the genre, Glenn Close and Rita Wilson, think again. The violence is stark and seems to come out of nowhere.

If you really want to see the stark reality of disconnected people living in Utopias of manicured lawns and Ionic columns, check out The Ice Storm or American Beauty. This film has none of the whimsy, the characters are all a bit too weird. It's not enough to make the lawns recognizable, the people have to be genuine. I couldn't find one character in this film that felt real to me. The extremities were believable in The Graduate but, Jamie Bell (from Billy Elliot) is no Dustin Hoffman and doesn't portray the irony as well.

Director Arie Posin, a first-time director, helps us understand some of the pointless nuances, making the DVD at least less of a waste of time than a trip to the theater would have been. I did like the fact that the film covers a wide range of characters and perspectives and weaves them together well. I happen to like watching the suburbs held up to ridicule so for me, I'm not sorry I ordered it on Netflix. But, unless you're a disaffected youth, I wouldn't buy this one.

Flight Plan

2006-01-25T11:01:00.000-08:00

Isn't Jodie Foster worried about being typecast? I just saw her in this movie, except it was called Panic Room. She played the same frenzied, devoted yet somehow brilliantly protective mother. I realize we need heroines and maybe Jodie feels the need to play them since her career was earned by playing a child prostitute in Taxi Driver and that role led John Hinckley to shoot Reagan.

She's always felt the weight of that and roles like the strong yet sleazy bar hopper led to her first Oscar in The Accused. Once she managed the strong, professional, sleaze-free Oscar winning role, Clarice, she pretty much made a career out of it. This very standard, predictable thriller was literally made for her and gosh, it's hard to refuse Brian Grazier, who has so beautifully resurrected the Sid Vicious look, but, really, I'd like to see her choose more meaningful projects.

Into The Blue

2006-01-24T15:05:00.000-08:00

In Nassau, there is a land of enchantment and underwater amazement that, for only a few hundred bucks a night can be yours. It's called Atlantis, where the equally amazing Jessica Alba is stationed in this scenic aquatic thriller. According to director John Stockwell, on this just released DVD, it was quite the international big budget film, including special effects from India and actors and lots of real sharks from the Bahamas. It's an interesting look into the world of modern treasure hunters in the Caribbean, searching for the $6B worth of real life treasure that actually resides there.

So, Jessica Alba, who was even better hip hopping her way through Honey, is the sweet, principled Shark trainer who finds a boatload of treasure and a planeload of coke right next to each other. A lot of shark-chomping and action all over treasure hunting equipment ensues but, it's hard to do more than just enjoy the great bodies and beautiful fish.

Pix/Dis Done Deal

2006-01-24T14:19:00.000-08:00

Anyone got a crown for Jobs? Who's gonna play him in Shrek 3? Will he unite his kingdom? Will he inspire us toward greed or creativity? Hopefully the latter. While still being the driven, anal control freak he always has been, he has developed, over the years bigger vision and lately has shown a far simpler, gentler side. He's about all we have right now to lead us out of the mire so, do it right Steve. Just like you've been doing, holding firm on price, going for innovative, original style, function and value. Good luck! You want to be the next Walt Disney? Go for it. Stick to what you love and believe in and leave a great legacy. Just don't focus so much on the technology that you forget what Walt was all about. He was about happiness and dreams and fun. Your kids are still young, let them guide you.

Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room

2006-01-21T17:52:00.000-08:00

In the heyday of its hubris the trading floor of the gargantuan room full of the most macho men in Houston had two long staircases. One led to Lay and the other to Skilling. They were known as the two smartest guys in the room. These were two men, born poor, who were going to rule the world by being the smartest guys in the world. And for a while, they came pretty close. They ran the seventh largest company in the country, Enron

They certainly had California on a very short leash. During the days of wild expansion and wealth we had no energy. We had rolling blackouts and paid exorbitant prices for electricity. The power plants had plenty of capacity to make power, but they were being constantly told by Enron, who bought and sold their power, to shut down or ship energy to the desert. Enron was doing this to drive down supply, thereby allowing it to increase prices exponentially. With thirty billion dollars of high tech wealth going to Houston, the bubble did indeed start leaking.

And what happened to California? George W., Ken Lay, Schwarzenegger and Michael Milken, four staunch deregulators, had a secret meeting shortly before the Gray Davis recall and, the rest is history. Previously, natural gas and electricity were regulated heavily by state and federal governmental agencies. This changed largely as a result of political clout on the part of Enron by virtue not only of its size and deceptive appearance of profitability, but Ken Lay's relationship with the Bushes.

They were also able to use their power to get permission to use what they call mark-to-market accounting which allows them to, essentially, post self-proclaimed imaginary profits. This is what allowed Enron to post quarter after quarter of profits that never really existed. They were losing money on power plants in India and bad arbitrage bets while posting profit. The accounting got pretty creative, to say the least. And we all know what happened to Arthur Anderson, who traded scruples for fees.

Thousands of people who lost their jobs and pensions worked for a company whose motto was "Ask Why". Had those employees asked a few more questions they might have realized that the company they worked for had no real way to make money and was, in fact losing money as analysts raved, and people bought and Lay and Skilling and Fastow secretly sold. The one analyst who did question Enron was fired because of his questions.

The lawyers who approved all this and looked the other way were never asked too many questions, they just said, we'll make some tougher laws. And they did. Sarbane Oxley has been a very lucrative source or revenue for lawyers and accountants. Will that protect us?

The film, according to its director Alex Gibney, is not just about a few bad men. It's about the allure of money. It about how easy it is to bluff and buy everyone: the people who worked there, professional stock analysts, governments, the media.... everyone! We're all so impressed by people who exude confidence and money. It's all about appearance. We've become so lost and superficial.

We're a nation imbued constantly with information, seemingly so sophisticated and well informed. But we've lost our true source of knowledge, our inner guides that would have asked simple basic questions. It was only after Bethany McLean at Fortune started asking questions and pointed out that the emperor had no clothes, and Enron had posted years of phony profits, and manipulated the seventh largest economy in the world from raging profitability to near bankruptcy that people finally clued in.

Meanwhile Lay, Skilling and Fastow made off with hundreds of millions of dollars that are now sitting in offshore accounts that will never be found. They were indeed smarter than the regulators who sought to control them and analysts who examined them. Being smart and unethical can get you pretty far, as I'm sure Milkin told Lay at the secret meeting. They may do a few years at tennis jail but, they'll live the rest of their lives in luxury. They won't even feel guilty. That's the dark side of the American dream, as Gibney called it, the belief that money is enough of a goal, enough of a measure of worth.

Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price

2006-01-20T05:00:00.000-08:00

The title says it all: Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price. The worlds largest corporation is known for its low prices. Without those, all the ludicrous propaganda (and they are sure laying it on thick now) in the world could not build a retail company to that size. People shop there, in the billions, to save money. But what is the cost? The cost is countless towns across this country that have either no downtown or no town, at all, wiped out, left with an empty box store and empty promises. The cost is countless Chinese women and girls working twenty hours at a time at a sewing machine. The cost is making widow Walton and the four kids five of the richest people on the planet.

Walmart uses harassment and intimidation to prevent unions from forming at their sites. There is no unionization at any Walmart, except in Germany, because their government actually protects its citizens from corporate exploitation. There is an atmosphere of secrecy, lying and paranoia pervasive throughout the company. Ex-managers told about the techniques they were forced to use to cheat the workers. But, no current Walmart employees would talk.

Workers are systematically demeaned and demoted. Discrimination runs rampant and blatant. Women and minorities have barely scraped the lowest rungs of management. Workers are typically forced to work off the clock, for free. They refuse to pay overtime. They keep the weekly hours so low that workers must stay on public assistance.

Walmart externalizes its costs not only through making the state pick up the cost of its health care, but from the enormous amount of direct subsidy it has received from states and innocent towns that welcomed them with open arms. Walmart comes in like stealth and cuts incredibly favorable deals based on glossy promises with town councils before the Chamber of Commerce even knows what's happening. Rarely do they even find out the subsidies Walmart got.

There are problems in their parking lots, which seem to attract crime since they are large, dim and not monitored. Walmart spends its money protecting the merchandise. Once you pay for the stuff, you're on your own. Again, this costs a town in police time that the taxpayers have to pay for.

I commend Robert Greenwald for making this film, which is part of a movement to stop Walmart. He's doing a thankless job, and could be making lots more money doing other types of films. He is shining a bright light on a huge social problem.

I wish he made it easier to glean the facts. I think filmmakers, who usually focus on entertaining, often underestimate the statistics and facts that are so important to educating people about social issues. While involved in the anti-nuke movement in the 80's, facts were a huge part of the dissemination and education. I really wanted to have a place on this DVD I could go to and find out exactly how much the Waltons have, and how the revenues flow in the company. Greenwald said he went to great pains to make sure every statement was supported by research, but they came in two-second bursts between lots and lots of personal whining, and frankly, as sympathetic as I am, it was too much.

I think he should have done a bit more than mock the company and tug our heartstrings with idyllic visions of small town life. He does a disservice by appearing too biased and should have taken a more intelligent approach, offering real argument to points that Walmart could legitimately make in its own defense, such as the fact that it takes those on the lowest rungs of society and gives them at least some minimal leg up. Had he made the facts more central, I would have mentioned them here and they would become much more a part of the conversation.

I haven't been to a McDonalds since watching Super-Size Me and this film isn't exactly making me want to run to my nearest Walmart, which, fortunately, is not in my town. That's OK, Walmart probably wasn't that upset about losing Palo Alto. They prefer to exploit the poor. Whether they buy there, which they do, or work there or sweat their life away making the crap we all need so desperately... the poor are at Walmart... and are paying a very high price.

Steal This Movie!

2006-01-18T08:24:00.000-08:00

This incendiary title, a twist on the title of Abbie Hoffman's primer, Steal This Book!, on how to live freely, and for free, in an unfree world, would have ruffled a lot more feathers in a post-Napster world. And watching the 1999 film and its commentaries, I can only imagine what would have been said had the film come out a few years later, after Bush's election and his little Son of Vietnam excursion.

I recently reviewed another Robert Greenwald film, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War On Journalism and will soon review his upcoming feature, Wal-Mart: The High Cost Of Low Price, and his 2003 documentary Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War. But, now I know what turned Robert Greenwald from a very average Hollywood director into a man willing to use his skills to make socially important films. It was his love for his children... and Abbie. Abbie's ideals, and how he lived his life, inspired many. And, thanks to Greenwald, will continue to do so.

Despite the title of his first film, the unforgettable, not to mention unforgivable, Xanadu, Greenwald was no Orson Wells and his film was no Citizen Kane. Yet, two decades later he took a real life stab at Murdoch, the Hearst of our day. How did he transition from being a cog in the Hollywood machine, to taking on Murdoch, Bush and Wal-Mart? His daughters were reaching the age of awareness, early twenties, and he realized they knew very little about what happened in the sixties.

That's surprising in a way. We're talking about the Baby Boomers the huge population bubble was young, idealistic and vibrant, not to mention loud, then. They refused to fight the war of their parents, changed the world, opened up jobs for women, opened up homes for blacks. We questioned authority, questioned assumptions. We wanted more than the dark, violent reality of our parents.

So why did Greenwald, a boomer himself, need to make a film in order to educate his kids? Because, despite the flowing skirts and highly embroidered tops on every young girl today, this is no Age of Aquarius. That embroidery comes from Chinese children paid pennies and the flower children of yesterday now have mow & blow Mexicans tending their flowers. Despite its size and ideals, not to mention television coverage, we are talking about a lost generation.

I guess the days of white kids fighting for social justice are over. Did they ever really care? Or did most just want to avoid the draft? It's the latter, which is why the anti-war movement shriveled up after they brilliantly went to the lottery method of drafting. Yes, we still have people out there today, helping the poor to vote, going on missions, etc. We'll always have people who do care about social justice, but will we ever have someone with the courage and creativity of an Abbie Hoffman? I don't know.

The man had a genius for promotion that would dwarf Steve Jobs and Bill Gates combined. Did he use it like they did... to build his own personal empire and ego? No, he went into the lions den, took beating after beating, lived underground, barely seeing his young son, america, for six years. He never looked to make a cent off his considerable fame. In fact, he gave the money he made from selling the film rights to one of his books to the Black Panthers.

There are a handful of men who have really affected me, inspired me, meant something to me in my life: Jerry Garcia, John Lennon, Ken Kesey, Tim Leary, Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman. Of these, I sometimes think I love Abbie best of all. He was the truest and purest revolutionary and understood that it was not really about the art and the words and the fun. Those were the methods, the instruments, and without the underlying goal of social change, it was without true meaning. The first three are artists. Tim, a teacher. Jerry Rubin, I love him, but by the time I interviewed him in 1979, he was about money. He complained about Lennon being holed up in the Dakota but, when I asked him what he was doing to promote change, he turned it back on me, saying, essentially, protest is for college kids.

Abbie never had any other purpose but protest and guerilla theater. He started his career as a freedom fighter in the south registering black voters and getting his head bashed in. And, that's pretty much how he ended up. He called himself a professional defendant. A victim of manic-depression, his career as defendant, refugee and orphan of America took its toll, ultimately resulting in his suicide in 1989. He paid a high price to illustrate for America the corporate interests that control our society.

Who do we look to today? Accidental tourists like Hank Barry, Shawn Fanning and Bram Cohen did challenge the powerful control of the media but they want nothing more than cash and control themselves. How many more have to die in Iraq before someone shows some awareness, principals and courage? Will we ever see people like Abbie Hoffman again? If not, the world is a far sadder, dimmer place for the loss.

Abbie Hoffman was unique. His charm was his uninhibited freedom and courage. No one stopped Abbie from speaking his truth, ever. And, we all knew it wasn't just his truth. It was THE truth. The truth no one wanted to face about this country: what we are, what we do , what we stand for. Abbie made us look at that gritty reality as he threw cash at greedy stockbrokers and surrounded the Pentagon for a levitation. He did it in a colorful, almost lighthearted way... to bring people in. He had all the right goals and all the right methods... and he truly changed the world for the better. His life should serve as an example for all of us.

Globes Embrace Liberal Values

2006-01-17T10:34:00.000-08:00

Hollywood has spoken. First, the Guilds, then the Globes and I'm sure the Oscars will follow suit. What is it that Hollywood is telling us by its selection of films to reward this year? Felicity Huffman said it best last night, "As actors we are taught to shed our skin, but sometimes we need to find out who we really are. This is for all those men and women who risk alienation and ostracism and live their life on the margins in order to be who they really are".

She was talking to her fellow artists, most of whom know that individuality and authenticity can carry a high price. These artists are also well aware of the fact that 98% of their fellow artists live in relative obscurity and poverty, paying the true price of being an artist.

No one talked about Titanic the straight love story because it was real clear why Cameron got the Oscar, and everything else, that year. The film was a massive achievement by Cameron. No one thinks that about Ang Lee. Heath and Jake hate the guy's guts and have actually come out and said, publicly, that the guy can't direct his way out of a paper bag. He abandoned them, barely talked to them. You could see Heath, an amazing actor (check him out in Lords of Dogtown, you can't even recognize him), just uncomfortably smirking his way through Ang's accolades as his acting was overlooked.

So, what is it about Brokeback, Capote, Transamerica, Good Night and Good Luck, Crash and Walk the Line? These are all stories that help us embrace liberal values of tolerance. Capote was gay, Cash a drug addict and alcoholic. They both emerged as authentic and original artists, but walked the line, living always a hair's breath away from being a freakish outsider. Morrow stood up to the powers that be of his day, and put everything on the line to do so. The non-biopics are filled with characters that illustrate what people have to face these days in order to stand up and be someone a little different and what challenges our tolerance.

Roger Ebert, Richard Roper and everyone else is commenting about what a strong slate of films has been made this year. It's been a year filled with relevant, social commentary coming out full force from Hollywood. So, what's going on? In the early 70's, after more than enough years of war and Nixon, Hollywood (via Bob Evans) finally figured out that the public was refusing to go see the mindless drivel the studios were putting out, and started to react. A spate of rebel films made by radical directors ensued and we saw many years of good movies.

Now it's 2006. We've had six years of lies and war and flag-waving bigotry. We've got Alito and Roberts and and a tow the line, deaf dumb and blind Congress supporting a trio of zealots isolated in the Oval Office. If anyone thinks this is not related to what we see Hollywood supporting and rewarding, think again... and don't forget Weeds... about the soccer mom/drug dealer... she won too! I mean really, once the revolution gets to the suburban housewives... you know they've really stepped over the line.

Unprecedented and Outfoxed

2006-01-15T08:17:00.000-08:00

Both of these films have been on DVD for a few years. Unfortunately, and expectedly, they received very little attention from the press, film or otherwise. I would like to highlight both of these very important films this weekend. Tomorrow is Martin Luther King Day. We don't celebrate dead soldiers, we're not sending up fireworks proclaiming our freedom. This holiday should at least shake us a little from our somnambulism and make us think about what King stood for, what he tried to tell us about our country and our freedom.

Unprecedented is a look at the 2000 Presidential election that led to the appointment of George Bush to the position of President of the United States. It follows the chain of events starting with election eve when we saw unprecedented confusion about the winner of that election. Earlier that day, Gore was projected the winner, with many question mark states going to him. Florida was also projected to go to Gore. All the major networks were forecasting Gore. That is, until Jack Welsh, president of GE, which owns NBC, went into the studio, put his hand on the shoulder of the man who projected the winners and said, "You know, I think it's time we called Florida for Bush".

The film takes a much closer look at the players and irregularities. Even with such glaring coincidences as having the candidate's brother as Florida's Governor and the chief election official in the state being an active campaigner, at least, for Bush, the American public and even Al Gore himself, with the whole party in tow, just rolled over like it was some kind of soccer match.

In fact, I take that back, soccer players would be screaming foul. When the US bombs and subverts our enemies, or, our friends, as we just bombed Pakistan today, the people take to the streets in protest. I just saw them today, there's always lots of footage of foreigners out there shouting about fucked up US policy. Well, you know, there were people protesting in Washington when Bush was inaugurated, not many, but certainly enough to warrant news coverage. However, the media, en masse, ignored it.

I guess it would be naive to think that more information, better, more accurate reporting, would make any difference. Yet, the film does shed more light on what the Republican leadership in Florida did to insure his brother's election. I mean, it's not like Florida is exactly known for encouraging blacks to vote, intimidation and disenfranchisement of black voters went on throughout the south since slavery was abolished. There was a huge effort to get out the black vote in Florida in the years leading up to 2000, because many local elections were unexplainably going to Republicans.

But, come on, they took 92,000 people off roles and refused to allow them to vote. Were these 92,000 random people? Not exactly, they paid a company $400,000.00 to ascertain who should be deleted. Ostensibly, they were removing felons. When other states have done this in the past, it cost a fraction of the price. But, then again, they weren't getting the smart sort the Republicans were going for. They knew it would come down to Florida, and, they had to make sure Florida would go to Bush. When you consider the fact that Bush won Florida by a margin of less than 600 votes, it just shows how much Bush had to subvert the electorate to get that win.

And, I'm not even going to get into the computerized voting, but, let's just say that throughout the south election results from computerized voting have been going to many republicans who were not the true winners. There was no way to prove it. The machines leave no paper trails, there is no way to examine the tallies because the makers of these machines will not let anyone look at their technology. But, in all cases, the exit polls pointed to different winners. And, they were all considered upset elections, in that all prior polling projected a Democratic winner. The companies that conduct these polls threw up their hands in disgust and quit. Ever hear any news stories about all this? Me neither.

The film was made by Joan Sekler and Richard Perez in 2002, well in time to warn us, yet, two years later, we reelected Bush. How did we lose our democracy not once, but twice, to same liars? Well, that gets us to the second film, Outfoxed.

While the media in this country, in general, turn a blind eye to the corporate forces that effect what we are shown and told about, and how it is covered, it gets even more egregious than that. This is the subject of Robert Greenwald's film, Outfoxed, which turns the light on Rupert Murdoch. This man's media holdings are unbelievable. It absolutely boggles the mind that one man, a blatant zealot, no less, is allowed so many media outlets. He owns over 100 cable channels, nine satellite broadcasting networks, a major movie studio, 175 newspapers. Frankly, I can't even remember it all, but News Corp's holdings are beyond extensive. I would estimate a fifth of all US media is Murdoch, an Australian.

And, if you think this is some kind of neutral, benign ownership... think again. Fox News was allowed three years to operate as a fairly traditional news outlet. It was successful and trusted, and in 1988 that trust was completely subverted. At that point, Murdoch started to implement an autocratic leadership style that dictated exactly what was run on the channel. He sent daily memos telling staff what stories to run and how to run them. Anyone working for him that countered the right-wing extremist views he held, was fired.

What makes all this so dangerous is that the shows run on Fox network do not look like the unabashed propaganda they are. They are formatted to look and feel very much like real news shows and many, many people believe that is exactly what they are. It's not like they run a little banner throughout the 24/7 propaganda day saying this is really opinion. Quite the opposite. Their motto is "fair and balanced". The film had interviews with a number of past employees speaking to the methods used to make the extremist right-wing swill seem like real reporting, such as putting up seedy looking, unqualified shills to present mildly liberal, if weak, views.

Yes, it's hard to believe there are people stupid enough to buy all this, but there are. I'm sure Bush owes many, many votes to Rupert and gee, what a coincidence that US law, changed under Bush, now allows him even more media outlets to own. And we are talking exponential numbers here. The amount of media outlets that can be owned by one company went from a handful to hundreds.

The Republicans (and the Democrats) are working hand in hand with the huge conglomerates in charge of 98% of our media outlets to keep ownership in as few hands as possible. The goal is to concentrate the power in the hands of a very few, extremely wealthy, and powerful individuals who will work very hard to keep the status quo. So, if you ever ask yourself why the media did so little to challenge a clearly unfair Presidential election, or why Copyrights, originally for seven years, now last for over 75, or why our news coverage is so different from the rest of the world's.... now you know. Will you do anything about it? Will you start getting more of your news from the internet? Will you start blogging about the problems, or write to your Congressperson or FCC Commissioner about these issues?

I hope so. Do it for MLK, who had some dreams about fairness and equality and democracy. They're still dreams. Anyone who thinks that the interests of the massive majority of average people who work hard and vote are in control in this country today better get a clue and start looking at what is really going on. Take a look at the films of Robert Greenwald over the past few years and educate yourself. I assure you, it will be quite an eye-opener. Let's do something unprecedented and refused to be outfoxed by a cadre of individuals who love the power we've turned over to them while playing the thought-provoking Mariah Carey on our iPods.

The Island

2006-01-10T17:20:00.000-08:00

This film was such a box office disappointment that Michael Bay had to take twenty minutes out of his commentary to explain. According to him, it's Warner, who had the domestic marketing rights. Apparently, they tried to sell it as an intelligent sci-fi mystery. Have those guys never even heard of H.L Menken, who said you can never lose money underestimating the taste of the American public?

The film did much better internationally, where it was marketed as "a typical Michael Bay action film". He also said that, with DVD sales, he still expects to make a profit. A lot of the expense did show up on the screen: beautiful crane shots, mile long sets, elaborate tank rooms, I'm sure Scarlett took a big cut.

I found the film quite thought provoking. At first I thought it was a spin on 1984, how a future society would operate when Big Brother has even more control. Then we find that the social structure is more complex, and hasn't really changed much from the way it operates now. While organ-carrying poor disappear off the streets in China today, tomorrow we can look forward to the rich having their own personal clones to provide organs, babies, or whatever parts might be needed.

The CEO in charge has no problems with inventory, he made them, he strips them for parts... no moral problems there. The middle becomes a standard thriller and at the end, it falls apart, even by Bay's own admission. I love any film that makes people think about the information they are being given and helps them develop a more questioning attitude. This film brings up issues about cloning, organ donation, immortality, ethics, media, mind control, economic inequality and what that entails.

It also, for me, brought up issues about religion, heaven and hell. You see how the clones are led to accept their dreary, mind-numbing lives by the promise of a bright future once they win the lottery to paradise. They try to make sense out of the random nature of who is rewarded and who is not. Despite the senseless, illogical nature of their world, they don't revolt or even question.

Are these clones really any different from the average person today? I don't think so. Most people have routine lives and are very happy to have them. I see very few people who question the prevailing view of those around them. We may quibble about minutia but few question the basic assumptions presented by the mainstream media or our friends & neighbors. We all live for that week we can go to the island while we work away the other 51 weeks.

Content Is King

2006-01-10T10:50:00.000-08:00

In the eighteenth century the huge demand for cotton led to the enslavement of many, who were needed to get that soft stuff from it's prickly pod. We still want clothes, and gadgets and cars, and people will always accumulate this stuff. But the capacity to consume this stuff pales by our ability to consume information and entertainment.

So, the previous predominant COMDEX has been gone for two years, maybe forever. What's the big, big show now? CES, consumer electronics, and what was that really all about? Content and it's delivery. Google wants in. We now have them selling CBS catalog, sports and jumping into the fray looking for user generated content, paying producers 70% of the take. Try getting that from a record label or studio. It's what Indieflix charges, but they put you on CDs they sell through the mail. Movielink allows movie downloads via the web, but not if you have a Mac, and they deal only with the studios and sell only stuff copy protected by Netcos.

Google will allow an optional copy-protection feature and will accept content from all comers. Will they pre-screen everything in order to make sure there's no copyright infringement? Cause, that's quite a job, they'd have to look at every frame to make sure T-shirts, art on the walls, snippets of songs, stock footage, etc. contained in the film is not by someone other than the filmmaker. Magnatune and the other music websites do this and haven't been sued out of existence.

In a few years, the content you'll be able to find, buy & sell on Google will certainly be as good as the average TV show is now, probably much better. Best of all, we will be able to take a more active role in searching for appropriate content instead of channel surfing through a random and limited selection of channels.

Producers Reward Production

2006-01-05T12:40:00.000-08:00

It sounds axiomatic, but, in reality, the very exclusive 2.000 member Producers Guild of America usually awards big budget, high grossing movies. However, after being battered by the internet and seeing Netflix grow more than any studio, the PGA today nominated a roster of films that clearly show an awareness of where and how to profit in the film industry.

Nominated for best picture, by the newly expanded Guild (grown by 20% last year) are Focus Features' "Brokeback Mountain," United Artists and Sony Pictures Classics' "Capote," Lionsgate's "Crash," Warner Independent Pictures' "Good Night, and Good Luck" and 20th Century Fox's "Walk the Line." The latter was made for $29M and three of the others were under $8M in production costs. Aside from the low budgets, we are seeing thought-provoking art films and again, biopics. And, mark my words, message is in. These films were mostly labors of love, they have behind them the heart wrenching stories of how they came to fruition.

This story will not get much attention, but, I think it's one of the biggest stories of the year. This marks a clear shift in philosophy from a very powerful group of people. 2005 will be seen as a pivotal year in the film industry. Just as Evans turned Paramount around in the late 60's by making relevant, rebellious films, the producers of today are sending a clear message that the business model is changing and they are looking to this (indie) section as the best road to profitability.

The music and and film industries are predicated on the massive hits needed to sustain fixed costs. In the past, the blockbusters were seen as the only real profit centers and increasingly became the focus of LA. Now that they've seen a year where only indie studios or indie arms of major studios are profiting at all, they understand that you can't subsidize the tech houses forever, the magic of Toy Story and Monsters is over.

Hey Steve, and Peter, you can't make it look any more real! It's so real I almost forget the gum on the floor, OK? There is a limit to what the American public will pay to watch the special effects and photo-real animation. It was truly incredible that the PGA formerly nominated The Incredibles over films like Lost in Translation, which is by a Coppolla for god's sake.

So, in a year where King Kong crashed, the PGA saw the light. They now understand that big budget films are risky business and are largely responsible for year-end losses and massive cost cutting at every studio this year. When you can bet on a smaller film and double your return, thoughtful, plot-driven films which still bank on major brands like Ray Charles and Johnny Cash start to look a lot different to producers.

Hollywood is driven from the top down. If your film doesn't get financed, it doesn't get made. The only way to change things is to vote with your dollars, and we have. We've turned away from Kong and to lots of very nice stuff from Netflix. If you want us in the theaters now, you'll have to offer more than $5. popcorn. We now want IMAX, one of the very few bright spots in the theater business.

There will always be people wanting to come out for an experience, but not the experience of cranking your neck back, looking over someone's head in some uncomfortable chair, watching commercials, getting hearing damage so you can be the first one on your block to see some very entertaining and maybe very beautiful and meaningful but nonetheless, average, film.

Average is looking better to the PGA every day as average films are getting better and better every day.

More Junk on TV?

2005-12-28T07:08:00.000-08:00

After buying iFilm only a month ago, MTV Networks has unveiled plans for a new show to run on VH1 called Web Junk hosted by Patrice O'Neal. A retro way of looking at it would be to call it the next generation of Americas Funniest Videos. God knows, the American public never tires of laughing at others meet with disaster, and I'm sure this type of footage will show up, but, really the web-based interactive nature of the show is the opening shot of a whole new world of user-generated content infiltrating television.

In ten years the distinction between internet and TV will be so seamless, we'll know it only in memory. Memories of the old days when art and entertainment came at us from "professionals" and we absorbed, like good little drones will be replaced by interactive platforms. Right now, the shorts uploaded onto iFilms will show on three platforms: TV, the iFilm website, and VSpot, which is a broadband platform also owned by MTV.

I'm not quite sure what VSpot is or what it offers that the other two platforms don't, apparently, an on-demand feature that TV doesn't have, but better speed than you'll get through the website. It seems like for the next few years, at least, we'll have to deal with this patchwork quilt of disseminators, or actually, they are now referring to themselves as aggregators... it's better than what they used to be... aggravators. While the small music files screeching across the internet overturned business models and content in the space of a year, it will take longer with film. For now, don't even bother with your feature films, focus on three minute shorts and get yourself some visibility.

Web Junk promises an easy upload feature, so break out your camcorder and Final Cut Pro, make your three-minute statement and watch it on TV, internet and the VSpot streaming option. You don't have to think of movies only in terms of sitting in theaters anymore, or even in terms of sitting at all. Soon, we'll all be watching each other, not only on reality TV, but reality life.... only this time, with special effects. And don't forget to vote for your favorites... our next Steven Speilberg might be Kelly Clarkson.

Rize

2005-12-07T08:28:00.000-08:00

I would call this Mad Hot Ballroom meets The Paper Chasers except that, to compare this film to anything else would do it an injustice. This fresh, inspiring DVD from photographer/music video director David LaChappelle offers an alternative to the shlock constantly put out there for teens. It’s the story of young people on the Rize from the darkest of starts.

In Compton, Watts & East LA, your choices are Crips, Bloods or Clowns. If you’re not aware of the Clowns, you should be. The Clown Academy was started by Tommy Johnson, a.k.a. Tommy the Clown, after the Rodney King riots, in 1992. There are now over fifty clown groups that feature an eye, not to mention butt, popping dancing that is, believe me, very hard to do. The various companies operate as businesses that entertain at parties.

The film compares it to pure tribal dancing, mixing footage of African dance into a montage. There’s full make up and the dancing itself is very primal. It helps these poor kids release their pent-up anger. It gives them a forum for self-expression and a structured setting complete with huge competitions.

There’s a related dance form called Krumping that’s more of a spiritual form of the same dance, which is more about trance. It goes on primarily in the churches but the big competitions feature dance-offs between members of each group.

There’s discussion of how clowning is also spiritual and very much about rising above one’s adversities and staying pure in your art and expressiveness. The mother of one clown is a krumper and she says she just clowns for god, it’s all the same.

Like the hip hop music used to underline clowning, it has stayed a pure artform, relatively untouched by mainstream media. I think this will continue to infiltrate dance the way hip hop slowly filtered its way into white America. The choreography coming out of the winter music awards shows are showing some of the movement and Beyonce took the stripper dance straight up for Crazy in Love, which was a huge video for her, made the song a hit.

This is an important film to see. Make sure you check out the commentary track, which is under “Set Up”. It will give you a lot of perspective about how these groups are viewed by major artists and how articulate they are about their place in society and the opportunities afforded to them in life.

Disney Bites The Bullet

2005-12-06T07:38:00.000-08:00

Disney CEO, Iger seems ready to reap the wrath of theater owners over release dates for feature films on DVD. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal yesterday, he pretty much threw down the gauntlet, saying, “In the end it’s going to be more through force than negotiation”. Although Disney will lose some of its theater platform, it obviously the feels the loss will be more than made up for through savings in promotion and reduction in piracy.

Big studios like Disney are seeing the need to focus. The days of unchecked expansion and diversification are long gone and these dinosaurs are searching hard for core strengths on which to build. The future, for Disney, is the DVD format, which has increasingly accounted for its entertainment revenue. Disney is still primarily a theme park company and apparently that emboldens them to take a risk with respect to box office.

Got to give the guy credit for biting that Hank Barry-like bullet, but, somebody has to do it. Iger likened his position to that of the soldier going first over the hill and taking the bulk of the bullets, and I commend him for doing it. At least Disney has lots of bucks on which to fall.

The theater owners need to stop asking for subsidies like cotton farmers and work on their business model. People still want to go out of the house to be entertained, but you’ll need an IMAX screen,. Those have seen some 800% return. They’ll also need some web-access or software available in the lobby instead of making all your money off selling rip-off candy.

Theater owners are a huge part of the problem. They only run the most teen-boy oriented films and leave many other sectors of potential movie goers unaddressed. When the theaters start becoming true entertainment destinations and offer hands-on, creative, movie-oriented activities, they will profit. They’ve been lazy and pampered by the ease of admitting teen, snack eating boys and doing little else. Instead of threatening studios, they should be addressing the needs of their consumers and offering activities and technology through which they, and their consumers, can profit.

Greenmail Anyone?

2005-12-01T08:38:00.000-08:00

Carl Icahn is getting increasingly frustrated with the Time Warner board, and he is not a man to be put off for long. It looks like he'll fight for control of the board in May and, if that doesn't work... well, I must admit I wouldn't mind seeing the threat of corporate raiding putting these entertainment conglomerates' feet to the fire. He owns 2.6% of the shares and the company has made disastrous moves, leaving the stock price stagnant for over three years now.

Granted, it hasn't been a good time for the entertainment sector, what with the internet and all, except that they merged with an internet company... an outdated one... I mean, dial-up? They've tried using AOL as a portal, a brand... it's been slow going because the brand doesn't represent anything relevant to people now.

Then, there's the music division debacle. They sold it to Edgar Bronfman in 2003 and he took it out from under the stodginess of the corporate environment, went online and flexible. They're one of the few bright spots in music, showing an 80% gain, but, that's not doing Time Warner any good.

According to Icahn in his letter to shareholders Tuesday, the bloated structure of the company, including a new $800B building, and their refusal to cut costs, is no longer acceptable and is demanding a buy-back and retention of a bigger share in the cable division they plan to spin off.

While it's the need to address shareholders that in many ways causes the problems, making companies so sensitive to each quarter's performance that they resist taking risks and making changes, I support shareholders pulling their weight and targeting these outrageous boards. These boards are extremely powerful and so often go unchallenged. They have dragged their feet for years in addressing the internet appropriately and providing a rational mode of balancing the need for copyright protection with the need for society to have access to our creative bounty.

They have set themselves at odds with technology and their own consumers, in their insane drive to use the internet to gain more and more control over our mediums and the content they contain... and that they own! In the process, they have left the American and worldwide public confused and skeptical. This was shown last Friday as post-Thanksgiving sales featured a sell-off of CDs such as we have never seen. Wal-Mart alone was selling over 40 titles at $3.44.

I have been pondering that fact for days, and I really think the retailers have been put on notice that the tide is turning. I guess they're the first responders. People want digital entertainment. People bought disks that ruined their computers, they see everything going online, they look at the stacks of expensive plastic disks littering their homes. They are paying over $100./month for internet & cable access, plus Netflix. The $30B boom is ending and they (the retailers) know it. Get on board or jump ship guys, because if your customers and retailers don't get you, your shareholders will.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith

2005-11-30T07:40:00.000-08:00

As with Fun With Dick and Jane, the Jim Carrey remake coming out later this month, the titles are a sardonic comment on the high adventure lives led by the plainly named. Behind the well manicured lawns, and prettily painted walls are couples with many secrets, high emotion and interesting lives. It's the contrast between the mundane and munificent that makes this type of film interesting.

We've certainly seen warring couples before. The classic is The War of the Roses, where they reach their mutual demise trying to divide the house. After years of built-up resentments, all either party wanted to do was win. There was no backing down from the relentless vengeance. No one was willing to walk away and see that that (exiting) was the win. They each became subsumed by the desire to beat the other.

With the Smiths, there's a slightly different twist. The mutually assured destruction (if you recall this is what kept us from blowing up the planet earth in the Reagan era) was actually their job. That's right, killing the spouse... it's a job, but somebody's gotta do it. I guess you only see that in the movies... huh? Come on. That's what spouses do, in real life, all the time. That's why the movies poking fun at the phenomenon are hits. We all see our own unmet desires and deeply buried feelings in their outrageously honest behavior.

I think it's a very unusual spouse that is led by a desire to see their partner grow. Most want to see their partner show.... up and be there as an adjunct to their lives: accompany them, help them, be there for them when they are needed, to do what they are needed to do. My husband left me, not because I was failing to grow and thrive, but because he was and realized I could never be the crutch he needed anymore. Americans are so trained to be materialistic, distracted and shallow, I guess it's not surprising we have such possessive attitudes about marriage.

I found Angelina Jolie's character refreshingly strong and honest. Is anyone still confused as to why Brad Pitt left his self-absorbed wife for someone who uses her considerable fame to bring attention to problems like war and starvation? Angelina had a difficult childhood, rose above it and developed a true global consciousness. She's one of the first female action stars, does everything the guys do, makes no apologies, is totally in touch with her sexuality. Unlike Jennifer Anniston who has this shrinking violet personality, Angelina is strong and honest in a fully feminine way and I find her a much better role model.

The Sick Dating Game

2005-11-25T08:31:00.000-08:00

In the latest iteration of The Dating Game From Hell, we now have the cute couple of Dan Glickman and Bram Cohen. The spurned lovers are now as cozy as the Shawn Fanning/ Wayne Rosso /Andy Lack love triangle. Every day we are treated to another news story touting the industry’s new storebought poster child. The message is the same one that they spewed out from the Grokster battle in the High Court, “See, filesharing is dead, there’s no business model there and your boys are easy to buy.”

And, in a way it’s true. The twenty-something hackers are happy to be courted. It’s better than the alternative; prolonged persecution. Most of the journalists who write up these stories, and they are appearing on all the entertainment and tech vehicles constantly now, are like the old Vietnam War journalists, they just write up the industry quotes, they almost all read the same.

I’ll tell you what they won’t. Filesharing is not going anywhere. The operation of the BitTorrent site is unaffected by their little disclaimer. In the five years they have been claiming the death of these P2P networks, they have only grown, and they will continue to grow.

The entertainment conglomerate was a monarchy. There was a coup. Now there is a system of checks and balances. When the industry wants to pull its little tricks, like bait and switch Yahoo, offering up the $5. price point as, apparently, some kind of sick joke, or Disney pulling its successful DVDs off the shelves to drive up sales of their lesser titles, like Sony buying every copyright in sight so they can jack up prices ad infinitum, like the music labels tying to push their already exorbitant price points up on iTunes…etc., there is now a consequence for them. People will turn to networks of consumers who provide alternatives.

Without those checks in the system, we would be at the mercy of an incredibly consolidated industry that is determined to use artistic content as investment. What we should be investing in is the creative impetus of humans everywhere who are sick of being treated like drones that will just buy whatever art is promoted to them at whatever price the industry decides to charge. We have been empowered by these P2P networks. They give us choice. We need to approach these stories critically and assess our choices as consumers and participants in the creative currency of our culture.

Movielink Inks Fox

2005-11-21T08:43:00.000-08:00

Movielink is a website that allows you to buy or rent major, and some indie films, directly online, assuming you have broadband and a PC. The company is a joint venture between MGM, Paramount, Sony, Universal & Warner Bros., and has non-exclusive agreements with Disney & Miramax, among others. The addition of Fox today establishes Movielink as the company to watch in terms of VOD online. Looks like the studios have learned a lesson from the music industry; offer your product online, or we’ll do it for you.

I can’t tell you much about the operation of the service. As soon as I clicked on the site I was immediately fed a default screen that said, basically, screw you Mac user, stick to your iPod cause all you’re getting is Lost and other Disney fare, and even that only as long as Pixar & Disney stay in contract.

Also, the price points are still way too high here. For god’s sake, you’re not making disks or distributing them, how long do we have to support these seven figure corporate salaries to get content here?

The internet is not paying out on democratization yet. We’re seeing it marred by the same big business domination as every other medium. I do think that will change. Studies show that 26% of teens are producing content online, 76% are blogging. These kids have grown up looking for content through internet search, they do it naturally. They don’t need to be spoonfed, like their parents. I’m sure Movielink will do well, I hope so, it’s a step in the right direction.

Sour Cream

2005-11-17T03:49:00.000-08:00

Cream’s last live gig was in the Royal Albert Hall in 1968 and their reunion there in May was a huge let-down. Cream was supposed to be just that, la crème de la crème, the best guitarist, bassist and drummer in blues-soaked Britain, rich in vocals. Clapton had just come off John Mayall’s Bluesbreakers and was reaching his peak.

I saw him in concert last summer and he was in great form. He played blues, better Cream stuff than I heard on this, Yardbirds, solo stuff, you name it. He’s as happy as he’s ever been in his life and he played that way, clear as a bell. He’s sober now, happily married, just put out one of the cheeriest albums I’ve ever heard off the guy.

He was simply not into this Cream Reunion stuff. I mean, it’s still Clapton, it’s not like he could play bad or anything… he just was not really grooving with the old buds, or they with each other. They were tense, awkward and you could hear, as well as see it.

Anyone expecting to see Cream better get in their time machine, these are not young bucks excited about music, they’re gentry thinking about their prostates and how they’re going to use the money from the tour. Jack & Ginger should be facing Clapton’s estate five times a day cause that legend sure as hell doesn’t need them. He’s the only triple inductee to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, deservedly so.

Anyway, rent the DVD to hear Stormy Monday, Born Under a Bad Sign & Sleepy Time Time & well, just to watch God play the guitar, it’s an awesome sight. But then crank up Disraeli Gears if you really want to hear Cream.

And, if you get your DVDs through the mail, make sure you waste your time on both or somehow figure out which disk has all the great classic Cream songs, I got stuck with the practically worthless disk and although I love the blues classics I mentioned above, I wanted to hear the classic Cream songs, but not enough to bother requesting the other disk.

Time To Short Sony

2005-11-16T05:20:00.000-08:00

Attention stockholders: you know, I remember a day when Sony stood for the best technology available to bring entertainment to consumers. Now this misguided giant stands for sacrificing its unwitting buyers to security breaches so severe that Microsoft has to step in to try and salvage its own sinking brand. It just keeps getting worse for this company who decided to bring in Howard Stringer earlier this year, who begat Andy Lack and a string of seven figure execs who felt tech’s day was done, it was a commodity business and the big money was in content.

Fed by the success of Spiderman…. they went to town. Now after one of their worst quarters, their music division in a shambles from infighting… we have the biggest scandal yet, and it worsens by the day. If you haven’t already heard, don’t buy any Sony CD. They’re recalling them. Poor Neil Diamond, Rolling Stone was finally coming around to his schmaltzy rock. Anyway, if you put the CD on your PC, it opens a channel between your PC and Sony that can be entered by anyone else, which will monitor your PC. You’ll be vulnerable to one of the many hackers already downloading personal info off of Sony’s former customers.

If you already bought and uploaded, look out for the class action notices that will soon be appearing. So, if this isn’t the death knell of the CD, I don’t know what is. Does anyone still buy those things? Yes, there are plenty of people in little towns all over the place with no broadband. They didn’t put it everywhere. Those folks are disconnected enough to vote for Bush, and now this. Karl Rove is gonna be putting flyers in the church parking lots warning about this one, except that access to all those computers is just what he wants.

I love this story because it will alert everyone to the issues surrounding DRM – Digital Rights Management. The studios, record labels and all major content providers are obsessed with it. They have little Expos to show it to Congress. They won’t let their product off of hard files until they have it. Problem is, digital files are easy to copy. Ultimately, there is no way to completely protect against copying. Until the mechanism exists, on a widespread level, to make sure content providers get paid on the basis of the popularity their product in a transparent, quantifiable way, we will continue to see these entertainment giants at odds with their own consumers.

Sick Of Faking It?

2005-11-15T12:41:00.000-08:00

The WGA held a news conference this week calling the mounting number of product tie-ins “stealth advertising” and seeking pay for writing that crap into their storylines, as well as calling for upfront disclosure of the practice, to comply with FCC rules. Similarly, SAG members want pay for holding the crap up, driving it, eating it, maybe even acting as though it tastes good.

The best one I ever saw was the hungry Survivors practically clawing each other to death over a Dorito. I hate Doritos, but almost wanted one after all that salivating and rhapsodizing over the frigging thing. No need to pay them, reality show participants are not unionized, nor are their writers/producers, whatever you want to call this new brand of entertainer personality and their, essentially, editors.

As with the airlines, who had to look for ways to profit in a heavily unionized industry, the entertainment execs need to find ways to grow in a changing industry. It is an environment where consumers are running from traditional advertising, which talks at them in non-targeted ways. Is there anyone over five who enjoys commercials? Do you enjoy them on your DVDs? Now they’re even in theatres, do you feel like a sucker paying ten bucks to be some captive audience for a commercial? You should.

As with their delivery systems, the traditional, huge companies that provide 95% of our entertainment have trouble changing long established, and highly profitable ways of doing things. Nevertheless, distribution and technology is changing, and consumers are constantly looking for ways to avoid inappropriate advertising, such as switching from commercial TV to VOD etc. This is where the product placement comes in… can’t fast forward through that. It’s now part of the storyline. At least it’s less obtrusive and distracting.

The real advance will come as advertisers learn to sell only to those who truly will want their product. Instead of mass hamburgers, smaller companies who successfully find customers will be rewarded and consumers may see a day where they won’t find ads or tie-ins offensive because the products and services advertised to them will be stuff they would truly be interested in using. That’s probably a long time away. Meanwhile, brace yourself while the unions and execs quibble about how to split the shrinking TV advertising dollar which is, and will continue to be siphoned off by internet companies… anyone heard of Google?

Big Bust On The Block

2005-11-11T11:53:00.000-08:00

Blockbuster’s quarterly report, issued earlier this week, stated a loss of $491M. While most of this loss is a result of it being spun off from Viacom, there are plenty of big problems for Blockbuster. So many, in fact, they warned of seeking bankruptcy protection. Most of the problem stems from the fact that their business model is being supplanted by the internet. They will soon go the way of Wherehouse & Tower Records.

People are getting sick of going to the video store, just to make life easier for Big Entertainment. This leaves them with their Netflix rip-off division. However, while talk of takeover circles around Netflix, which is being courted by Amazon, I just terminated my mailing relationship with Blockbuster because, unlike Netflix, they can’t turn the DVDs around fast enough. Netflix was first on the scene, nimble, modern, so Blockbuster, with all its marketing muscle and name awareness was unable to go forward there.

I was in Fry’s the other day, looking around at a virtual warehouse of digital media that could all be fed directly onto my laptop, or the bigger screen downstairs, so easily. Why should I spend hundreds of dollars on a bunch of little disks to hold information I probably just want to see/hear/use a few times? Bill Gates is up in arms right now because he understands what is happening, all software, all digital media, will soon be online. Our grandkids will find the idea of going to a store for your software, movies and music laughable.

What is a blockbuster? The name came from the press from Jaws, the first movie ever to see people lined up around the block. That was 1975. Well, it’s 30 years later and now maybe people don’t want to wait in line for two hours to puke on the theater floor. Start delivering your product in a way which dignifies your consumer, giving them convenience and choice, and you’ll flourish. BUT, you’ll need to do it like you did it the first time, the way you originally built your company, by challenging the powerful studios that own the rights to all those great films you want to distribute.

Blockbuster was sued by the studios when it first started renting out movies. The studios saw them as an enormous threat (they see every new distribution model as an enormous threat) and sued to shut them down (they try to shut every new distribution model down), but Blockbuster won and flourished. Perhaps it’s time for Blockbuster to start renting films over the internet. The technology is there. Looks like it’s that or bankruptcy.

Wayne Rosso: Make A Buck Off Internet Music Or Die Trying

2005-11-08T10:40:00.000-08:00

OK, before reading the story below in shock and disbelief about my mellow tenor and primer tone, keep in mind that this was written for Slashfilm, a film site I write for. The site is somewhat mainstream and its principal has been courting the studios, everyone does. So. apparently they (the overpaid bigwigs raping our culture) have been eyeballing the site, which has done quite well in the few months it's been running. Today I went to log the story (below) on, and the site was so full of pop-ups, it wouldn't function. The writers have been complaining. Anyway, here's your preview, along with your own title:
------------------------------------------------------------

Grokster, yesterday, reached a settlement with RIAA, MPAA & other entities representing Big Entertainment (we had Big Tobacco, then Big Pharma…. ) who had sued it in 2002 for offering software which allowed people to exchange files. Since most of the files “traded” (downloaded) were owned by five big record labels who had secured most of the money making value of those songs through far reaching Copyright laws that they pay $35M/year to have made, they were pretty miffed and continue to seek recompense where they can find it.

Unfortunately, for them, most of the value of their booty has seeped back into the hands of the people it belongs to, the kids of the people who made those songs hits and paid up the ying yang for them. Since the labels have no way to recoup from all these kids, except of course, the twelve-year-old Harlem girl, and the many grannies they’ve sued, they go for where the money is.

Well, they’re reporting the Grokster settlement is $50M. Hmmm, now Grokster isn’t a public company but if they have $50M in the bank, I’ll eat my iPod. No, no, that’s the value of Wayne’s (Shawn’s) new software. Wayne Rosso, former President of Grokster sold out to the labels a long time ago. His new company is Mashboxx, which should launch later this year.

He and Shawn Fanning have been in bed with any label they could find and were making great headway at Sony/BMG until Clive Davis decapitated their buddy Andy Lack. Andy actually was trying to bring music to the internet and wanted to use Shawn’s Snocap software, which promises to turn P2Ps legit through filtering software. To make sense of all this, we need to go back to the original Napster.

Shawn Fanning, staying up night after night, wrote a program that changed the world. It allowed anyone who downloaded it to find files that had been uploaded onto the internet. It slowly started to catch on, and when it was sued by the labels, written up in Newsweek and then Hank Barry got Hummer to put up $11M, things went nuts and it became the fastest growing application to ever hit the internet.

The labels took the position, hey, it took a lot of work ripping your cultural heritage off of the artists who created it, It’s worth about $12B/year dribbling it back to you, and we want our money. No one is innocent and idealistic enough to invest in these P2Ps now, so they continue to go after Hummer, which is insured. As to the others, they just want them down, take whatever assets are there, which, in most cases there are assets, including the 10 million eyeballs on these sites every year.

So, that’s the five minute skinny on what’s happening with the Grokster settlement and P2P music. What does this have to do with film? Plenty. Remember, Sony is Big Five in both music and film. Next time you go to the theater, or video store, think about this. You could be watching that film in your very own home theater, if you wanted to, whenever you wanted to see it. The technology is there, believe me. Big Entertainment does not want that to happen, at least not yet. While the gun lobby pays $2M/year for access to Congress, Big Entertainment pays $35M. That’s a lot of money, money that they get from you and me when we buy music and film. They pay that money for control over content and distribution, and for Copyright terms of over 75 years!

If this is how you want your money spent, fine. We’ve seen a huge democratization in music and film is following close behind. We’ll continue to see the internet play a bigger and bigger role in the film industry. My concern is that Big Entertainment will continue to slow the growth of the internet as an entertainment delivery system, which it is ideally suited to be, because of their paranoia about control, and their insistence in wringing every possible dollar out of their capital.

Night In The Past

2005-10-28T07:43:00.000-07:00

M. Night Shyamalan went down to the House of Mouse last night to warn them, and any other studios who may consider releasing films to theaters and in other formats such as DVD and VOD on the same date, that they may face some irritated theater owners… and retread directors who can’t accept change or come up with a new twist for their movies.

Claiming to be an artist, a purist, who simply wants to preserve that special feeling of watching a film smelling everyone else’s popcorn, stepping on gum, asking people to be quiet or sit down, fighting over seats (when the theater is even full, which is rare) and being hit with spitballs, he whipped the audience of theater owners into a frenzy. Yes, for M. it’s a special experience. He still remembers that special moment in the big theater when all those people realized Bruce Willis was dead…. Gasp. Speaking at ShowEast last night in Orlando, he exhorted theater owners to refuse to show films with day and date releases.

He promised to stop making films, if the studios considering this new marketing tactic have their way. Being such a dedicated artist, or at least independently wealthy, he even offered up his house, since it was bought with that tainted DVD money.

The reason directors and studios, from Soderburg, to Weinsteins & Disney, are planning the change is, first of all, not all people prefer to watch films in a theater. While box office receipts rarely clear $9B/year, DVD sales have been steadily climbing and now gross well over $30B/year. The American and worldwide public clearly prefers the DVD format, and when people can stream the films into their entertainment centers easily, they won’t even bother running to Blockbuster or even mailing those deadly slow envelopes.

The other reason is that it costs the studios lots of money to promote a theatrical release, only to have to duplicate those costs all over again six months later, after everyone’s forgotten about the original buzz.

To see someone who calls himself an artist show such callous disregard for his audience is sickening. Films aren’t made for theater owners, despite M’s whipped up ranting about how they hold all the cards. If theater owners refuse to run a film just because people have the choice to see that film in a variety of formats, they deserve to become the empty citadels of the past. And, if “artists” like Night care more about controlling how viewers can watch their film than about making films, then let them stop making films, we’ll have lost nothing.

Wal-Mart's Double Vision

2005-10-27T07:07:00.000-07:00

While Michael Moore is still working on his expose of the medical-industrial complex, the next big detonation in explosive American documentaries is already creating a firestorm. Robert Greenwald’s take-down “Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price” is about to be shopped at American Film Market…. but not alone. It will be competing with a conveniently timed Wal-Mart loveletter called “Why Wal-Mart Works: And Why That Drives Some People C-r-a-z-y” directed by Ron Galloway, who swears that he really, really feels that Wal-Mart improves the lives of workers and communities, and really, really didn't take any money from Wal-Mart.

By another strange coincidence, Wal-Mart yesterday put its press machine into high gear promoting Galloway’s film and denouncing Greenwald’s. It hasn’t done too much good, Greenwald has already secured distribution both domestically and internationally, while the film that can’t understand why Wal-mart drives some people (like indigent child laborers around the world) “C-r-a-z-y”, will probably only be shown to Wal-Mart drones (employees)… over and over and over, starting with its premiere November 10 near Wal-Mart’s company headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas (film capital of… Arkansas?)

Greenwald, who also produced and directed “Outfoxed:Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism” and “Uncovered: The Iraq War” examines Wal-Mart’s exploitive business practices and will hopefully see the same kind of attention that has highlighted other abuses of power, corporate and otherwise.

Clive Davis: Music Visionary or Label Wonk?

2005-10-15T09:32:00.000-07:00

I was just watching a DVD of the 25th Anniversary Celebration of Arista. Unfortunately, it's just the concert, no dirt, not even a fucking interview, what a gyp. Other than Berry Gordy, Clive is one of the very few to achieve fame for heading a record label. Dubbed "the man with the golden ear", he seems (repeat, seems) beloved by the scores of artists he discovered. The list of them reads like a who's who of music: Janis, the Dead, Springsteen, Santana, Whitney Huston, Alicia Keys etc. etc. Alicia says that when the she first met him, as a teen, he was the first industry person to ask her what HER vision was for her music.

Most recently, he endowed a program at NYU to promote record production as an art, which, it can be. So, as label wonks go, I guess he at least has some real sense of what's good and tries to send the right message to his artists. But, this guy is the enemy right? He exemplifies the excessive lifestyle of someone who has built an empire off the backs of genius artists who would have surely found success anyway, and would have been able to profit from it fairly if not for company men like Clive, who is a lawyer for god's sake. I'd sooner forgive Madonna because at least she is an artist. She made a statement, she deserves to rape and pillage young artists.

Clive, I don't know. Yes, he gets it. He did realize music was changing. I guess he was the only label exec at Monterey Pop in '67 and built a career up off of that. He does have a good sense for what people like. Maybe all the stoned hippies cheering, clued him in. Maybe had a little Kool-Aid himself... him & Bill Graham... soul brothers. Is that a legitimate basis for building a fortune? Not any more. He's a dinosaur. We'll never see more like him. As a matter of fact, that's pretty much why the label he founded dumped him, shortly after the big wingding. In the end, he showed them how hard it is to run a successful label. It's something only the old style shysters can do, you know. Them, the internet embracers and the big hip hoppers with cred... the real ganstas. He started his own label and beat them at their own game. So, they came sniveling back to restore him to his former, and I guess now everpresent, glory.

As a matter of fact, Clive is now at the center of a red-hot power struggle over the giant joined powerhouse Sony BMG Music. The two companies live a precarious harmony as equal members of both former companies make up their board. Howard Stringer, subject of previous posts surprisingly replaced Mariah svengali, Tommy Mottolla with Andy Lack, his longtime friend, as head of the division. But now, at Clive's prodding, BMG has turned on Andy. He's out. How did Clive do it? Oh, you're gonna love this. Yes, Shawn Fawning and Wayne Rosso, urchins of the music industry. Their tarnish lives on. There were lots of problems with Andy, who had no experience running a label, something you need a lifetime, like Clive, to learn. But, his relationship with these guys was probably easy for Clive to exploit.

And by the way Clive, don't you know it's tacky to talk about how Janis wanted to fuck you and you refused? We can see what a stud you are, it's a bit late to prove your manhood now. If you had taken a pass out of class then you wouldn't be flapping your gums now. Looks like you were just chicken and now regret it. And, speaking of bad decisions, I don't care how many bucks you made off it, I will never forgive you for inflicting Mandy on the public. Can you even begin to appreciate how many Barry Manilow songs I've had to listen to, thanks to you? When you're counting your money, just think of the countless millions who had to be unnecessarily euthanized. You also fucked massively with the Dead, which is largely what fueled my thirty year hate/hate relationship with the labels. You got quite a legacy there.

I Want My iFilm

2005-10-14T08:28:00.000-07:00

This is the second high profile internet oriented alliance this month. The other being the deal between Google and Sun. MTV announced today that its parent company, Viacom, a huge entertainment comglomerate, is buying iFilm for $49M. Although iFilm doesn't work on Mac OS and may soon be beat out by internet streaming, and now iVideo and has lots of other limitations, such as the fact that most of the films are shorts, it has built a reputation as a Hollywood buzz-maker. The P2Ps have similarly become buzz-makers for music and are becoming aquisition targets themselves, as they filter for copyright protected songs and now increasingly, video files. Bram Cohen, founder of BitTorrent recently got $8.5M from Doll Capitol to form a legitimate movie download site. Obviously, this will become a major aquisition target itself. So, we're watching entertainment companies merge with internet companies as we take off for Dotcom II here.
The name of the game is what you will be hearing more and more in the coming years. You may soon be doing it yourself. I am. It's fun, it's expressive, it's called "user-generated content". Make your music, make your video, make your video game or website. Soon it'll be on an iFilm type site, or one of the many others I list on Intervision, which will then be bought up my some huge corporation for profit. After all, the reason Viacom bought the property is because of all the eager young eyeballs watching user-generated content there. Besides, with a name like iFilm, don't you think they were hoping for an Apple deal?

The Kid Stays In The Picture

2005-10-03T11:58:00.000-07:00

This one is definitely worth getting on DVD, not worth seeing in its theatrical release. The bonus features outweigh a reasonably good film. It tries so hard to be an entertaining documentary but is hampered cause there’s not much to build on visually. Raw footage is crucial in a project like this and photos from a person’s life, even if taken by Eisenstadt and enhanced with After-Effects… still not up to the visual product offered in other formats.

The commentary track is, in its own right, a primer on the film industry, documentary filmmaking and point of view. Bob Evans fascinating life is the subject here and the title is taken from his book. Evans, I guess most famous for his marriage to Ali McGraw, ran Paramount Studios at a time when the film industry went through as much upheaval as the surrounding culture and Bob played the rouge role all through.

We have him to thank for more great films than Spielberg, Coppolla & Lucas combined. And, unlike those dream weavers, Evans is responsible for breakthrough films that truly changed society and showed a light on our culture. There is much to comment on, such as the pervasive power of image and how it factored so strongly in his rise and demise.

But, what really moved me, stuck with me, was actually from his acceptance speech for the Independent Spirit Award. He was presented the award by Larry King… surprising since that type of honor usually goes to a close friend, and Evans does credit Stanley Jaffe with saving his career, if not his life. So, why Larry? Evans explains.

Bob had run into Larry a few years earlier and said, “Hey Larry, you just had a quadruple bypass, you look great…. What’s the deal?” Larry’s answer stayed with Bob every day for years that he endured pure hell and it’s sticking to me too. So, here it is. He said, “Bob, it wasn’t the heart attack. It was an attack of the heart.”

He was referring to his latest young wife, with whom he was very much in love. Bob, goes on to say that his life had always been about achievement but when he softened his heart and fell in love with his own twenty-something… well, that was what it was all about. You could see the real love in this seventy something guy. Well, like Bruce Willis said, it’s all about love people.

It’s so easy to discount feeling. It’s so easy to forget what every prophet & Beatles told us, all you need is love. Here’s a guy who led an incredible, charmed life. He’s seen it all, done it all and even produced it all… and what does he think it’s all about? Love, the most powerful force in the world.

No Direction Home

2005-09-28T16:35:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd have to write this review from memory since I just sent my copy back to Blockbuster, but nooo, I'm now watching it on PBS at 4am. For those of you without insomnia but with TiVo, this is a good way to go unless you're a Dylan freak. There's no commentary track on the DVD anyway.

I've posted about Dylan before and the mystic way he has of expressing himself, both musically and verbally. This becomes more evident as he ages... he sages. I feel like he's channeling Martin Luther King saying, "I've been to the mountaintop and I care about telling people about pain and how much better we could be doing." But then Bob's eyes go on to add, "and you can call me a genius or idolize me but you'd be a lot better off just absorbing my simple message".

Although I've always appreciated Dylan as a brilliant poet, and seen him both with and without the Dead in concert, great concerts... he's never been one of my favorite singers (and they even went into how bad he sounded relative to predecessors) and folk music is, ok, I'll just say it, too fucking white for me.

One of the best parts of the DVD is Mavis Staples saying, "What do you mean, 'call me a man', what do you know about it?" but she goes on to say, and I go on to learn through this film, what artistic expression is about. He was building on a traditional artform that was essentially, white boy blues. I mean when this music originated in Europe, times weren't so great. A lot of white people have been downtrodden too.

So, even though I'd rather suck on chalk than listen to some of this old crap, Dylan, I can listen to. Why? He modernized it. He played an important role in extending the life of this very old, outdated music. He created bridges between that and the Beat and Socialist movements, which were also in full force in NY at that post-war time and then blended all that with an awareness of what was going on down south with the civil rights movement. Let's face it, folk music was first on the scene there.

Don't forget that so much folk music was never recorded. I mean, that's pretty much the point. This is the music of the people, a way that poor people, without other modes of communication, can discuss and spread the issues of the day to raise people's awareness... to empower them. Folk music has truly been an important way of spreading the word, like Gospel, and Bob Dylan has played a huge role in that regard.

His contribution to the way music approached the anti-war movement can't be overestimated. Like Lennon, he smiles behind those eyes and takes little credit. He's a medium, the words just come to him. Words can be very powerful. And in the hands of Bob Dylan, who found the perfect format for his, they can truly change the world. Although I faulted Rolling Stone for picking the eponymous Like a Rolling Stone as the best song of all time, it certainly deserves a prominent place, as do a number of his other songs.

Crash

2005-09-20T14:38:00.000-07:00

Crash got a great buzz when it was released in theaters, just a few months ago. It seems like the release periods are getting shorter and shorter as producers try to capitalize more on their primary promotion. With attention spans shrinking from massive inundation, we can't remember the film's promotion by the time the DVD comes out and they have to duplicate efforts... unless they bring out the DVDs quicker. Since DVD sales outpace box office by some 300%.... you do the math. The commentary track, by the understated, perceptive Don Cheadle, and Paul Haggis who wrote, directed and produced, adds to the DVD, though not as much as I expected.

Also looks like the film is trying to find an Oscar niche. Cheadle had great success propelling Hotel Rwanda this way last year and I have no doubt he'll do equally well with this socially provocative gem. By bringing out both the film and DVD during slow periods, it gets viewed, and its wonderful, challenging content gets digested. The hope is that, as with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, people will still remember all the way to voting time next winter.

In this case, I think they will. I certainly hope Don Cheadle will be recognized again because he continually comes out with such thoughtful yet entertaining films. This one plays the race card even more blatantly than Hotel Rwanda. Set in post-OJ LA, it meanders through the lives of many Angelinos who, sometimes literally, crash into each other. The LA assemblage of multiple intersecting stories concept has been done before in (all-white) movies like LA Story and LA Confidential, but this is both modern day and ultra real.... maybe too real.

It's filled with confusing cuts, too many unbelievable coincidences and lots of zoom outs into the sky. Oddly enough, none of that bothers me as much as it usually does, mostly because almost every part is played by name actor. Crash is filled with lots of insights, like how rap music can even be offensive to young black gangbangers if their lines are written by older white men to take umbrage at how condescending and demeaning rap is to blacks when you compare their their lightning fast hobitchnigga drivel with the statements of people like Huey Newton & Eldridge Cleaver.

Every character in this large and talented cast of characters is racist. Some shrink in fear out of racism, some are attracted to those outside their race, there are misunderstandings due to racism and murders due to racism. Growth and getting over ones' prejudices are shown here too. It's a cagey film, you can't ever predict who's gonna do what out of their feelings about race. And maybe that's what makes it so true to life.

Monster in Law

2005-09-03T10:59:00.000-07:00

The only thing notable about Monster in Law, which just came out on DVD, is that it features Jane Fonda's first performance on film in fifteen years. She, and Jennifer Lopez, don't pull any punches, literally, on film, and the result is hysterical. It's sort of a younger/older female vibe, pass the torch stuff, or whatever. I remember the atmosphere on another classic in this genre, Terms of Endearment, was pretty bad because Shirley MacLaine and Debra Winger sort of took their characters a bit too much to heart, off screen, and the fur flew.

But, apparently, Jane is the real deal. At the first meeting with Jennifer, and the director, Jane kicked off her shoes and sat on the floor... obviously to cut the intimidation factor. The woman is a living legend, from her in your face Hanoi Jane, to China Syndrome, Coming Home, Barefoot in the Park to Golden Pond, two Oscars, Hayden, Turner, aerobics queen... open about all her foibles and weaknesses. She's lived quite a life. For a woman in her seventies, she looks fabulous. There is a dignity but a real flexibility of mind and emotion that seems to characterize all actors, even as they age. So many people get rigid but artists seem to keep expanding.

You hear so many actresses complain about what happens to them as they go past forty. Even la creme de la creme find themselves lacking for juicy roles. I look around at my own peers. The women my age when I was in my twenties were idealistic and vibrant, in my thirties they had careers and/or young babies... meaningful, somewhat exciting, at least interesting. Now my peers talk about their kids, their friends, their husbands... like the moons of the world. People don't write stories about moons, except Forrest Gump, who revolved around some interesting orbits. Writers write about stars.

Jane Fonda is a star of the highest magnitude and is very much worth watching in this film. She had been offered many good scripts during her retirement, but turned them down. As a result, she comes back, not as some washed up has been, given some second chance, but with confidence that exudes on screen and it's uplifting to watch a woman in this position.

Off The Map

2005-08-30T10:46:00.000-07:00

Off The Map came out on DVD recently with a great commentary track and a Sundance Anatomy of a Scene feature. The story is from a play by Joan Ackerman and she also wrote the screenplay. This gives the film a grounded, real feel, instead of story by committee, as we see so often these days. Although I thought the director made a very apt comment on that; there is the story you write, the story you film and the story you edit.

This story is pretty simple on some levels, it's about a man, a woman and their twelve year old daughter living off the land in northern New Mexico in the late 70's. They decided to follow Joni Mitchell's advice and get themselves back to the garden. This is where IRS agent, William Gibbs finds Joan Allen's character, Arlene, nude. It's Adam and Eve all over again, if Adam was a lost and damaged soul trying hard to fit into "the system". Instead he ends up in love with Arlene, and in love with the incredible landscape... so much so that he ends up there for all time, chalk pastel in hand. Whatever he couldn't find with the IRS, he found in the desert, with a man, a woman and a child.

Living a lifestyle of ultimate simplicity, they have no iPods, no iBooks, no cell phones, no phone at all, no TV, no movies, no internet, no electricity, no plumbing, no music... sounds pretty sparse huh? I don't think I could do it, and I've lived in a car for months at a time, just to be in that kind of landscape.

Yet, halfway through the film, William tells the depressed Sam Elliot character, Charlie, that he's the luckiest, most brilliant man he's ever met. He owns his own home, has years worth of firewood, food and clothes, a beautiful wife and daughter, and all the freedom in the world. And, it's true, Charlie has opportunities for happiness that few urban, or even rural Americans have. Moreover, he has his freedom, which very few Americans have, at least in this way, true self sufficiency.

Although, hmmm, lots of folks all over the world have it. Many call it poverty. And the "free, self-sufficient" people of the world survive at God's pleasure. They live a drought or locust away from starvation. Anyway, Charlie doesn't feel like the luckiest genius in the world during this film. I guess some people are depressed and you don't know it unless you really get to know them. With Charlie, it's pretty obvious, he just sits around in the outhouse all day. That's depressed. No wonder his wife, luscious angel that she is, gets pretty peeved when it's time to go... did she not notice all that open desert out there?

I did. The director, Campbell Scott, who also directed and starred in The Secret Life of Dentists, was inspired by some of the incredible landscape photography in classics such as Terrence Mallick's in Days of Heaven. New Mexico has long inspired artists such as Georgia O'Keefe and the fictional William Gibbs, who exhibits his work in Santa Fe, an incredible art community.

Artists do tend to congregate where there is "good light", which often translates, to me, as clear air and gorgeous vistas. Maui, Carmel and Sedona all have active local art communities. But truly, Santa Fe pales them. So I applaud this film for its incredibly inspiring panoramas and the attention it pays to art and Santa Fe and a lifestyle few dare to lead.

Anyway, the twelve year old girl grows up to be Amy Brenneman, who, as a pensive adult Bo, looks out of her corporate job window to think about her carefree, if quiet, childhood, and the summer her usually powerful Dad was so under-stimulated he decided not to talk for six months... till he got some antidepressants that made him attack his friends.

I wonder what she's thinking there. Where's my iPod? How did I handle a childhood so boring that the only entertainment we had was listening to Mom read a book? Thank God my life was so empty because now I'm the only Gen-Xer in my whole company without ADD? I miss a life that was real and free and filled with love and adventure? Who knows, but this DVD should get you thinking.

Fade to Black

2005-08-15T21:20:00.000-07:00

Far from fading to black... more like black is back. The film is about Jay Z's concert at Madison Square Garden last year which came about two weeks after the release of his final album, The Black Album. What stunned me is that this is the first hip hop concert at the Garden since '81. Hip hop has dominated the pop charts for quite a while now and has made serious inroads into pop culture, so, again, it was very surprising that huge selling recording artists can't sell out, or even book stadiums. I assume if they have trouble with the Garden, it's worse elsewhere, and I'm not aware of any rappers playing stadiums.

I guess hip hop fans buy records and tons of clothes & other merchandise but still the acts, all black except for Eminem, can't get cred from Clear Channel. I wish they'd done more to explain this or his album, and, frankly this wasn't the best film I've ever seen, but, it did make me a bit more curious about Jay Z and just how much racism is at work here. Because, my impression thus far is that corporate America is definitely noticing some buying power here, though, as I've speculated before, that may only extend to McBugers. It's fine to get them fat and fighting over sneakers, just don't put 30k of em on our streets, right? It's like the mob, when they went into drugs, went into the ghettos...didn't want their own kids on drugs.. it's us and them and after all we're only ordinary men.

Jay Z is like the Ray Charles of the day... a black man who not only has a genius for music but business as well... a very rare combination for anyone. I guess at this point, he feels the non-artistic talents are more lucrative... what a newsflash. I'm coming around to rap but his is hardcore, very little actual music, lots of dope beats and rap. He's a rapper through and through though, makes them up wholecloth in his head, on the spot. It is an artform for sure, spontaneous, improvisational... comes straight from the heart. Like scratching, it doesn't have enough "music" for me. I guess I need to expand my understanding of, or definition of, music and Jay Z, as well as Eminem, who did a phenomenal job with Eight Mile, have helped me to do that.

For some reason, and I really don't think it's racism, Eminem comes across to me and Jay Z still seems a bit too gansta, at least in tone. I couldn't make out any of his lyrics during the whole two hour film, at least half of which was the Garden show itself. Music is one thing, drive-bys, come on. Promoting guns and violence... no. Eminem is now much more introspective and most of his raps are about getting above the white trash mentality and the anger... dealing with his mother, ex-wife and the other low-lifes he's risen above.

So, as proven by Danger Mouse, all is not black or white... but it all derives from those.

Scratch

2005-08-15T21:18:00.000-07:00

Wow. It's stuff like this that gets me excited about documentaries. Like Riding Giants, which I just reviewed, this film sheds light on an important, yet little understood subculture. While Giants took me back to the waves I grew up around, this one takes me back to Brooklyn, where both my parents grew up. While surfing existed in Hawaii since at least the eighteenth century, the technology needed for turntablism has only been around a century and it wasn't until the 70's that the art form and culture started to develop in the Bronx & Brooklyn. However, hip hop culture is about the MC, or rapper, graffiti and breakdancing as well as the DJs.

I think many have a harder time getting cosy with this subculture, even though it has infiltrated the larger society to the tune of a multi-billion dollar industry. No mass advertiser these days ignores hip-hop culture. Surfers, they can offend. Yet, while everyone can get behind sun and fun, mainstream America has certainly not gotten to the point where there's any acceptance or interest in scratching per se. The mainstream culture has embraced Eminem, the Great White Hope, now the sexy JB knighted Usher, and the Peas and Outkast who have done an amazing job of weaving in some dope beats. But, musically, the pure scratch sound has yet to be understood or accepted by more than a small group.

I must admit, even I have a hard time warming up to the sound, but then I've never been into pure percussion. I can groove to a close in funk beat. I remember dancing in such a tight groove, we had whole basements of people on one hip, so, I can understand it on that level, but, musically, I need more melody.

As NY started to seriously deteriorate in the 70's Afrika Bambaataa went to Africa and came back to organize gangbangers into dancers and musicians. Breakdancing, rapping and stepping emerged. Before long the DJs started to pull out the funk breaks from songs and played them sequentially, devoid of the melody lines, pretty logical step when you're jocking a dance party... and that's how it built. Yeah baby, the DJs discovered hip hop and still command it today. They got tired of being shunted to the back like the drummers always are, they wanted to step out, and they did.

It's now the fastest growing cultural trend we have. Take a look at Big Champagne and tell me music is not about hip hop now. Soon these labels are going to be in quite a little situation. They've ignored hip hop, to their detriment, for a long time now. Why? You guessed it. Copyright. They don't want to find themselves on the other end of a lawsuit. This has helped to keep hip hop independent, which is great. It's also satisfying to see the labels cut their own fuckin throats by not supporting an art form that builds up on the stuff THEY own. It shows you just how short-sighted they are. Then again, aren't we all. The film ends with a Bill Gates mentality progenitor in his own mind saying he thinks he deserves a dollar every time someone scratches.

The problem stems from the fact that the courts pulled back from the de minimus standard and will let rights holders extract whatever they can get for use of their little sample, which is essentially free promotion. These compositions include so many samples, no label will touch it because they'll have to take loss to pay for the rights no matter how successful the end product is.

So, let's talk about DJs because this is mother's milk to me. This was my original creative musical outlet and I understand the attraction. Learning to play a musical instrument is challenging because you have to put in so much time and focus before you can get anything out of that instrument that sounds good. There are only two ways out... the turntable and vocals. And that's why I've specialized in those two. Putting records together requires a huge understanding of the content out there, at least to do it well. I always felt that what I did on radio was an art form. I would play instrumental breaks, almost always intros and outros, since they were about all I could reliably find on the vinyl, on top of each other so that the one going out and the one coming in would form something totally fresh.

They had a similar idea downstate, only they started using only the breaks from JB, Sly, George Clinton and started getting intimate with the turntable, which I love. We're always taught to respect the needle, don't scratch the record and the defiance appeals to me. They also seem to be constantly cueing on some other control, I don't pretend to understand the art form. In fact I almost got into an argument with some SF record shop owner who clearly felt I didn't fully appreciate it. He should have understood his role a a disseminator better because if it's hard for me to get it, with a strong dance and music background, it's hard for lots of folks.

I was about four seconds into this flick when I went for the turntable in the garage. It had Magical Mystery tour already on it and I went to town, so did my nine-year-old daughter who saw it out and wanted "to play it". It's kind of like playing the spoons, or advanced finger tapping. I mean, I watch guitarists finger that neck constantly, I could do it all day and love what I'm listening to. I doubt I will ever feel that way about the turntablists, though they do have a lot of dexterity. But, they have built up an ADD music form that will last a long time. They are now selling more turntables than guitars. Turntablism is being taught at the prestigious Berklee School of Music. And, again, it's a very approachable instrument, offering not only instant gratification but a unique combination of physical, mental (remember... got to know your music) and musical elements.

We're in an age of digits and snippets and beats, so this is the future. At the same time, we have the warmth and intimacy of vinyl. In the end, it takes a lot of balls to address the turntable successfully. Like the surfers, you are dealing with a moving target. I'm glad to see this burgeoning, young independent music scene take hold in this area. We haven't seen a music scene as strong in this area since the Summer of Love. And it's definitely in the big clubs like Ruby Skye and DNA Lounge. The SF dance scene, and probably most other cities, is pretty much dominated by hip hop now.

Festival Express

2005-08-15T15:46:00.000-07:00

This film spent a little time in theatres before coming out on DVD last week. I highly recommend it. The idea of Utopian communities has always fascinated me. On one of my first car trips from NY to CA, I read The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Tests. Ken Kesey was one of the first people to take acid, and, like Leary, was very adept at portraying it's benefits. He first recieved it from the US Gov't. who wanted to explore its potential as a weapon. When they realized the drug made people happy, insightful, fulfilled... of course they outlawed it and put out horror stories about it to scare the public.
Anyway, Kesey and his band of Merry Pranksters rolled across the US in a psychedelically painted bus called Fuurther (which, I believe is now in the Smithsonian) and freaked out every small town from here (literally) to Akron.
The Festival Express train rolled across Canada taking the Dead, Janis and many other musicians to a series of fesivals in 1970. But, whereas Kesey and his group were too tripped out to ever get their morass of footage together, this other guy had great footage. Why he sat on it for 35 years I can't tell ya, but I sure enjoyed seeing Jerry and Janis jamming. In some ways it seemed like any one of a hundred jams I've been to, people sittin around, coming up with songs, singing, guitarists riffing off each other.
Jerry was never changed by the success he achieved, nor Bob, any of them. Multimillionaires, but still the same basic loving, open-minded, visionary, rebel-free-thinkers they always were. They epitomize, to me, everything a musician should be. When a bunch of fans couldn't get into the concert, they went to a local park and played for free, the Dead gave more free concerts than anyone, also made more money than anyone. They were a one hit wonder, never sold albums because they allowed their fans to tape their shows, there was always a sea of mikes at every show. Their archive will probably never be surpassed.
The unique type of dedication of the fans has never been duplicated. The band's relationship with its fans was open, organic and natural... very unusual for entertainers at that level. Actually, it was the Deadheads that most made the band extraordinary, it was a whole lifestyle, a community. The most loving scene you could imagine.
The scene on the train, as in Fuurther, as in some of the communes I lived on, was very utopian. It stands in stark contrast to many other scenes that I see around me today, where people seem so competitive, so much attention to image, posturing, placement. At work, it at least made sense, there were some 30 incoming associates going for one or two partnership possibilities. But then I saw it among housewives and thought, get me a jam session...something, this is ridiculous.
Jerry always stayed closest to the music. For a man as adored as he was, the lack of ego was astounding. In his mind, he was a musician, he wanted to play music for people, he wanted them happy and safe. If you looked at him two seconds too long, he would call you on it. He died when I was pregnant with my daughter, this after losing Bill Graham while pregnant with my son four years earlier. Thanks to bands like Dave Matthews & Phish, some of their ideals live on.
So, if anyone finds my "Utopian Dreamer" button at Foothills Club, give it back. I lost it at Ladies Poker Night, though, I did come away with the trophy for biggest winner of the night. Jeez, you couldn't make this stuff up. Was somebody trying to tell me something or what? I still have my "Romantic Idealist" button (two, actually), not taking that anywhere, and my "Hardened Cynical Bastard" button. I think, for me, the two are worn in tandem.

The Stamford/Stanford Wives

2005-08-15T15:44:00.000-07:00

I knew it would be only a matter of time before I'd have to cough up some more personal perspective. This archetypal, modern classic was recently remade and just came out on DVD. Given that the housewife scene is something I'm very familiar with.. got to comment. Without even having finished watching the DVD, there are several flavors that taste familiar.
First off, I definitely identify with that feeling of the protagonist, like, "is this whole fuckin town nuts... or is it ...ME??" Hmm, I guess I'll have watch the rest to find out. Fortunately, I do still remember the older, darker version. In those days, we took our Feminism more seriously, not to mention proudly. Back then, I thought to myself, as we all did, "That will never happen to me!" So, seeing this new version, having just come out the other side of that scene, very interesting.
Anyway, the other thing that felt mucho familiar was this feeling of boys team/girl's team, each having it's own agenda. Though the movie really only addressed the male agenda. What a send up on the classic stereotype of what men want out of life and in their women, the insecure geek aspect... believe me, if there's anything I can relate to (or failed to). They want things that are mutually exclusive. For example, great sex and the whole Martha Stewart thing. Based on my experience, once the woman buys into the whole female encampment thing, that's the focus, the guy is, as my nine year old so tactfully put it, "the money man". Most women buy into it because they drift in and forget it's not the only game in town, they also become trapped economically. The saddest part is that their world gets so small. If anyone has an agenda, it's the women, because most of these women are above this level of banality and do feel some inner frustration... I hope. Maybe that is the question, and a very important one, the story seeks to address. Is this work divided model working?
In some ways, yes. You should see these kids. Many don't see the Dads much, the classic complaint of my own generation, and they may soon look on the housewife moms very unfavorably, all my friends and I did. But, they've got it damn good, maybe spoiled, but still good. The Dads also seem to have it pretty good. They mostly love their work, the structure generally works for them. They resent feeling second to the kids, resent the lack of love & sex. And many of them can't see straight for the pressures on them. But, they're men. Gifted by God with denseness and obliviousness. It's mild. I think it's the women who mostly take it on the chin, unless they very proactively address it when the kids get older and more independent. Cause, that's the rub. It changes. The kids do grow up and want independence. Can you really make your whole life just about doing service to everyone around you? What then is your own identity as a person? The guys, at least, have careers. No one really thinks mothering is a lifetime career. It's not. Check out Desperate Housewives, now #1 show. The term will now be an entrenched part of the lingo & the "problem" will hopefully get some attention. Who knows, maybe some day the focus will turn to the real problem. What's the real problem? Cowboy capitalism.
A better model, in terms of the health of the relationships themselves, and the culture (as in Europe) is two parents both working a human schedule AND having a good standard of living, not having huge pay differentials. I would imagine those couples are much better off, because the two are still equals who relate to each other not two people living in largely different worlds. That works for most people, but not for companies, who would rather pay for one worker, one training, one set of benefits, one set of individual needs - which are ever so pesky. My own scenario highlights the whole thing perfectly; high pressure job - two choices - job or kid - not both - not here.
As you will see again and again, if you look, in this country, it's the corporate interests that call the tune (remind me to discuss one of my favorite films - Network). The gov't. is really all we have to look to for mollification, and that's why it pains me so much to see those interests buy silver spoon sons and enough propaganda to convince every churchgoer in every little podunk, backwoods town from here to hicksville... successfully....that if you just wave your flag, and thump your bible long enough, everything's gonna be alright. It's the U.S. Blues, right here in Stepford, your own hometown.
What I think every person should consider is... is this working for me? Cause, if it's not, change it. We may not be able to make all the global, political changes we might like, but we can each live our own lives as fully as possible, whatever the larger context, and in so doing, bring awareness to those around us. Remember, the communities of hollow people we see in Stepford are lacking. It's structure and form, all the trimmings, but it's empty, as shown in the movie. We want a society of fulfilled, aware people... so we don't keep killing folks in wars all over the place or work our lives away, feeling empty and vaguely dissatisfied.

The Girl With the Baadasssss!

2005-08-15T15:43:00.000-07:00

The Girl with the Pearl Earring and Baadasss! (both now on DVD)... you couldn't think up two more dissimilar settings, but the themes are almost identical - the struggle between the artist and the powers that be. Girl With the Pearl Earring is a fictional story about the subject of a famous Vermeer painting. I discussed the book in several book groups. It was a favorite, had all the earmarks; female protagonist that was overlooked in regular history... but we modern women see how things looked through their oppressed eyes (in contrast to our own....) The girl, and Vermeer, himself were completely subject to the personal, corrupt whims of the one wealthy patron in town.

In Baadasssss!, Melvin Van Peoples had to go to extraordinary lengths to get a film made, including turning his social conscious-raising, groundbreaking (for example, music was far more integral and blacks had never been portrayed so militantly before, paving the way for Shaft etc.) film into a porno flick in '71, because as a black man, even one of the most powerful black men in Hollywood at the time.... it was what he had to do to get it made. So, as MVP, the son, who made the movie, in referring to the state of change that occurred between the making of his father's film and his own, said, "Plus ca change, plus ca res meme". The more things change, the more things remain the same.

But....not always. In the struggle between art and money, art sometimes wins. When? When the real power asserts itself, i.e., when the public demands it. The context of Melvin's original film is the perfect illustration. He got nothing from the studios, even though, at the time, they were selling themselves off for parts because they refused to make relevant films. The studio system was dying and in it's place independent young auteurs like Beatty, Spielberg, Peckinpaugh, Hill, Scorcese, Lucas & Coppolla were capturing the market. There is a great film about this called "Easy Riders and Raging Bulls". The studios tried to pump out musicals and bedroom farces while kids were being beaten in the streets and they just could not sell it anymore. Every time the infrastructure gets too big and arrogant, they sow the seeds of their own undoing. Yin/yang... eternal truth. Pride goeth before the fall. It happened to film in the 70's, it's happening to music now.

In addition to the above themes, the film sheds light on the extreme state of racism that existed in Hollywood at the time (not that it's much different today) and pervaded not only the town itself and the ability of non-whites to work, but the images portrayed and the attitudes which disseminate from Hollywood to the rest of the world. Melvin relied on something which existed at that time and then somehow fell apart... a somewhat organized underground. It provided him with a guerilla MO and an audience. He succeeded at getting the film made and it went on to become the top-grossing independent film made that year.

It grossed $15M at $1./ticket which translates into a $120M film today, a hit by any standards, particularly given the cost of the film, which Mario won't disclose, but was probably pretty low. Melvin had some major names work on his film, basically for free, out of respect for the project and its pedigree.

Bond ReBourne

2005-08-15T15:41:00.000-07:00

I ususally don't like Cold War spy stories, because they did much to exacerbate ill will during the actual, horrible, Cold War. But, the Cold War is over, Russia is doing relatively well, as are most of Capitalism's new converts, at least the non war-torn ones. I like Capitalism the way Locke envisioned it, the invisible hand having the power. The invisible hand is the collective will of many individuals acting, basically, in their own self interest, doing what they are interested in, if not what they love. If I ever saw Capitalism working the way it should, I would be very happy. And, there are sectors that function well. But, our USA snapback, we won the cold war so we can now screw the poor over the top approach is also crumbling.

What tends to defeat optimal operation is restricted distribution channels and sleepy, bought, governments. We get all our crap at Wal-mart, eat Big Food (see Super-Size post 12/13/04), take Big Drugs and listen to Big Music all because they are advertized on Big TV, which is what Americans watch. Truly local radio & televsion, like mom & pop, or even mid-sized stores and restauraunts just can't compete with the economies of scale afforded to those able to achieve critical mass in terms of size. They can never operate as cheaply as big companies, which are powerful enough to buy and sell in massive quantity & have the rules swing their way. We let these companies amass power and then they argue, quite convincingly, that we can't afford to have them fail. What's Big Music's plea? "Oh, save our jobs". Big Timber, Steel, Tobacco... they all use it. Then, we subsidize them. Trump fumbled his way into bankruptcy, but the banks bailed him out because he was too big to let fail. We bail out Chrysler, the S&L's & many more in less visible ways.

This bigness is exactly what made Communism fall and it's ailing our own economy. Even though we still have enough base to support the top now, we are becoming increasingly top-heavy. We'll soon start seeing major chinks as it sorts out who's going to take care of the health of this sick nation. You can only screw people so far, then they become dependant.

The movie itself, other than the Capitalism angle, is nothing I would have written blog about, until I saw, yes, the commentary track. The director, Paul Greengrass, expressed such depth and understanding of, not only the film technically, which you always get. or of the acting, which you sometimes get, but, the social and politcal context, which you hardly ever get (giving me lots of turf to trod). This guy went through a whole analysis of how James Bond represents this traditional view of man, who was tough and sure and didn't need to question or feel and how Bourne represents the new man, willing to feel and question, somewhat lost but honest and brave, willing to face fear in a way Bond never would.

So then I went into the whole name thing, Bond suggests something sturdy, steadfast & true. Jason Bourne certainly seems like a modern twist on the name, same initials, but the name suggests birth, modernity. Hence my cute title above. In the end, I had to agree, you could certainly analyze the two classic Cold War spies in terms not only of economic and political change over the past 50 years, but the changes in what men expect from themselves and each other, particularly relative to women.

I do agree that men seem more willing today to question, but most of them still have a much harder time accessing emotion than women. And this comes from a man, by the way, who put it in those terms, but, I think that is it. It's not that they don't feel or care, they just don't have as many connectors. Women sponge it all up, with men, it has to go through channels. I think that, and a variety of other factors, may always make it somewhat hard for men and women to relate to each other, but it's still the best. Get too many women together and it's like the emotional Apocalypse, but too many guys don't do much better. I love men, but I think a lot of people don't relate well to the opposite sex. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and distrust and lack of common interest. I mean why do so few women really love sex & music the way men do? I can understand why the guys don't go in for make-up or whatever, but sex & music are universally good, aren't they??

The executives around here are supposedly new male, went to college, grad school, early work with women Now, they know a few women who've risen into their ranks, but their wives & women in their community - all from Stepford, er Stanford, whatever. It's not the new deal. Meet the old boss same as the new boss. Did we get fooled again? Is this new male, old male, lost male, stale male... what? Cause these women, if anything, seem the worse for the early uppage. It just makes it more frustrating for them now. Bottom line, we still view the care of one's own children as essentially a self gratification and not a contribution to society. Even when it is considered work, it's the absolute lowest grade. Cultures are typically evaluated in large part on the status of women and though the status of women has steadily risen in this country, we are definitely very far from any meaningful equality.

Women now earn $.75 to the male dollar, up from $.50, twenty years ago, but still not equality and it also doesn't factor in the millions of women not in the workforce. If you accounted for every full-time mom, ascribing to them what is a typical salary for childcare, I guarantee you the pay rate for women would be right back at $.50. If you look at the very upscale, "progressive" Palo Alto, which charges the highest price per 3BD/2BA home in the country, you'd see more like $.25 women... IF you gave them the 25k mom-salary bone. The average guy around here makes well into the six figures and most of the women earn nothing. Jobs alone, made 74M last year... you do the math....$.25 is very generous. So, if this is the scene in one of the most educated, technically advanced towns in the country... has Bond been reborn?

I guess I'll have to ask my friends in the little male movie group the PA execs go to, where they snicker over T&A in the Bond blowouts and then go home to not have sex with their wives. In my extensive, though not yet exhaustive "research" on single men, I think most are pretty clueless, but, so are most women, many of whom cannot be surpassed in terms of vapidity. However, I have found some very cool men. I guess I would put it this way. Today, and increasingly (though it ebbs and flows), there are opportunities to do more than fit into sexual stereotypes and social strictures. One can make their own way toward being a full human being and thus attract others similarly inclined.

Shattered Glass

2005-08-15T15:40:00.000-07:00

It's amazing how appropriate people's names are sometimes. Glass, a young reporter for the New Republic, was caught cooking at least 27 of his 41 published features. He "shattered" the myth of objective, factual journalism when he knowingly tells a class, "you can check against objective facts, but not against the word of the writer". Although any reputable magazine or paper does check facts, to protect themselves against libel or invasion of privacy, there are some things, obviously lots of things, that cannot be checked. In fact, the New Republic was fastidious, running each story through dozens of fact checkers and editors. So, what about the NY Times? The Washington Post? NBC? AP? What makes them any different?
When Hillary Clinton spoke about "the vast right-wing conspiracy" everyone laughed at the notion of smoky rooms and Skull & Bones handshakes (which I'm sure did take place). What she really referred to is the unspoken agenda of a huge block of people who act in concert without any central plan. These trends definitely occur in the press and now, even hard facts and austere publications are up for grabs. In these days, when the most revered of our institutions, like the Catholic church, and the self proclaimed Prince of Pop are lambasted.... what do we turn to? Oh yes, the internet.... no wonder things are crumbling even faster... word's out.
But, we still need lots of improvement. Although my twelve year old son gets most of his news from the international press over the internet, most adults I know are still in the dark ages, drinking up what the major news organizations are offering up. I watch it just so I can understand why most of the country is so backwards and stupid.

Before Sunset

2005-08-15T15:38:00.000-07:00

I saw this film twice in the theatre, rare for me. I hate these multiplexes and their film choices, which have a huge impact on what can and cannot get made in Hollywood. This was in one of the shrinking number of independant theatres. Even still, I greatly prefer DVD's cause I hate sitting in one uncomfortable chair for long periods and, basically, I'm hooked on commentary tracks. Watching a film without the commentary track, now that I'm spoiled, is like having sex without coming (this is a rough analogy, folks, commentary tracks are nowhere near orgasms, in my book). I want the whole deal, the movie and the director's analysis of it. Or something, Michael Moore let his interns do the commentary track, which was a good move. I like Mike, but he is a bit pompous in his own Midwestern effacing, modest way. Even when the director just drivels on about technical issues, it provides a much appreciated perspective, since I'm now directing films myself. Sometimes the commentaries are truly interesting, particularly with the great directors. Anyway, I digress, again.

I also saw Before Sunrise, which shows the principals meeting on a train in Europe and spending one wonderful day together. They, for some reason, don't exchange info but plan to meet one year later. The girl's grandmother dies and she can't make it, though the guy does. He writes a book, basically about the experience and nine years later, while promoting the book in Paris...guess who shows up? This is the setting for Before Sunset. They roam around Paris, again. He's supposed to get back on a plane to his wife and kid, but never quite makes it. As they go through their second date together you begin to realize that these two, although they've certainly gone on with their lives in the interim, never really got over each other. That original, though very brief, first encounter, was IT. But, they were both young and neither realized it at the time. It's only when they see each other again, with the benefit of nine years worth of perspective, that they can see it. It's an interesting twist because I think what happens 99% of the time is the exact opposite, two people come together in their twenties, everyone around them is pairing up, they do it too, and then realize later on that it was NOT the real thing, just the right time.

I guess one lesson I take from this is how difficult it can be to appreciate something without comparison, without perspective. Or how people's interests and goals, and what they look for in a partner, can change over time. But, also, how our basic natures stay the same. My son turns thirteen today. In my religion of birth, though never affiliation or practice...he is a man, now. Although he's grown quite a bit in these thirteen years, so much of what I see in him today is exactly the same nature I've seen at every point along the way since his birth. I've learned and grown incredibly, experienced so much in my life, but my own nature is essentially unchanged and will probably remain so. If people are lucky or strong their core does remain authentic and one can stay in touch with that always. But so much comes along in our lives to change us, change our fundamental relationship to our own inner nature. I think most people are compromised. Their egos damped down continually by demands of those around them. It is easy to lose touch with oneself, and I honestly believe the great majority of humanity does just that. Thoreau said it best, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation".

So, when two people, "have chemistry", I think it's essentially the coming together of two genuine kindred spirits. It's powerful stuff, because, for whatever layers of platitude and compromise are involved, the real stuff always bubbles up, like weeds coming up through cracks in the sidewalk. BUT, that's only half the story, and, the film is equally attentive to the other critical component... timing. Sometimes we do meet the right person, but, it's the wrong time. Sometimes we meet the somewhat right person, and it's the right time. I've experienced both, not only with men but with jobs and artistic opportunities. So much of it is chance, or fate, out of our control. The only part we can control is to just be attentive to when those connections, that chemistry, does occur & try to appreciate and fulfill it. The most important part, I think, is staying true to that inner core and connection to our maker, that way you can trust your instincts, even when the noise around you is drowning it out.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Externally Enhanced Denial

2005-08-15T15:37:00.000-07:00

The convention of this film is that it takes place at a time when the technology exists to help people erase pesky memories, maybe other thoughts too. Just go in, put on a Devo hat, and one of their highly trained professionals will muck around in your mind looking for distasteful thoughts and delete them. Sounds pretty plausible to me. After all, if this service were actually possible, I'm sure it would be a huge success. Just ask the alcohol & drug companies, or entertainment companies, or psychologists.... better yet, go ask your best friend what the connection is between their family of origin and their current life.

If denial were a fungible commodity, it would be the world's biggest selling entity. Most people are ten times better at denial than incorporating and dealing with their many, often confusing, often painful, thoughts and feelings. I'm no exeption, my denial about my childhood lasted till I was 38. And, I like to see stuff, I welcome awareness, and that is unusual. Most folks seem to think it's quite pesky, gets in the way of all the important stuff they want to do. For me, I need the awareness first, in order to determine what I want to do. I think for many others, it works the opposite way. They start from what they think they need to do; thoughts that fit, stay, thoughts that don't...go. We all have some control over what we think. Problem is, it's not total control. And, that's where the helpers come in... drugs, distraction, denial. All of it can work, for a while, to a degree.

Alright, you know the drill... what's the next question? What is the cost? According to the movie, it's based on the classic quote by George Satayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Which is exactly what happens to the principals. Although the movie offers the possibility that the second, unaware do-over, will work out better. The cost...not fucking learning from your own life. Now, for some reason I will never understand, that does not seem to bother many people. It bothers the living shit out of me, even to see it in others, because, to me, life is for learning and loving, that's it. Why? That gets me to the quote that really came to mind, that frequently comes to mind. It's one of my favorites and Nicholson delivered it beautifully in Easy Rider.

I mean, it's real hard to be free when you're bought and sold in the marketplace. Course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free, cause they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh yeah, they're gonna talk to you and talk to you about individual freedom - but, they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.

There is nothing we cherish in this country more than freedom. But, I look around at these highly educated people, some of whom have very little quality of life. For all the gloss, they do not seem happy, and they certainly don't seem free. Maybe we don't go in for Devo hats, but something is messing with the minds of these people. Otherwise, they would demand more out of life. So, as CSN&Y said, "Find the cost of freedom". What is the cost? Your denial. That's what you need to cough up, in order to get free. It may not sound like a high price, but it is. Even still, self-induced amnesia is still quite attractive, because you can't always get what you want. It's hard though, when you're flipping through your RS 500 - Collector's Issue and see the face you're trying to forget, again staring.

Anyway, I highly recommend seeing this great film, which should get an Oscar nod, on DVD. It includes a chat between Jim Carrey & Michel Gondry, the gifted director. They talk about the night the elephants were being brought through NYC for the circus and how they spontaneously mobilized to get footage, and how one night Jim ended up driving a bed around Jersey freeways for hours. I think back to my earlier post and how he once tried to squelch all that with Prozac. His life stands in such stark contrast to that. He lives out everyone's fantasy. He gets paid $25M to ride around on a bed, and chase elephants with Kate Winslet... can't beat that. You can see why he'd be so attracted to the role, a guy willing, literally, to pay for brain damage, in order to turn off the pain. It stands for exactly what Carrey is so proud to have avoided.

Corporate America Rocks

2005-08-15T15:35:00.000-07:00

I read about this film in Indie Slate (link is above), not your most mainstream of magazines, but, it's a great story, so here it is, of course, in a nutshell.

About 20 years ago these guys in Denver tried to make some lame music video of their band. So, this film, Corporate America Rocks, is about these same guys, now sort of corporate misfits, who put the band back together and then win a Battle of the Bands. They used their old footage and tons of underused talent in Denver that is left over from their own boom times, mortgaged their houses to the hilt, whipped up tons of enthusiam for filmmaking in Denver, including half the city for some huge Battle of the Bands scene, and now they're on the road with their film. Pretty amazing, huh? There is a ton of underused film talent around here too, but it is becoming more and more utilized and the community is pretty extensive and thriving as it's easier to get a foothold here than in Hollywood. It's nice to see the opportunities spreading out... we don't need to get all our entertainment from Hollywood and all our culture from New York.

Anyway, I love this Dad/corportate wonk band concept. Probably a third of all the Palo Alto bands I know of are Dad's bands and at one time, we were planning some city-wide battle of the Dad's bands (who knew we were overlooking a great movie opportunity?) What's a Dad's band? A band of Dads, family guys, around here, executive types. In fact, the first band I ever sang with was the pentultimate Dad's band. It should be a movie in itself, business movers & shakers strumming their old favorite songs together for school fundraisers. It was quite the juxtaposition. First of all, these guys, many of whom were allowed to their echelons on the basis of their supposed management skills, certainly didn't exhibit them, seeming quite convinced they were titans of industry, kings of the housewife set AND good musicians, regardless of reality. Sometimes things go to people's heads and it would be interesting to see how this group would come across on film.

As the internet grows and the economy slows, we're getting more and more starter art. People are finding others who are interested in making art, so more and better projects are starting, particularly in film and with bands, both of which require collaboration. There are more and more sites to help people find, grow and promote creative projects.

Maybe there will always be blockbusters, and hit songs and shows that everyone will want to have seen and discuss around the watercooler. I'm hoping though that awareness of these grass-roots level art enterprises will grow and that people will have interest in smaller projects. This blog, for example, averages 40 hits a day on nothing other than word of mouth. And, despite my disinterest in Martha Stewart's wares, her concept of omnimedia, mutually promotional, symbiotic projects, is a good one. In my case, I basically promote my art and film projects on the blog, and will promote my band too, when we're ready to gig.

Artists are more frequently using the internet to promote their projects; Blair Witch Project got to a pretty visible level that way. All this reality TV also takes it down a notch, we're getting more and more used to being entertained by reality. Think about our entertainment in the 40's and 50's, we had whites playing people of color, June Cleaver doing housework in heels and pearls...very glossy, unreal stuff. But, now people can handle reality better, so projects can be very approachable from a production viewpoint. At the same time, you can do almost professional quality CG, modeling, special effects & editing with a G5, or even a G4.

As I ended college we were still coming out of a bad recession and I remember someone in one of my classes saying, you know maybe there's something good about recessions. I looked around at the economic devastation and thought she was out of her mind. But, in the economic downturns we've been through in the past 20 yrs., her comment keeps coming back to me. Things keep cycling around, there have been upturns and downs. And, it tends to be those down times where people turn to the Dad's bands, to music and art and quality of life, to taking off work, mortgaging your house and making a movie about your band.

Super-Size This

2005-08-15T15:34:00.000-07:00

Super-Size Me and This So-Called Disaster... looks like these two will duke it out for Best Documentary since Moore pulled Farenheit 911 from the category in order to pursue a shot at the Best Picture Oscar, which he should get. 2004 could easily be called the year of the documentary. Super-Size got a super duper reception because Farenheit 911 made it cool to speak out again. The blue-state baby showed that lots of Americans are willing to cough up $10. to hear the truth cause it's the only place left we can get it. Clearly, neither Farenheit or Super could have gotten traditional financing or distribution, much less ever have seen the light of day on our airwaves, or cable, or anything supported by corporate America, which is pretty much everything. For Farenheit to make $120M is staggering, and really says a lot about the quality of information disseminated in this country. Even big budget films are thrilled to break the $100M mark.

This So-Called Disaster shows the three weeks of rehearsal leading up to the opening of The Late Henry Moss, a play by Sam Shepherd performed in 2000 in San Francisco by Sean Penn, Nick Nolte and others. No lightweights here. Shepherd is arguably one of our greatest living playwrights and Penn one of our greatest actors... and it's certainly in evidence here as the play deals with Shepherd's relationship with his alcoholic father, who died in 1984. Although Shepherd is a thoughtful introspective writer, it took him 16 years to be able to put this story down, understand it, grapple with it. It's like the expression that the last thing a fish can see is water. The really big things that color our life and perceptions - those are the hardest things to see and understand. Most of us just keep reenacting our childhoods one way or another, until we can see it in perspective.

The film brought back a lot of memories for me of my time spent in near-empty theatres acting, directing, hanging out, hanging lights, making the soundtrack. It's a huge effort, magical and worth it to watch a story come to life. My time constraints and ADD propel me to tell my stories on film now, but it's amazing to watch the raw power of these actors, stripped of film's accouterments, sort of like the movie Dogville, with its barren set. You're watching some guy clump around a barren stage, but it's Sean Penn acting. Acting is such a collaborative art but at it's heart is the actors abillity to get real and express that. It's powerful to watch a good actor act. OK, but here's music's ultimate trump, if I could have a choice of Brad Pitt or Usher perform for me, personally, gotta go Usher.

So, now for the real meat of this post, Super-Size Me. If you haven't already heard, it's about this guy who eats nothing but McDonalds for a month and trashes his health. I would love to see a Super-Size 911 treatment of a number of other atrocities to the public in the name of profit: alcohol, tobacco, legal drugs and, yes, the one I really want to see, enough to make it myself, the one that shows the music business for what it really is. Bowling For Columbine and Roger & Me both exposed pressing problems successfully. In fact, today, Dec. 27, (remember, I update these posts) word is out that Moore is about to target this legal drug mess in his next film...bravo.

If there is anything super sized it is the problem of obesity in this country, 60% of all American adults are overweight. Now, you will not find a stronger advocate of personal responsibility than me. I guarantee it. I decided at a young age that the only aspects of your life you can control are those that you take responsibility for. I lived for many years with someone who took no responsibility for his actions, so my feelings on this are very strong. And while overweight people are certainly responsible for their condition, the folks that add all these addictive and fattening ingredients to our food are also responsible. The government agencies who are supposed to be paid by the public and protecting them, but who instead allow the practices and cover-ups to go on have much bigger failed responsibilities.

Much of the issue, for me, has to do with transparency & disclosure, putting the real story out there. Farenheit & Super-Size were successful because they gave the public information that had been kept from them. Most people are weak, easily led, easily exploited. Want proof? Half of our population is obese. Not one of those people wants to be obese, I doubt those people became obese on natural foods. They ate foods processed and promoted by big companies belonging to GMA, the grocery lobby. The diet industry alone is a 35 billion dollar business.

There is plenty of blame to go around but, in my mind, companies will always seek a profit, it is the government's job to protect the public. As long as we allow these powerful lobbies in DC we are going to continue to see our "protectors" at the beck and call of corporate interests. Meanwhile these corporate suppliers mess with our food supply to make food more addictive & fattening. There is simply no other way to explain the sudden rise of obesity over the past 30 years, and it is, in fact mentioned in all the literature on the subject. Obesity is about to pass tobacco as the leading cause of preventable death in this country. The CDC is about to lower the life expectancy. For the first time a generation will not expect to live longer than its parents. These are serious problems.

I blame the companies primarily for marketing so seductively to children. Commercial time to them won't get curtailed without public pressure on legislators because the networks make huge money from food related ads. Even a diligent parent has to send their kid to school, where there is lots of very unhealthy stuff, even here in Palo Alto, where my friend JudyAnn and many others went to great pains to put better food choices in the schools. But, they come into these strapped districts (they're all strapped, even here) with "free money". Only it's not free, the money going into those machines is coming from us. We did get the soda out of the schools last year, but, this is Palo Alto, not a particularly typical town. We've kept out Wal-mart and a lot of box retailers, we had Cable Co-op for a long time, etc.

These big food companies constantly advertise to children, not just McDonalds but every tasty treat you could imagine. The average child sees 10k commercials per year, 95% of which are for high sugar/fat processed foods. I have to keep what little processed, commercial type food there is where the kids can't get it without my permission. It tastes great. It should, they spend millions to make it that way, fat & sugar naturally taste good. At the same time the government doesn't crack down on advertising to kids, spiking our food or failing to inform, it makes schools test the hell out of these kids academically so that they cut PE & recess (but not lunch) in favor of test-taking classwork. One third of all children born in 2000 are expected to get diabetes in their lifetime.

The best part of the DVD is the interview with Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, who refused to participate until he saw how successful the film was. He discussed the relationship between Ray Kroc & Walt Disney, friends who shared a desire to market a fairy tale version of the world to children, a belief in better living through chemistry and technology and a Nazi style of management.

He says that agriculture has changed more in the last 30 years than it had in the previous 30k as this heavliy tested, processed, uniform, gargantuan Disneyite food product grew in popularity. In 30 years we went from a few hundred outlets to 30,000 McDonalds alone. A typical hamburger today contains over 1,000 cows, any one of whom could have mad cow disease or ecoli. The goal is to make a uniform, good-tasting & inexpensive product. It's all one big, bland morass of goo, laden with, literally thousands of chemicals. It reminds me of my 80 Days post about the guy who wanted to find the "average color of Palo Alto". Let's get out the blender to make our melting pot, at least it tastes good and is fast, right?

Now real food can't compete price-wise and the system has been co-opted, again, by a relative few who now have a huge amount of power to direct the food supply. The cost of all this is borne by society who are all but voiceless to a nameless, blameless (but tasty) problem. The poor, of course take it the worst because, we all know what fast food is don't we? It's poor man's food. But, it's spreading, throughout the food chain. You can still cull the top, organic, natural etc., but, I eat out a lot, who knows what's going on there? We're all connected and so is our food.

I was talking about this with a friend last night. He's a biochemist and said the reason kids are maturing at younger ages these days is due to the growth hormones in our food. He also said they had to change the parameters for post-mortem libidity. Dead bodies decay slower now than they used to because of the preservatives we ingest in the foods we eat. So, I would say, avoid McDonalds like the plague if only on the basis that they treat their employees like shit (for example, if a location tries to unionize, they close it). Avoid processed foods, especially those labeled "diet", try to keep everything as natural as you can but hey, every day is a risk. I am at least a moderate, if not high risk taker and I'm sorry, but when it comes to my food, I like it good.... and McDonalds is definitely NOT my idea of good, no matter how you look at it.

There is a ton of important information in this DVD that affects everyone. We live in a world where Mc Donalds and other huge chains literally dominate our landscape. We all eat this food, live off it. Every day, one fourth of our population eats in a fast food restaurant, 40% of which are McDonalds. Why isn't this information getting out there? Why is eating all this stuff not looked upon the way smoking or drinking is looked at? It's clearly a bigger killer. It's the media! No matter what show you produce, it's going to have to go through some major outlet, from ABC to A&E, they all rely on this sector for a huge chunk of their advertising, these commercials are absolutely pervasive in our culture, which is all that sustains these networks. They are often cash cows for the conglomerates that own them because that's where all the big companies plow their profits. McDonalds and Pepsi both spend more than a billion dollars a year on advertising. How do food companies continue to show growth? Well, that's a good question, one not asked my the movie. After all, the population isn't growing. We're just buying more and more food to feed the same amount of people.

A nice fat, drugged out population will sit in front of the TV & watch their commercials. If something goes wrong with your body, and it will, consume some of the many drugs you'll see advertised there. I mean, is this where our economic growth is going? It's where our country is going. Fat and happy Americans electing fortunate son liars to drop bombs around to show our weight.

We Don't Live Here Anymore

2005-08-15T15:33:00.000-07:00

I guess the title of this movie, which was in limited release, (check out the trailer on the link above) is taken from the '70's Neil Simon play/movie Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. The Alice that didn't live there anymore, like the Alice in Wonderland and White Rabbit song and of diary fame (talk about your trips!) and seen most recently on cute, creative Gwen Stefani is the Alice that took a little trip through the looking glass to elsewhere and when she got back, she still looked the same but she didn't really live there anymore. I can definitely relate, to Alice, and the characters in the story.

For a while, the marriages still looked good: nice houses, nice lives, nice friends, family fun, kids happily unaware of the very complicated feelings of their parents. What kinds of feelings? Boredom, jealousy, resentment, frustration, anger... none of them really getting what they need from their spouses. So, they cross pollinated. Definitley the explicit version of Wife Swap.

It had many uncomfortable similarities, to my life and to my movie. My movie (the one I'm making, not the one I'm living) also has two couples who have some (not all, thank you) cross couple attraction issues but mine has much more focus on the career aspect. Where the guys in the movie are both hot English professors, my guys are hot Silicon Valley hotshots who also have creative backgrounds/ambitions that they miss/aspire to and who got caught up in the dot.com bust in different positions. My film will aslo deal more with the housewife issue, it will go into the women's backgrounds and show their respective frustrations, one with being at home w/ young kids, the other with lack of artistic & "marital" success.

This film was similar to mine in that it does show one couple really getting into those kitchen scenes, where those frustrations over daily life and those character flaws you've dealt with too long just fly. I guess one thing you look for in films like this is that real feel. This is where you want your drama so good that it really does feel like you are a fly on the wall in someone else's home, and you have that somewhat comforting feeling of, ok, it's not just us, all couples go through this. But, not all couples do.... even in the movies, this one or mine.

Some couples just stuff it and stuff it, or think of other things besides their actual life, or manage to small talk or just somehow or other don't face it. And both my movie and this one have a couple like that. In that couple, the guy is so focused on his writing, or is just internally strong, he doesn't really look to the wife for inner satisfaction. He doesn't really NEED his wife. She's basically a weak, empty person and it's not till she gets her gumption up by steaming up her husband's best friend that she feels strong.

So, who's more sympathetic? All four of them cheat, so you can't use that for the qualifier. So, what's the qualifier? The timing? Thr reason? The one who cheats because she's can't feel loved (Edith)? The one who cheats cause he wants love (Jack)? The one who cheats because he wants excitement, and, becaused he can (Hank)? Or, the one who cheats out of revenge (Terry)? Once you're in the Devolution of Marriage Zone is it all about assigning blame and pegging relative moral positions? Well, there certainly are a lot of moral issues and there's usually a lot of blame at that point. Questions like, do I stay or do I go, how long can this go on, can it get better, how can I even imagine such a different life or so much upheaval, how can I go, how can I stay, how can I make myself love this person, how can I get what I need, what's gonna happen to the kids, can I go a lifetime without the sex or love I need???

It's interesting to watch all the marriage unwinding dramas: my two (the real and unreal) and this film and the many similarities between them. The same basic issues come up over and over, who's doing what, who's not doing what, all the annoyances and weaknesses and failings, the lack common interests, the lack of interests period... the lack of passion. In my now very jaded view, based on dozens, if not hundreds of conversations with people about this, I think most people are lucky if they get a good solid love affair once or twice in their life.

But, even if all is going well, once you have kids (the American Dream), the kids require so much energy and focus for so long, it's just really hard to maintain the closeness, trust, intimacy. If the sex goes, it's really hard to get any of that back, and if you start running into respect issues on top of that....well, let's just say that most couples run into obstacles cause, aside from the eventual boredom, the deck is essentially stacked against us just in the form of inhuman work hours in this country. In fact, a French friend of mine, without kids, ran into marriage ending problems just because of the work hour ethic around here.

I really do think that long term monogamy is not for everyone. A lot of people do crawl up in it out of fear of change, fear of the unknown, but yet bored once the sexual charge wears off and if you're not really marching to the same drum at that point, with common interests, passions and goals, then you're basically just co-existing. A good friend of mine works with her husband, they're both counselors & run the Growth and Leadership Center, go into therapy every time there's a problem and really hash it out. They are one of the few couples I know of who I really think are happy together, and even they have issues. They deal with them relatively openly and well, but it took decades of psychological training to do that. Most either fight or seethe or avoid, like the classic roles above...ending up in marriages that don't live here anymore.

A Home at the End of the World

2005-08-15T15:18:00.000-07:00

Such Netflix synchronicity that I should get this DVD after We Don't Live Here Anymore. It's such a poignant counterpoint. It reminds me of my comparison of the counterpart paintings (Start:Heart and APart:Heart), one was all strucured and prim but kind of empty, the other was full and vibrant, but may be harder for folks to grasp or embrace.

The homeless group (they don't live THERE anymore, anyway) has all the structure, but it's devoid of love and affection. Even the two having the affair don't seem to have real love, they're just acting out of frustration and boredom. All the issues in that movie had to do with people loving people they weren't supposed to love, sexually enjoying people they were not supposed to enjoy, being attracted to people they weren't supposed to be attracted to, doing things they weren't supposed to be doing. And you know what? Despite the beautiful homes and children and perfectly socially acceptable lives, not one person in that whole film was really happy, really loving.

The closest was Hank, who did allow himself outside the stifling rules that made everyone miserable and tore the families apart. Hank was not selfish or a hypocrite though, he set up the affair for his wife and was happy that she was being attended to by the other guy. What is love if it isn't wanting happiness for the other person? He wasn't particularly deceptive either, he didn't seem to make much secret of his activity, as opposed to his wife, who coyly tells Terry to confront her cheating husband (the one she's fucking). Many may see him as the villian of the film because he had affairs first, but I see him as the closest to being loving, honest & happy character....the only smart one, because he understood the inablity of the marriage/rule structure to deliver on the American Dream of promised happiness. And, he didn't just sit there and wallow, he did what he could to make his life happy within the structure. His wife did not, and, in the end, he could not make the happiness for her. I wonder if she'll ever find peace and happiness... I doubt it, because she doesn't look to herself to find it. She was looking to Hank to provide it for her. She was looking to bask in his attention, his light, because nothing was really emanating from within.

The group whose home was at the end of the world, at least did have a loving harbor. The ever-chameleon-like Robin Wright Penn plays a free spirit who involves herself with two childhood friends that had played some gay as kids. When they reconnect as adults, the three of them live together and raise the kid she becomes pregnant with, by whom, I don't know. They never struggle to love each other or follow the rules. They do struggle a bit with the unconventionality & complexity of it all, but, it seems like such a better struggle. It's a them against the world kind of thing. They know they're different, they know they'll stand out in suburbia, but there's so much love shared freely between them. None of them feel compelled to love each other or be with each other but the whole movie is a giant love-fest, showing true caring and insight. When seen next to the other movie - it's such a stark contrast.

In the film Sissy Spacek plays a very loving, progressive mom of one of the guys (she's effectively a mom to both). She had a traditional marriage and she expresses regret at having lived so much of her life in a small box & she clearly admires the younger woman for the courage of her choices.

I can tell you, from my own perspective, I've found it's easier to worry about fitting into a larger society than deal with family members who expect you to fit into their box. First the marriages are about love and creating this ideal life together, then you have kids, your attention turns to them, you stop exercising your marriage muscles and coast on your previous love, secure in your marriage to act as a crutch and hold everything together. At first you think it'll all get back to "normal", that fun, free love, but it never really does. So, you fit yourself more and more into the marriage and, increasingly, community structure. The people within become more attuned to the kids, community, responsibilities & structure and less attuned to their own needs, since they're not allowed to follow them. They get cut off and sad because the structure, and now even their spouse, doesn't really support them as individuals. The structure is about structure and, like corporate America, sustains itself with rules and expectations. It's not about love anymore, it's about playing the game, by the rules.

The rules and structure are not without reason and purpose, and Ray Kroc and Walt Disney, who I discussed in the Super Size post used pervasive and rigid rules coupled with constant spying to build those businesses into what they are today... big and getting bigger and profitable. When cults use these tactics it's called brainwashing, when corporate America uses it, it's called productivity and when parents use it, it's called bedtime. But, it's all basically the same. Follow the rules and do what you're supposed to do, and you'll be watched. That's exactly what my marriage felt like for many years. How can you love in that kind of environment? If love isn't given freely, it's not love. I certainly didn't feel loved, I felt trapped.

In my Stepford Wives post I ask if this divided work model of marriage is working. The answer is no, but, now I realize it's not just that the work is divided, it's that the love gets replaced by obligation. Steven Stills tells us, "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with". Now, I interpret that in the sense that if you love God and yourself, you're always with the one you love, even when those closest to us are not really loving us or us, them. But, we all understand what that line really means, it was a hit song for a reason, all the teens were singing it. Sometimes we can't get the person we think we want so we try to love the one we're with, the one who wants to be with us. And we all know how tough it is to do that, because love and obligation never seem to coexist well together.

The Mindcontrolled Candidate

2005-08-15T15:17:00.000-07:00

More Netflix synchronicity. The term is from Carl Jung, who wrote about collective unconscious. He was a student of Freud's who noticed classic archetypes and meaningful coincidences - synchronicity. This DVD came near the Bourne flick I just wrote about. Again, the Cold War, which was the setting of the book and 1962 film. Both feature men who can't remember. Seems there are a lot of male protagonists these days who are not in touch with deeper thoughts and feelings. Bourne, gets conked on the head, Carrey, in Eternal Sunshine goes in for voluntary mind deletion (see my 12/7/04 post) & the principals in Manchurian Candidate have had small but effective chips implanted in their heads. Well, you can't say men aren't creative in the ways they can figure out to numb their brains.

Like Bourne, this story is supposed to be current. This version features a monstrously mindcontrolling Meryl mom who's a successful politician in her own right (though she got her seat from her husband, not uncommon) and a venal Carlyle/Haliburtonesque Manchurian Global instead of Korea as the looming dark power. The great Demme tried to "stay in front of the news". Shooting started before Gulf Oil Play II started, but, the players are pretty obvious, especially when the film opens with a great Wyclef Jean version of Fortunate Son... we all know who that is. I just see Cheney & Rumsfeld's scared old Cold War visages on every twisted face on screen.

When I saw them literally screwing into their candidates brain I thought, you don't have to do all that, just pick someone who has already been cultivated, play to their ego, win their trust... isn't that exactly what we have? And, Jon even says the mom is the real villian, the real power. I do disagree though. Although the real imprint we get in life comes in childhood and mismanagement of that can really interfere in one's life, the kind of active, content oriented influence they talk about in the movie is very difficult in this day and age, unless you cut off media, and parents DO do that, even around here.

So, what's the big message? Our leaders are not in control - they are puppets of the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned of & Kennedy died of? Well, that's one of them, and the fact that we are all ever puppets of our parents until we find the chip and dislodge it is probably another. But, I see even deeper messages in this movie. It has to do with the reactions these men have to the lack of access to their thoughts and feelings. It has to do with the fact that there was some inner kernal each principal had, where they did remember and know truth.

Not just the principals in this movie but all these men with lost minds movies, and there have been many... these men are searching. Men are searching for truth. Careers are not panaceas, they don't address the inner needs. And if the men can't trust women, don't have women they can look to... it's tough... maybe as tough as it is for women to get male support in the workplace. Despite the current feel of these movies, or maybe because of it, men are not portrayed in the classic macho mode, they are portrayed as gentler but lost. They are trying harder, but the link between men and women is still fragile, we're still very far apart. It costs women careers and it costs men their wholeness. It costs our society to tip macho... wars start, people contract, socially and economically.... it's all connected.

When you talk about mind control you need to ask about free will. Can someone's mind be controlled by others? Absolutely. We've all heard about the cults, several of whom have committed mass suicide & heard war stories. Demme said something very interesting in the commentary track. He said that what he learned about mind control in making this film is that you don't need torture to control someone. The key is sleep deprivation and making them uncomfortable and disoriented. Another classic mode used by the Moonies, and other cults, is to deny privacy. Without any access to their inner guides, people lose their center and look to those around them to tell them what to do... and then... they often do it. We can clearly see the danger when it comes to cults, but that doesn't happen to us, right? As I said in the reality posts (12/31/04 & 11/26/04), we often can't see things when they are too close.

I don't know anyone who has focused more on keeping in touch with intuition and center than myself, BUT, when I heard Demme say that all you really need is lack of sleep.... so much came clear. When my kids were young, the combination of pregnancy and childcare, and my marital situation, left me extremely sleep deprived for many years. Although I'm usually very protective of my alone time, that's just impossible as a diligent young mom...so, no privacy either. For many years, I was a good mom, but I was not really myself.

In a way, it absolutely is brainwashing. It has all the attributes, and the fact that it may have been a good and right and extrememly common choice does not change that fact. However, as the film so wonderfully highlighted, there is always a kernal of truth that survives. Our core never leaves us. It can feel like a recurrent dream, as in the film, or an unidentified longing or incompleteness. Sometimes we barely see, hear, feel it, BUT, it never leaves us completely. God never leaves us completely, we just stop listening sometimes. I was very lucky. I walked into a band room one night, and the music & other things brought me back. It would have happened anyway, though maybe not so Tsunami-like.

It's not just the men that are lost, it's all of us. The constant backgound soundtrack of our lives fills us with so much noise and so little silence. How many of us understand the value of spending time to just connect with our inner voices, thinking about who and where and what we are? Most don't dare do that, because it will cause them confusion, or, they might have to make changes, and people fear change. I did. We focus on this exciting and demanding world of coworkers and family members, who all want something from us, and media constantly coming at us.

I was found, and then I lost it for a while when I focused on my career and law school and a fabulous love affair and then my kids. It was worth it, so they will have a chance at inner peace for their own lives, so I could experience putting others truly before myself, so I could be in full relationship to someone else, so I could learn and earn. Fortunately for me, I had built something very solid and real that I was able to call upon to find myself again. I had spent many years in my youth questing for peace, learning about psychology and spirituality, meditating, focusing on awareness etc. partially because my parenting had been so harsh. For some, all that's been built has been a career or some type of external structure and, for all the external benefit that affords, it means very little in the end compared to the inner structure of peace, love and understanding that can be built.

We all have two lines. One leads within, to God. One leads out to the material world and other beings around us. We choose how to open those lines. In my view, the vast majority of people, no matter how religious sounding, have an oil pipeline to the outside world and a copper thread to God. And, though we are not being fed instructions to assasinate, only to assimilate, we are much like the Manchurian Candidate, ever searching for the real truth and struggling to find it and communicate, knowing it's there somewhere. We feel the pull, but until we let the truth find us, there is no resolve or direction.

In my own life, I found that by listening to those barely audible messages, they got louder and I got happier. It did cause me to restrict up on the pipeline, and that does have a cost. In my case, I think probably in all, it's well worth it. No amount of social standing or money was ever comparable to the inner happiness. There is a price to pay for everything, a price to pay for inner peace and a price to pay for "success". But every great teacher we have ever had has said that it's the inner peace route, not the material route, that is the true goal. So, I'm gonna go w/ Buddah & Jesus.

Anyway, I heartily recommend the DVD, if, for no other reason, than to see the "political pundits", actually artists, discuss profound issues such as whether our culture is becoming too "gangsta", or too apathetic. Probably both, but I also think there is hope we could see another age of aquarius enlightenment-type 60's, but a slow burn, mellower thing. The 60's was like the trailer, a little peek of all to come. The real deal could start. We've got the 9/11/war/Big Co. takeover issue to mobilize folks if we could get a spark lit. We have the internet still infiltrating. I guess the wild card is the kids, you start drafting these puppies and all hell is gonna break loose, I guarantee it, cause these kids are hooked up. and their parents aren't WWII relics. We're boomers and some of us do remember.

Open the Void

2005-08-15T15:13:00.000-07:00

I had a few contenders for this one: Touching the Open, Voiding the Water . This sounds really harsh, but, in light of the most recent and most horrific natural disaster, the Tsunami, there can't be much denying.... God does not care if you die, if your kids die, if you drown in the ocean, if you fall off a mountain...God does not care. YOU care. Those who love you here, care. Your ego, that knows the material world, cares. Your body cares about pain. God cares if you learn. God cares if you love. God cares far less about your physical life than your inner life. You are part of God, you came here to live and learn and be in a body so respect nature... it is not a fucking Disney ride. It is nature, it is God, it does not care, so take care of yourself.

Open Water is a great DVD, with lots of info about indie filmaking, and I'll also discuss Touching the Void, which I saw this summer. Open Water is made by a scuba diving/filmaking plus full-time job/young kid couple, who, god help them, deserve every success, about a young scuba-diving couple who get left behind a dive boat in, you guessed it...open water. It is based on an actual incident. Touching the Void was made about two men who ran into trouble decending a Chilean peak, and the DVD features their own interviews as well as re-enactments of their ordeal.

Both real incidents, but, no reality TV here, yet. All dialogue is scripted. Although some of the comments in Void were true, like "Simon, Simon...where are you??" In the all male Void, one guy literally cuts off the dangling "friend" to fall through a chasm in the mountain. They both somehow soldier on to survival, but the real world lambasts the cutter. Out in the Open we have the loving but late couple hanging out in the ocean doing, saying, thinking amazingly little except wonder where the sharks and boats are. Needless to say, the girl blames the guy, he gets munched by sharks and who knows if someone will come rescue her in time. Too many metaphors!

We often find ourselves stripped down to our essentials, facing nothing but fear, uncertainty, your god and yourself. I have definitely found this in nature, spending weeks at a time in very sparsely populated terrain, and I've gone days at a time seeing no people at all, just nature. It is a very risky thing to do and was particularly risky for me in a beat up old car, not even checking in with people, no cell phone or GPS in the 80's. And, unlike those in the movies, and most sane people, I often travelled alone. I felt God would take care of me, and, we were close. But I must have been extremely lucky, too.

But again, it's not just when you're voluntarily or involuntarily alone, or injured, or lost in nature (I've been both of those too, definitely not fun). I think people encounter the solitary nature of their strength & soul & connection to God in many ways throughout their lives... if they choose to do so and allow that in their lives. I think I prune down every seven years or so, go through a major life change, meaning, basically, I have lost people and pretty padding from my life, and that has promted much growth, and the addition of wonderful new people and lessons. But, pruning is cutting, it hurts.

I think the lesson we should take from these films, other than respect nature and connect yourself to God, is - how to choose our paths in life, make decisions that will lead to our true growth and happiness. The two films highlight two routes, based on differing circumstances relative to choice and control. On the mountain, the guys, if they just kept moving, could at least see which way was down. Direction was clear, the only issue was whether they could move through the pain. Real life rarely offers such clear direction.

In the open water, there really was nothing they could do. The only boats were very far and current was pulling them. Talk about afloat. They had each other, and their love., but no clear direction. In their case it was more about how to accept their fate than fight it, or strive toward it. It's like the cliche dorm poster (which I hope is in the public domain sinced I don't remember the author), but it's true;

God grant me the courage to change what I can,
The peace to accept what I cannot change,
And the wisdom to know the difference

I find it so sad to see people trying to change things they can't, like other people. Or, to see them accepting situations they could extricate themselves from.

Even the most seemingly powerful among us stand helpless to many things and even those that seem the weakest do have power in their lives if they choose to exercise it. We all answer to God. As Dylan said "You gotta serve somebody". The externals we see are meaningless compared to the inner workings of people, who face death and sadness and joy and love and confusion and choice with compassion or selfishness or awareness or obliviousness. That's what was on view for us in these films and we can see the same attitudes and choices in those around us, it's just a bit harder to make out without the starkness of life and death staring us in the face.

It's a big wide world out there, if the fishy sharks don't eat ya, the human ones will. Make peace with the fact that no matter what the life around you, it is filled with dangers, like all others, and it is up to you and you alone to make your life filled with learning and loving. Focus on the experience of your life, your real life, as you live it, and yet, vision the direction you want to go, when you can.

And, last lesson here, face your fears head on. Those cast adrift had to. You can probably ignore yours, most of us just avoid things that challenge or scare us. I guess everyone fears change to some degree. But, if you can't strip away the padding and face your fears, you're dodging your own life and power. You're on the run. You shouldn't need a catastrophe to address your own life, but, that is too frequently the case. It's often not till we face our own, or a loved ones, mortality that most of us test our mettle and learn those hard lessons, figure out what life is really about. By then it's often too late to make our lives what we would have wanted them to be. This is not a dress rehearsal. It is your life. Live it! While you can.

Slideways

2005-08-15T15:12:00.000-07:00

Playing at the Aquarius, Sideways confused me at first, particularly the title, till I visualized it. I see the outgoing actor character pulling Paul Giamatti's dead weight character like a ball & chain, sideways, along the ground. The two childhood friends are travelling up the coast, through Los Olivas, which is a little wine region near Santa Barbara. Giamatti & the two women they meet are wine aficionados & from what I heard from a vintner at dinner last night, the dialouge was very authentic.

Anyway, the two guys approach life in opposite ways. One is a confident risk-taker who wants to have some big fun before his impending nuptials & the other is basically scared of his shadow, resistant to everything except his ex-wife, who's majorly moved on, until the end where he does finally open up a bit to a woman and shows some balls on a caper to help his buddy.

I do feel sorry for the flaccid folks of the universe. How do they stand such boring lives? What do they think at the end...wow I made a million meals and now I don't have to make any more... nice life, thanks god. I remember as a child asking my grandmother what was important to her and she actually did say food. Why do so few people really live their lives? I don't get it, I never will. I guess it's fear of risk. Some seem compelled in life to avoid pain & therefore risk. Others have more confidence in their ability to handle pain & adversity and put the need for security below the need for growth and excitement.

I'm sure heaven/nirvana will be very peaceful and happy, and many folks seek that peace on earth. That stuff is important to heal pain. I've cried tears here, many, they were salty and real. The material world is so changing and amazing, filled with imperfect and interesting people. I am exactly where I want to be, doing exactly what I want to do.

But I felt sorry for this little man. I hope the daring actor will have some positive effect on his life... it looked like it did, at least for a while. Do the boring ever get better on their own, or do they just latch on to a live one for their once-in-a-lifetime ride.. always being pulled sideways instead of unfolding in an upward or expansive ripple of risk? You can't sub out growth. No amount of money or fastening of oneself to another, or to a church or a social group, will give a person the understanding & connection they seek in life. It's a road we each have to travel alone.

This film is the subject of an upcoming discussion group at my church, where, I assume, the issue of various moralities will arise. The actor guy not only seeks to and does cheat on his wife-in-two-days-to-be, but he leads on and lies to one of the women he cheats with. I think most people would agree that's immoral & Giamatti doesn't really do anything overtly wrong except break and enter to retrieve his friends wallet containing the super-special wedding rings.

Jack is definitely about excitement & comes off as immoral, yet I sympathized and identified far more with him than the half-dead Miles. The lying crap, I hate. But, his overall attitude is far more appealing to me. I wonder if my church friends will see it the same way?

I wonder if they will notice the more subtle immoralities of the understated, underalive one. For example, he's the one who lets on that Jack is about to be married. Ooops... did that just slip out, did I just betray my friend? Was I trying to protect someone here, was I trying to be honest with this woman or was I jealous of my friend and secretly wanted to see him (literally) busted? Either way, the guy takes no responsibity, and even lies to Jack that he did not bust him. What about the immorality of not taking responsibility for yourself, hiding from your life, lying to your friend? I believe he also lies to the woman that he is a published author when he's not.

For me morality has to do with honesty, authenticity, taking responsibility for everything you can and dealing the best you can with the rest. People are sometimes so ashamed of honoring themselves or even just standing up and being themselves that they become some sad, buckled version of themselves. To me, that disrespects the unique person God created and is therefore immoral.

Parents do need to sublimate themselves to their children to an extent and sometimes people need to appropriately put their own individual needs below that of others in working or possibly even social situations, or in marriages. I'm not Ayn Rand here glorifying some self-absorbed lifestyle. I'm just saying that we need to accord our inner spirits the same respect and dignity we afford anyone else, and Miles' dishonesty, not only with others, but himself as well, makes his moral shortcomings more significant than Jack's in my opinion.

irobot

2005-08-15T15:09:00.000-07:00

1984

Is this supposed to be a take off on iBook, iPod etc.? Is Apple the new HAL? The director & writer certainly do talk about HAL on the DVD, mostly about the various personalities of Frankenstein's monster, HAL & VIKI. They are all created by men, only to take on a personality of their own, with their own agendas, even feelings, the real, human kind.

Of course this theme has been explored often in film and story from Pinocchio to Millenium Man. The role of man creating something in his own image has always interested us. And, almost always, the thing turns on us.

I discussed the Man vs. Machine theme earlier in this blog (11/8/04) while discussing Bob Zemekis' Polar Express. But this is more like Man Makes Man-like Machine. As we come closer to being able to replicate ourselves, can we doubt that we ourselves have been replicated by something higher, in his/her image? And, have we turned on it, the way our creations turn on us?

In the film we have the war-like robot Trojans, the super-smart feminine and idealistic yet all to robotic VIKI and humans who trust the machines and those who don't. In the human, non-human and probably even inhuman worlds, we all have our roles. What could be less human than the proles and Party members of 1984? Just because you're human, doesn't mean you're a human being. Humanity can be stripped from us, even as we more accurately make machines human.

So, obviously we have the technology to make replicates of ourselves that are physically stronger than what God gave us. We've all heard of bionics. Who's smarter? Last time I checked, we were. No one has been able to make a computer who can beat a chessmaster at the game... if that's the test.

Now, I don't know many human beings who could tell me 10k websites on the internet with the word "Imagine" on them, as Google can. But then again, I doubt any computer could write the song Imagine. Can we imbue robots with feelings? That one has definitely been explored, in all the stories mentioned. But, can we imbue them with creativity? With judgment? With compassion? Has our own creator done that?

Though humanity can be replicated to an extent, the creations, at a certain point develop free will. What is humanity without free will? Nothing. It's a necessity. We had to be imbued with free will in order to be made in God's image. And lots of us make very bad choices with that free will, we've all hurt others, we've all hurt ourselves. But, that's part of the deal. We do have free will, we do have to make choices and we do have to live with them.

People get so scared of that responsibilty sometimes that they just don't exercise it. They wait for things to happen. They don't realize that waiting is a choice, sometimes a very expensive one. Most people I talk to have no real vision for themselves, their own lives, not to mention their town, country, world, or sometimes, even their kids. The one "vision" I see is folks wanting to be rich and give their kids what they think it takes to be rich. But, that's pretty limited, I mean in vision, not in prevalence.

During the tsunami, the animals escaped... almost every single one. Stupid humans went into the retracting sea but the animals got the hell out of dodge. Did God give them sensors he didn't give to us, the ones he supposedly loves the most because he created us in his own image? Why would God do that? Did he expect us to use our wondeful Sensoria sensors... the ones we made with our big brains?

Or did God give us sensors some of us didn't use? If I saw that ocean retract I would have cleared the beach. I never had heard it was a waarning sign of Tsunami's, but I know nature enough to know that a huge movement like that implies something big and ominous. Nature is yin/yang, action/reaction, ebb and flow, what goes in comes back out... what goes around comes around.

Some of us aspire to be more like machines: diligent, efficient, unemotional, these characteristics are among those most richly rewarded in our society. I aspire to be more like God. Original, creative, spontaneous, compassionate. I hope to develop those internal sensors, and help others to see the humanity within. We shouldn't turn our backs on our creator, when we do, we fear, we misjudge, we live less than human lives.

It's a personal challenge for each of us to find that happy medium between the demanding high-tech world and the inner one of spirit, but, as we see in all these films, humanity is demonstrated as love and compasssion.

Garden State Dynamite

2005-08-15T15:07:00.000-07:00

Garden State

Talk about your ironic epithets, for those of you unfamiliar, NJ is to NY what NV is to CA. It's where you go when you can't get in the other place. And it's portrayed beautifully, as it is in Napoleon Dynamite, two lush, gorgeous films. Napoleon had the easier time of it, with all the colorful 70's kitsch. To do that with rainy garbage dumps in NJ takes talent.

Then again, taking that Iowa farm stuff like cow udders and corporate chicken coops (definitely would not like to play the game there), into the mainstream, as Napoleon did, takes guts. These 20-something-slice-of-life-sensitive-boy films have been doing quite well, as Brothers McMullen did. Well, most of the movie audience is young male.

God knows, I'll be lucky to get my film sold to the O channel. But, I do like the fact that toned down films, without violence or much CG, are doing well. It opens the door for post-bust-valley-mid-slice-of-life films.

Garden State was written, directed & starred in by Zach Braff who must have gotten quite a leg up from Scrubs & found himself a nice rich sponsor (see my previous post). Seems like they had a nice budget. It's about a guy who, at 26, catches on to Daddy's game, confronts him, takes responsibility for his life, gets off the meds & guilt trip Daddy put him on & goes out to make his life. He even gets the lovely, yet, as she said in her own words on the commentary track "merely acting", Natalie Portman, whose film experience outweighs his tenfold.

I find it quite inspiring to watch people say, as the guy in this case did, literally, "This is it, this is my life." Personally, the actress in me always adds, this is not a fucking dress rehearsal. This is it, your actual life. The interesting part, to me, is that, you don't just do that once. In fact, I think many people never say that.

No game is ever won while you're still playing it. Until you cash in your chips, you are still in the game. As long as you're breathing you need to keep reminding yourself that this is your life and if you're not happy, change it. Yes, Zach & Natalie walk off into the glaring JFK sunset (sunrise?) at the end. But I think the young ingenues may realize somewhere down the line that, as Eminem would say, you need to keep cleaning out the closet.

I haven't learned an actual new lesson for a long time, yet, every day is a learning experience cause you meet new people, have new experiences (hopefully) and have to apply new stuff to the same structures to make sense of it. Here's a good example. I worked at a big law firm, lots of competition, the game, you know, the whole bit. Then, when I got to a certain point with the mommy stuff it was like, wait a minute, this is just like Wilson (except you don't see it coming till it's too late) except we have to cater everything ourselves and we don't get paid. Live and learn.

Little Black Reality

2005-08-15T15:05:00.000-07:00

Little Black Book is a fluff vehicle for the up & coming Brittany Murphy. It was surprisingly thought provoking, mostly cause it explores reality TV, which I continue to find interesting. It seems we have an unabating appetite to watch real drama and I do wonder what this feeds in us.

Brittany works for a Springer-like show and is manipulated by a producer, played by Holly Hunter, into providing some very real and public drama, during which people are hurt and embarrassed. Of course it was all considered high entertainment, not only by the audience, but, by the producer who manipulated everyone and hurt real feelings.

Even as the ruse unfolds and people show pain, Holly cares only about the entertainment value. I understand the impetus to an extent, it is her job and function. I've directed plays, films, done interviews and tried very hard to bring out emotion and depth for the sake of entertainment.

Playing with people's minds and emotions though... that's very disrespectful, and that's where you're supposed to draw the line. I don't think entertainment value, even for millions of people, should be considered more important than people's real feelings. Once you get to that point, you've forgotten what reality is. And maybe that's a great lesson that can be drawn from this little fluff; in constantly blurring the line between reality and entertainment... we get lost and confused between the two.

Holly seemed to have all these special rules and phrases which conveniently made some things truths and some things lies. Omissions were definitely lies in her (little black) book, yet she manipulates Brittany through them. It's very hard to evaluate honesty and morality sometimes. It is all relative. I know honesty has always been important to me because bullshit is a waste of time and energy. Sometimes you have to work to find it.

It's sad in a way, people are very jaded and sceptical these days. Sometimes it seems like people hardly know what real feelings are like anymore, unless it's their own pain, that's always real. Though, I guess people also get out of touch with themselves, identifying but not understanding their feelings. Many people create drama in their own lives, causing real pain to themselves and those around them. Perhaps this stems from an unconscious need for excitement, escape, control and/or a blurring of real & unreal.

It seems to be a part of our evolution as a species that we seek increasingly realistic dramatic entertainment. I find this whole concept fascinating. Evolution goes only one way, I think (hope) we're not going back to eating with our hands, cause forks are easier. Most improvements are that easy to appreciate... wheels, fire, sliced bread... you can see why those inventions beat their predecessors.

But, why the evolution toward the desire to watch real drama? It's more satisfying. Drama, all art, is supposed to mirror reality. Maybe it's not evolution but trend. After all, painting got increasingly realistic until the technology allowed us to the level of a hyper-real Vermeer only to have realism bashed to pieces by the Impressionists.

Anyway, the real reality of this film is that Hollywood puts such a premium on youth in women that the cute little ingenue was supported by two Oscar-winning actresses, Holly Hunter and Kathy Bates, not to mention Grammy winning Carly Simon. Tell me another industry where 20-something girls get 100 years of top talent experience working for you?

Friday Night Fights

2005-08-15T15:03:00.000-07:00

This film was sort of a male consciousness-raising for me. Needless to say, my awareness of sexism & racism doesn't need much heightening. If you just joined us, you can start with my 1/20/05 post. Anyway, I guess the guys are just as hard on each other as the girls.

This film was about the Permian HS football team's '88 season as they ran for a sixth state championship in a row, and the importance of HS ball in West Texas where the friday night lights shine on 20k fans. I can relate in some ways. I went to Massapequa HS on LI, where boys football & basketball drew thousands who all paid admission and bought snacks sold by 9th grade "JV Chiefettes". Sport was not quite the way out the way it is working class towns. Massapequans were willing to fork over 1/10 the value of their homes every year in property tax to pay for the lily white schools & sent lots of kids to the Ivies, but, they loved their jocks, that's for sure.

I was a cheerleader for three years, very competitive, girls cried their eyes out, it was announced over the PA in some big fucking deal every year. There were only twelve spots (unlike the dozens on the football team), anyone else who wanted jock stature had to try out for Chiefette, one of a very long yet, very good kickline (like the Rockettes, only better). We got our own singing cheerleader bus to every away game, and there were many. Our teams usually made playoffs, sometimes state.

I even wrote a column in the town paper about the HS jock scene. It was the party scene, huge jock parties of 500 kids every non-school night. It was pretty fucking wild. After high school I never saw a live football or basketball game again. The attraction eludes me for some reason, maybe because I was a jockette. I know it turns a lot of women on, maybe it's just the bods. I need some kind of brain in there. Anyway, I do understand how jocks are idolized, believe me. Let's not even go to the Kobe thing.

In this movie, there were some real pressures on these boys. Boobie was a cocky illiterate who came an ACL tear away from Hammer-like success, but ended up " a dad". I might be heartbroken for the guy but he was too cocky to learn and paid the price. Sorry your lottery ticket didn't pay out but that's what it's like in the world of high entertainment, it's all or nothing.

Others had to live up to Daddy's image. One guy had a dad who did win a state championship and wanted to relive it through his son. For lots of these HS jocks, their senior year in HS is as good as it gets, life is pretty much downhill from there. They were working class and worked hard to escape Odessa the one way they could. They ended up learning some hard lessons.

It reminds me of this story my friend told me about a conversation she had with a colleague, who had climbed pretty high, at least during boom years, and wanted to again and he goes, "Laura, there's only one way out for a guy." and then he draws a big dollar sign. In other words, girls can use their baby pass, but guys can't. They need a big cash payout.

It's true in a way. I took my pass. I enjoyed it. I still do. Just don't tell me there's no trade-offs, ok? First of all, it was the most stressful job I ever had in my life. Second, cash is cash. It's the only way out for anybody. The "pass" is just some cheap pay for a tough, thankless job. Around here, money is equity; land or stock. Those are the only real passes.

And I guess you guys do fuck with each other a bit too, I've seen it. The testosterone is fresh to me now but I can see where it might be a drag when you reach a point in your life where you want to be more than just a drone. In some ways I think being a woman is a fuller experience of life, it's like having less shock absorbers. That can be good and bad, and sometimes I do envy mens' little corpus callosums. Other times I feel sorry for y'all. Do you even know how fun life can be? I've cried lots of tears but I've also felt incredible joy & I wouldn't give up the latter, even if it meant avoiding the former.

In the end, the men are just as trapped into their roles as the women. In my own life I've met cool and full people, who go much deeper than stereotypes, of both sexes, but, they're very, very rare. Most would rather go watch their young men knock heads while girls cheer them on.

Sell You Are

2005-08-15T15:01:00.000-07:00

Cellular is a good example of movie much enhanced by its DVD. It's a thriller, not a particularly good one... sort of a single lane plot like Speed. It doesn't even rise to the level of psychological thriller, which at least indicates some mental activity by someone in the film.

But, one of the bonus features went into this whole concept of what the cellular phone is doing to our society. It's been around a while now and I guess I never gave it that much thought because I keep the phone very much at bay in my own life. I'm sure this will clarify a lot for many of you who haven't already figured that out.

But, I do notice more and more people mindlessly blathering on cell phones while in public, restaurants, stores... almost no place is safe, even airlines are now talking about allowing them en route. They already are on board, just at those jacked up rates, but those phones came in pretty handy for those on hijacked flights on 9/11.

There's a huge trade off. We're never going back to the past. Those phones have saved many lives. But, a generation of kids is growing up with a very limited sense of privacy or downtime, and that's a shame. With VoIP, we'll be constantly at the umbilical line off some cell. It will be up to each of us to create our own limits.

Marshall McLuhan called the phone a hot medium, and it's becoming less so. Hot means condensed, your cues are all coming into your ears. I guess that's why I avoid it. I really like to see the facial expressions & body language to get a read on someone. I was a communications major in college, the first one my school ever had and we learned about meta-language... all the communication that goes on besides the actual words. The words themselves are like 2% of the total message

So, now we have cells everywhere, phones omnipresent, yet the more conversation takes place, the less is actually said. A guy on the DVD gave an example of a woman (always a woman, right?) who was actually narrating a walk down the street, "now I'm in the bank, now I'm in the deli", fascinating stuff huh? Don't you wish you were the lucky hubby on the other end of that call?

In the film, the lovely and spirited Kim Basinger has been kidnapped by crooked cops looking for hubby's tape of their killing fun. She gets some hottie on his cell & he proceeds to do every maneuver taught in stunt driving school all over LA. I would have glossed right over this angle had it not been for the highly informative bonus feature on the real life scandal in LA Ramparts Division which ultimately resulted in the conviction of many detectives.

These guys practice justice on the roughest gang terrain around and they live by their own set of rules. They mete out justice with almost no oversight from the community or LAPD, which parsed them out to their own little fiefdom. They were selling mucho drugs on the street and pocketing the cash, lots of it. The killed and framed at will.

This is the background of Mark Furman, OJ framer. As OJ said, "You can believe they framed a guilty man or an innocent man, one or the other". I believe they framed a guilty man, the guy should have fried. But, that's what happens when you have a city with out of control cops who get videotaped beating a black guy and then get cleared by Simi Valley socialites... fear of payback.

The shmucky Brentwood cops got overruled by LA who wanted the trial to be brought downtown to avoid another nasty riot. Bowing to social pressure they ended up with a predominantly black jury, who, as we found out so clearly, after the trial, live in a very different world from white Americans, and know all to well that yes, dozens of police will lie.

It's a code cultivated the same way in fraternities, businesses, PTA, partnerships, social clubs in Stepford, Survivor Island, DC.... if you want in, you say the right things to the right people, you play the game and you play it well and you get in on the special group that has all the nicest homes and coolest jokes and handshakes. And once you're in, that's your family, your homies... you don't turn on your own, right? The end justifies the means, right?

Vanity Fair

2005-08-15T14:59:00.000-07:00

Thackeray's classic slice of mid-nineteenth century English life, which was, at the time, flush with the color of its colonies in India & China has been beautifully fleshed out by one of the few females entrusted with a major studio film. The producers, star & most of the crew were also female. I'm not aware of another film of this size so predominantly female.

So, of course the film's about Vanity, right? Interestingly, the dictionary defines vanity primarily in terms of uselessness, as opposed to self-absorption. From what I understand, the vanity examined in the story is that of the times, at least as much as the protagonist, Becky Sharpe.

She lives in interesting, colorful times and rises from nothing to a life filled with interest, excitement and comparative wealth. I guess some interpret her strictly as a social climber, interested in nothing more than money. I see her as someone guided by a strong will and inner direction that propels her forward and those around her are drawn to that. Maybe I'm coloring her with my own brush here but I see her as motivated by a desire to enjoy her life experience, not a desire for stature.

I think people interested in stature make very different choices, they choose their friends on the basis of the type of connections provided, rather than how interesting they are. They choose stuff on the basis of what it says to others as opposed to what it actually looks & feels like. The vain may make empty choices, but not in vain, they are filled with purpose. The purpose is to get to that next rung on the social ladder.

Apparently, Becky Sharpe was the inspiration for one of my favorite literary characters, Scarlett O'Hara, another feisty girl with, as they say, "pluck". I read Gone With the Wind as a young woman, long before seeing the film, and was impressed with Scarlett's passion, determination, originality, loyalty & honesty. I saw the film recently and this time was struck by the vanity of Scarlett. Not her conceit, which is probably more of a well-deserved confidence anyway, but the vanity of her love for Ashley (as in "loved in vain").

She loved him fully, honestly and passionately, never wavering, her whole life, even though she was attractive to almost every other man but him. He seems so strong and fine to her and she can't, for the life of her, understand what he sees in the milquetoast cousin he's been arranged to marry. She attributes it to duty for decades, only to find out, at the end, that although he admires Scarlett's strength, he sure as hell doesn't share it.

That's a lot of time and energy and love to waste, and served as a bit of a wake-up call for me. In the end, maybe Scarlett was undone by the very loyalty and inner direction, I, and others, find so appealing. After all, Ashley rejected her a number of times. But, it was like she just wouldn't hear it, couldn't believe it, too attuned to her own voice, which was attracted to him. Lesson: Listen!.. especially when people tell you who they are.

Maybe she just couldn't comprehend why someone she perceived as so dynamic would be attracted to someone so passive. And, that combo has always mystified me, even though I've actually spent far more time than I should have in a relationship with a passive man. In my case, I had a really in your face mother and I guess I felt life would be a lot easier with someone with a mellower style. But, in the end, I respect inner strength, and when you really get to know someone, you start to distinguish what's real strength and what's adherence to outer rules or religious phrasing.

So, yes, I admire and relate to Becky and Scarlett. I think one of the DVD commentators summed it up best, saying something to the effect of, there are mavericks and adventurers in every society who figure out how to sort of ride the wave and make the society work for them. Social surfers....not social climbers. The climbers get to their little peak, which is lonely (it's lonely at the top). The surfers are far more connected to the wave, they ride it out, not getting overtaken but not directing either. You can't direct the wave, just enjoy the ride.

Ray

2005-08-15T14:57:00.000-07:00

Again, a very aptly entitled man and movie (that's why I didn't twist the name in the title). The blind guy is a ray of light. Talk about your inner direction. I guess that's what it takes to be a ray of light in this world. I could pretty much end the post there, cause, that's it. But, the man had an incredible life and career and I'd love to comment on it. The film gave me an appreciation for his music I never had before.

Ray's music has been around for a long time. He predates rock music, not that I've ever considered him a rock musician, or would even put him in any one category. Like Alicia Keys, he pulls from many different pools. We'll never see anyone cross so many lines again.

I mean, really, a black country singer? He was equally comfortable with the blues,soul, R&B, gospel, rock & roll. Bridging gospel with "the devil's music" was sacrilegious in those days, and he had the courage to do it anyway. He had an amazing, emotional voice, equally comfortable with deep resonance and falsetto clips. I guess when you're a complete original, marching to your own drum, it extends your range. He fought against being trapped into boxes, musically or otherwise. No one told Ray what to do, that's for sure.

Moreover, the man beat heroin cold turkey and never looked back. He was blind but he promised his mom he would never be a victim. So, he focused on his talent and brought it to great heights. At the end of the film his mom returns to him in withdrawals delirium to point out that he is a victim, of addiction, and his drive toward freedom propels him out of it. He was one strong guy, used to walk around NYC, any town, alone, with no cane. Never a victim.

The film clearly illustrates Ray's lack of sight leading to an enhanced sense of hearing. But the blindness probably also contributed to his "sense of god", if there is such a thing. Or whatever you call that inner voice. Artists, essentially, are paid to listen to that voice, unlike so many of us. And Ray did listen, even though many voices are constantly coming at famous, important people. Through the voices of money loving managers & everyone else, Ray backed out of playing before Jim Crow segregated audiences... at the last minute.. but, he did it, at great financial cost, and Ray was an astute businessman. Heroin or no, he was sharp and kept his fortune, donating over $20M to charity in his lifetime.

The man had his demons. He was no angel, he certainly enjoyed not only the access to drugs his fame offered, but the access to sex. His wife basically accepted it and they had a long stable marriage. He had a lot of hard breaks, a lot of sadness, a lot of challenges. It's his overcoming of them that makes his life interesting to watch. Anyone want to watch the movie of W's life... now Bushie gets his silver spoon... here's his first oilwell... here he is in his Skull & Bones hat, here's Daddy's friends giving him money, here he is sending boys & girls to die, here is walking to "Hail to the Chief". What struggle did the man ever overcome, what demons did he face, what inner tune does he listen to? I'll take Ray any day...heroin addiction, womanizing and all.

I know lots of people who seemed to come from basically "good" upbringings. They all think they're great and seem to have no conception that anyone else could think otherwise. They're almost all boring and they have very little empathy or sensitivity... or even awareness. Most of them also have very little going on internally/spiritually. They're PC (politically correct), but you can tell when that's all it is.

I know others from more challenging beginnings and I tend to have so much more respect for these folks. They, almost to a person, have more depth and compassion. One of the reasons I turned to god early on is because there was pain there. I started developing that relationship (with god) early in life. If your childhood is just hunky dory Palo Alto perfect....well, at least now I don't have to worry about my own. This divorce stuff has definitely caused them to grow up a bit too soon, but, there's a lot to be said for having to deal with pain, and emotion, early in life. It builds skill, the skill of dealing with pain. It's something we all have to do sometime in life. I am definitely NOT recommending pain for kids, cause it can also make it very hard for them to achieve & focus. But, I think a certain amount of challenge, early in life, can "build character".

Anyway, Ray, a dirt poor illegitimate southerner, dealt with major pain, losing a brother at age five. He suffered guilt all his life for having stood there watching, frozen, as his brother drowned in a bucket. He lost his sight nine months later. Without that pain though, would he have that depth in his voice? Would his music and life speak to us the same way? Britney Spears has led a charmed little life. What does her "art" say to you.... what can it say to you ever? She wants to be like Madonna, but Madonna lost her mother early in life and her father put her in some harsh Catholic trip. She overcame all the indoctrination to own her own sexuality and her own artistic identity as a scrappy, optimistic, driven dreamer.

Unlike Britney, Ray was far more than a great performer. He was an artist and an inspiration. He will be missed and I look forward to seeing him honored at the Grammy's (I believe it's Norah Jones & Elton!) and at the Oscars.

Day Without A Mexican Rap

2005-08-15T14:56:00.000-07:00

What a title for a movie,
sure makes you think,
a day without a Mexican
surely would stink.

The film was funny,
the message is not.
These are great people.
We need them a lot.

One day they're all gone
was a selecting virus used?
It took all the "right" people.
Was our trust abused?

Makes you wonder about a virus,
came along in the eighties.
Reagan had been in there
and he loved some haters.

A virus was spread.
It killed all the "right" people.
Society changed.
We went right to the steeple.

We got Baker and Falwell,
a Religious Right.
Look at them now.
Their boy is in the White

So, check out this movie.
It's campy and cute.
And think about things,
next time you eat fruit.

When Will I Be Loved?

2005-08-15T14:54:00.000-07:00

Neve Campbell blew me away with her last film, The Company. Halfway through the commentary track which she narrates with the legendary director Robert Altman, it becomes apparent that the project was Neve's and she brought him in. She's a trained ballerina, the highest of highs in the world of dance, and she was one of the only actual actors in the film which was a fictional story of a ballet company. All the dancers, however, were a real ballet company and they basically accepted her as one of their own. To command the respect, not only of someone like Altman, but a ballet company, with which she dances, is a huge accomplishment for a young woman in Hollywood, whose main resume item was Party of Five.

So of course I was very interested to see her in this film, and I was not disappointed, although her role was limited to acting a very interesting part. She plays a confident, very bright, artistically savvy, adventurous, sexually aggressive New Yorker. Since this is a character I have absolutely nothing in common with, I couldn't relate to the film at all. Actually, at the end I really couldn't. Turns out she had no heart.

Remember, I've got the two buttons, the "Romantic Idealist" and the "Hardened Cynical Bastard". But, you can't be either. It has to run that line between the two. If you get too cynical, you lose your heart and you're over. Too oblivious and glosssy and you're just out of it. You need to be aware of what's going on, just try to shed some light & take it higher. Once you get vengeful, and greedy, as she did, your mental state sucks. Then you, and everyone around you, loses.

To me, an idealist is not someone who sees the world with rose colored glasses but someone who sees the overall evolution of the world's community in a positive way. Yin/yang requires both positive and negative forces, which will always be with us to some degree. However, the world continues to evolve in a positive direction, in that, we deal with the material world in a way which will provide a better, more comfortable, healthier standard of living for more people and we are connecting up mentally... slowly, but surely.

Anyway, in the film, Neve ends up feeling exploited, or maybe just dislikes the attitude of the guy she's dating or whatever & at the end fucks him over so disproportionately... it really kind of makes you wonder how/why she got that cold and vindictive and greedy. At the end, the character just didn't make sense to me, and the film, while beautiful & interesting, fell apart. Yeah, the guy was pimpish, setting her up for a big take, but Neve plays a woman fully in charge of her sexuality and it just didn't make sense that she would be so threatened by the behavior.

I guess her main motivation was greed. She was selfish and spoiled, and, as they went into it on the commentary track, sort of a man-hating lesbian who just needed a good stiff one every now and then. Come to think of it, this woman is on a different track from me completely. I did explore the girl thing in college, but, after that Hayser housewife deal... let's just say I've had enough female energy to last me a good long while. Sure, guys can be a hassle, but, they have what it takes to complement and compliment me. I love their muscles and pep and lack of drama... I love their interest in me, and in the world in general.

So, check out the film, if only for the sex scenes. And remember when you watch it, we're not all man haters. I think men who truly love and appreciate and understand women are pretty rare, and visa versa. I do love men though. And maybe that's why they like me too, I can relate to them, appreciate them. So many women simply attract men, all they really offer up is their bods, and for lots of men, that's plenty. When men and women avoid the boxes and roles and traps, the blend is the best. I don't know how the same sex relationships can offer the same yin/yang dynamic or opportunity for growth and expansion. I'm not looking for someone just like me... one is enough. I'm looking for my male counterpart.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Diaries

2005-08-15T14:53:00.000-07:00

A motorcycle, thousands of miles of open road through amazing landscape, adventure... not to mention Che Guevara... gee, nothing for me to like or relate to there....

OK, let's take them one by one... bikes, love 'em, recently buzzed through the foothills on the back of my friend Stan's bike... too fun. As to the road trip, I've taken many. Most were longer than the five thousand miles covered by the young (28 yr. old) Ernesto Guevara and his friend Alberto Granada, who is still alive today. And yes, as Ernesto points out, they are open ended, improvisational adventures. You never know what's around the next bend, that's what makes them such great learning experiences.

The point of the film is to show how this experience shaped Che Guevara into one of the most influential, important revolutionaries of our age. I love and admire all revolutionaries, from Jesus to Shawn Fanning. But Che is up there at the top because of his awareness, his ability to communicate the message, his effectiveness and influence, but most of all, his heart.

Like Gandhi, Mother Theresa & Michael Moore, his compassion shined through above the anger and made him that much more inspirational. It's a fine line for revolutionaries, because that anger has to show too. I also love those that can use humor and theatrics like Ken Kesey, Jerry Rubin & Abbie Hoffman, or music, like Jerry Garcia. It's easy for revolutionaries to become negative and talk all about problems and fighting. The problem is that most people are small and selfish and think about their own lives, not global change and abstract issues.

Revolution for the masses must be phrased in positive, concrete ways. Otherwise you end up like the shmuck I referred to in my last post, who couldn't make the connection between societal trends and their own little world. I mean, if a professional writer can't handle it, what hope is there for Mr. & Mrs. Bridge listening to Barry Manilow in Oshkosh? They might care if you took away their VCR or told them our freedom and flag are jeopardized, or maybe they'll only care if you try to take their gun, that, they enjoy.

The title of this post is taken from the classic 1974 book, by Robert Pirsig, which accompanied all my road trips, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It shows, well, the zen of motorcycle maintenance (and Ernesto and Alberto could have used some knowledge of that out there) and being on the road and living your life. Zen, the road, life... it's all the same. I mean, artists, including myself, have always used lots of road imagery to express the long and winding nature of life. I could come up with 10 Dead songs right now, from Truckin to the Golden Road, and another 10 Beatles songs.

Seems like lots of the movie road trips these days are outlaws on the run, like Thelma & Louise, or freaky, like Wild Thing. This film showed the road trip for what it really is for most who take them, a journey into the unknown. You trust yourself, your vehicle, and maybe a companion if you have one. Everything else changes from day to day, new landscape, new people, new perspectives and ideas. The constant is you, so you really get to know yourself, and your capabilities and perspective, well. That's the big beauty and benefit, it's difficult to show that on film.

This film did a great job of that though. By showing the trip of someone we are familiar with at a later point in his life, we can look at this trip and keep in mind the man that Ernesto becomes... he becomes Che on the road. And though we never really see Che in the film, we see Ernesto growing from man to legend. We see his heart and mind expand with each new vista and town full of people.

Those people Che fought for were people he met, and ate with and touched. I've not only seen the physical landscape of this country, I've spoken to people all over it, Europe too. I can easily understand how that type of experience could bring out the revolutionary impulse of a person, particularly when the people one encounters are in need. We see Che's awareness rise as he encounters the migrants and the way they are treated. It's still the same today, check out A Day Without A Mexican (2/11/05 post).

Being among people, having to, essentially, live off them, as is shown here, is true travel. Not this vacation/leisure stuff, though I've done that up too, bigtime. Real travel is like what I did in Europe in '81. Just a small pack and a few thousand dollars I'd worked long and hard in a deli to earn. I wish I'd known I wouldn't need it. I stayed in one hotel, the first night, in London. Some old matron barged in my room at the crack of dawn "to clean". For the next three months I spent about $20. on lodging (total), most of that on a hotel roof in Athens with every other kid from around the globe.

Now, I had none of the cache these young doctors did. I was continually blamed for Reagan, who scared the living shit out of these people, whose parents had been bombed out twice before "by US", and for Chapman, who had just killed John. But, my point is, it's only when you depend on the kindness of strangers that you really learn about them. I was just friendly and people invited me to stay, usually for days. Living with them, I really got to know them. It was a great experience. Yes, there are crackpots out there, you need to have great awareness while on the road. But people should not be afraid to go out there and encounter life. Life entails risk. Without risk and openness, there is no learning, no revolution.

BTW, the diaries are real. Che's daughter found the motorcycle diaries and didn't know they belonged to her father until she read them and discovered his wonderful adventure...I recommend the film, and diaries, and adventures.

Cleopatra

2005-08-15T14:52:00.000-07:00

Talk about your road flicks... this one was sort of like The Motorcycle Diaries, which I just reviewed, but, instead of two Argentinean doctors on a bike in '52, this was two Argentinean women in a car, who were as different from each other as, yes, I gotta say it, Wife Swap.

One was a young, beautiful actress, on the verge of stardom who felt stifled by her Tommy Mottola-like manager/hubby. The other was this vapid old woman who seemed to have absolutely nothing in her life except some decrepit husband and her kids, who she lived for, but, who were living their own lives. She had a pretty lively imagination, but, that was it.

So, off they go, the girl to get out from under Svengali and the lady I guess for her last shot at something more exciting than watching hubby lay in bed. This was the lady's big break, to see this star as just a regular girl, and get to be brought along for an adventure. At the same time, the girl got nurtured, more for herself, like a mother-daughter thing.... very symbiotic.

You know, not many people have the balls to go out and adventure. Most won't even ride shotgun. But, those who do... they do have a little wild side... you've got to give 'em that.

Raise Your Choice

2005-08-15T14:51:00.000-07:00

The title refers to my 12/7/04 post, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Externally Enhanced Denial. Both these films came out last year and it's a mystery to me why Sunshine garnered so much more attention from the Academy than Huckabees... word is, it's too abstract and conceptual. Sunshine required viewers to remember only one abstract concept - people can forget. This one coughs up more philosophical theories than Will Durant. Anyway, the two films are like opposite sides of the same coin and scream for intervision comparison.

They also represent trends in films that analyze and explore reality like Memento & Being John Malchovich. More recently, as in Butterfly Effect & Big Fish, the trend is to use composing CG in more mundane backgrounds. I believe Forrest Gump was one of the first films to do this. In this one they had some great Picasso/Brach-like effects of reality breaking up into cubes that provided a great visual theme for the film. Film is the medium most like reality and suits this kind of exposition beautifully, visually showing the nature of reality.

So, in Sunshine, we have the Dr. Pangloss Protestant approach to life, the guy wants it all nice & superficial & goes in for the mini-lobotomy. Jason Shwartzman's character, Albert, is not looking for repression but answers. He wants to understand what connects these disparate experiences and feelings that compose his life. So he turns to the dynamic duo of Lily Thomlin and Dustin Hoffman, who demonstrates the interconnected nature of the universe as explained by almost all the Eastern religions by using a blanket. They then follow him 24/7 to find his answers.

The service is far more than most psychologists today provide, most of them require the patient to verbally expose their lives and only step in to observe if the law requires it to protect a child, as with social workers. However, patient reportage is highly subjective and the advisor is at the mercy of the exposition they receive. I went for counseling after my divorce, just to see if it would help. I knew far more than the counselor, at least about my own life, she spouted the usual stuff about helping me see what I wanted.

That's what they do, help people see what they want or need. Fortunately, my best friend of twenty years knows me well and is constantly upping herself, she's a noted psychologist herself, running a growth and leadership center. Thank God I have her because it is not easy for me to find people who can understand me. There's so much going on in my life and mind, it's too overwhelming for someone who hasn't been kept up to speed.

Anyway, back to the two films, I'm sure you're expecting me to compare the two approaches, and I will, but, only one is a philosophy. The other is a neurosis. The reason I compare them is that I believe most people employ repression and denial as a de facto philosophy because they've never bothered to develop a real one. They fail to understand the need for one. I've met so few people who can speak about their lives in such a way that shows an understanding of how their life experiences, particularly in childhood, affect their day to day decisions & positions or how all of that plays into a larger goal for their life, much less the world. Along with the gloss and denial goes a smallness of mind.

Now, don't think I haven't tried. I've put together a number of consciousness-raising type groups, including one at my church which lasted for years and dozens of women from the church attended at one point or another. We explored our faith as Christians and got pretty philosophical, and also revealed more of ourselves than we were typically allowed. Since this is a Congregational Church, "one step away from the Unitarians", it was very liberal in terms of the doctrine, barefoot & pregnant stuff, but still, I would say the primary focus for the moms was their families and not larger issues. It's the same with the men, only it's more about jobs, tech, sports.

I look at it like this. Cameras can have a close up lens or a wide angle lens. So do we. We need to pay attention to the daily reality, especially when we're driving cars, but, also when we're driving ourselves. There are kids, colleagues, demands coming at us constantly, endlessly... one thing after the other. Is each thing totally separate? In a way, yes, each probably demands a certain amount of our time. In other ways, no. It's all connected, if in no other way than it's all coming in to our mind. Because time is limited though, I like to use it efficiently.

When you take the time to construct the paradigms and understand the bigger picture, the wide angle lens, you know where to put stuff, so that it's there when you need it, but don't have to carry it around all day. You don't end up wasting your life looking at the small stuff only to get to the end and wonder if you chose the right course or what it all means. And when some challenge or issue or new idea comes my way, I know where to find the answer and connection that will give me comfort, direction and understanding... something denial can never provide. In my physical and mental homes, it's organized.

As to the last part of the title, Clash of the Titans, the Titans are the two basic world-views. There are six major world religions and as many philosophies as there are people. This film accurately portrays the thinking of many of the world's great philosophers. As you can tell by David Russell's commentary, they guy knows his shit. It's a virtual smorgasbord of ideas about the ultimate nature of reality.

But, there are only two basic views; God or no God, order or chaos, meaning or coincidental occurrences. This is different from denial, some people are more than willing to look at the unsavoriness of life, may relish it, but still not believe in any greater consciousness or interconnectedness. Where others see God, they see an absence.

Whereas the vast majority of us believe in a higher power, at least when asked about it, nihilists & existentialists are focused in the present and tangible. They can deal with some abstraction, but not as much as someone who can focus totally on the present as well as the theoretical superstructures at the same time. That ability is more like the gurus and yogis, monks and nuns, who attempt to do both simultaneously but often need very simple lives to do it. Zen also focuses very much on experiencing your life fully as you live it, but sees a higher order.

Anyway, I could go on like this all day, and used to. I spent many years very deep into philosophy, meditation, Eastern religions, communes, exploration of more conscious ways of living and thinking. In the 70's there was a big push into this self-help stuff that we now take as part of the landscape. Attention to Eastern thought in the West grew out of the music and drug scene, particularly when the Beatles got interested in the Kesey/Dead scene and went to India to visit Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. This was no dry philosophy class but very experiential in every way. Philosophy is useless as an academic exercise, which is how most people learn about it and continue thinking about it. An active philosophy is like what the Christians call the living Christ or living Bible. It's something that guides your everyday experience.

I liked the fact that the characters in this film, weird as they were, took the time to question and look at what was happening in their lives. The purpose of a good belief system is that it can provide great comfort, direction and inspiration. But, it's important to keep that belief system alive by paying attention to your feelings. Sometimes people set it and forget it. They've got the church, the structure, the routine going, but you have to keep resizing it or it can start to constrict.

Sometimes the bigger picture shows us who really supports and loves us. Often those closest to us want to keep us in a certain place, the place they found us, a place that is convenient for them. They know us and love us and we want to deliver... but, at what cost. Sometimes the cost is a compromise of who we are and what we need.

Other times, we seem to be at odds with someone, but realize ultimately that the conflict or itchiness spurred us to where we needed to be. In both cases, the picture looks very different depending on the perspective. That's why it's important to talk to others about ourselves, our lives, and get real with others... to get perspective.

I (") Huckabees: Externally Enhanced Awareness or Clash of the Titans?

2005-08-15T14:50:00.000-07:00

Riding Giants

2005-08-15T14:47:00.000-07:00

I thought this would be a drama, like Blue Crush, the fabulous modern day Gidget. But this is a documentary, highlighting one of the longest running subcultures, if not countercultures, ever. Whereas the Beats were prompted by writers Ginsberg and Kerouac, who, in many ways defined the ethos, and the hippie movement seemed to also flow out from the art community with writers like Kesey and Tom Wolfe to heighten and define it, the surfer lifestyle long predated the art form, and these other subcultures. There was a cohesive, sun, fun-loving culture around southern California's waves about as soon as the boys came home from the war.

Now when you've got sunshine and skimpy clothes and tans and waves and fun-loving kids, right near Hoolywood... well, it didn't take long for someone to capitalize on that. Gidget was a huge hit that propelled the surfing scene from a few thousand to a few million in 1959. It spawned a long spate of Beach Blanket, Frankie Avalon/Annette Funicello hits. The heyday was '65-'69 when the Beach Boys promoted and provided the soundtrack for the scene, like the Dead did for the hippies.

It's very much a subculture in the sense that it is a lifestyle, people can be fully immersed in it as a way of life. But, it has a self-limiting feature in a way. Surfers are not looking to build anything, they're not trying to change the world like the Beats, hippies, communes, cults, religious communities and almost any other type of subculture you could name... they just want to catch a wave. They're not driven by ideals, or even ideas, other than to enjoy life in a way most of us dare not.

And actually, at this point, surfing has become a somewhat codified sport with it's players and hierarchies. Last time I was in Laguna I had a long talk with someone about the surfing scene which can be less than pretty because there are lots of surfers, and a limited amount of waves. They are not seeking to expand their ranks.

Now, talk about your testosterone, these guys are pretty far out there, especially the big wave riders, which is the subject of this film. I grew up a few blocks from the ocean and went there all the time, especially in HS, and even though I'm pretty adventurous and have great balance... it's a bit much for me. I've been churned in the ocean enough times to fear it. These guys are wailing down 80' mountains, often almost vertical cliffs, that are, essentially, chasing them. The strength of mind and body required to do it is greater than any endeavor I can think of.

But, that's the rush they look for. The risk, not to mention skill, is huge, but so is the payoff, the thrill of a lifetime. It's a bit like The Right Stuff, shedding some light on the mindset of people who are willing to live life on the edge. They are willing to face their fears and the awesome, uncontrollable ocean every day. These people are centered on living their lives to the fullest, finding out what they are made of, in the face of God's true expression of power, not making money. They know what it's like to be fully present in connection with God, because, that is clearly what it takes to ride those waves. I really respect that.

There is a real brotherhood, I only saw one female surfer in this whole film (and I guess women don't have "the right stuff" either). The attitude these guys have toward each other is different from the mountain climbers who do not feel particularly compelled to rescue each other, it's sort of every man for himself. But, with the advent of towing into waves, the surfers all take extreme risks to pull their buddies out of gnarly sets of successive breaking waves. When they lost one of their own, they all lined up their boards in memorial. So, check out this fantastic indie film, which was bought by Sony at Sundance. It's chock full of fascinating info on a little explored sport/lifestyle which has had a big influence on the American psyche.

Something The Lord Made

2005-08-15T14:46:00.000-07:00

These days when stressed out, beer-bellied men get a little chest pain they go in for a quad bypass and get another 20 years. In the 40's they died. Alfred Blalock is the doctor who performed the first heart surgery, turning Johns Hopkins into the preeminent hospital in the country. By figuring out how to turn a vein into an artery he saved babies that were turning blue and dying. Thing is, it wasn't really him that figured the thing out. The man who made the critical leaps that allowed this miracle was a high school educated black man named Vivien Thomas.

In the thousands and thousands of papers written about this procedure, Vivien Thomas has only been mentioned twice. He was finally awarded an honorary doctorate after working at Hopkins teaching the technique he pioneered for 50 years, but was relatively little known. His brother, who fought for equal pay for black teachers in the 50's, is even less known.

Blalock received one accolade and award after the next throughout his lifetime and I'm sure he worked diligently. But he took all the credit for something he did not achieve alone, and may never have achieved at all, had it not been for Thomas. I guess the classic story of the white guy taking all the credit is Sir Edmund Hillary, who could have never climbed Everest without his Nepali sherpa, Tenzing Norgay, a name you've probably never even heard before.

The interesting part, to me, was the psychology of people who are allowed to do this and the sense of entitlement and the rationalization and denial they may, or may not have lived with. Blalock never demonstrated any type of guilt or remorse, or even awareness, for taking the spotlight while the guy who made his fame possible had to enter Hopkins through the service entrance and use the ladies room when there was none for "coloreds only". Do people like that feel any understanding of how much their skin color and anatomy buy? Had it not been for the color of his skin, his life would have been filled with the type of struggle and degradation his partner felt every day.

Having to push that knowledge down every day has got to exact a cost somewhere, sometime. Here's how I look at it. Life is about learning. Blalock didn't learn. He enjoyed. But, that's not enough. Thomas learned... or did he? The guy never really quite learned to value himself or stand up for himself. Their portraits hang next to each other at Hopkins today. So, in the end, I guess they both got their due.

It sure makes you wonder about that sea of white male faces that is credited with Western Civilization. How many of the great leaps in thought and innovation came from similarly uncredited sources? My guess is LOTS, starting with Jesus, who was not white but was co-opted to the point where almost any white person, any person, thinks of Jesus the way he was portrayed by Renaissance painters. Vivien, precisely because of his lack of education, was able to see things the doctor had lost touch with. So much of our education is a deconstruction of what we already know. So much intuitive knowledge is squeezed out of us through the "education" process. Most great leaps forward occur when technological, higher thinking is matched with basic, intuitive knowledge.

Dr. Andrew Weil has done much to alert the public to the toxic nature of almost all our drugs. The drugs we use to cure often do exactly the opposite. A childhood friend of mine was recently diagnosed with MS, so they gave her drugs and now she has leukemia. Another friend was recently diagnosed with breast cancer and now has to have her body toxified for the next nine months. Perhaps modern medicine would do well to look toward simplicity and connection to nature. The problem is, you can not patent Something the Lord Made.

Alfie

2005-08-15T14:45:00.000-07:00

Some people spend a lifetime with their noses to the grindstone in order to have a happy life... or at least a happy retirement. Alfie lives in the present. He's attractive to women, he enjoys them. He seems the epitome of the carefree bachelor, just out there enjoying the benefits of looking like Jude Law (who often takes these facile roles), until he changes and starts to find it very superficial, sorry and sad.

The original took place in early mod London, this one in NYC today and the remake is definitely updated, especially in terms of the women, who come off as more self-posessed. As a guy with no kids, or real family or ever having even experienced commitment... that is kind of empty, and I can see where someone would get into their thirties and wonder if they'll ever have those things.

For me, it was important to have kids. I would never have wanted to live my life on earth bypassing an experience like that. You can duplicate a lot of lessons in other ways, but, there is no replacement for having relationships with children you have raised. So, I can see where any person could get to a point in life, even if they've been in a committed relationship, where, if they haven't had kids, would feel a certain emptiness, no matter how great their life was.

For Alfie, in the original, a woman he impregnates has an abortion, right in front of him, and the movie has an unforgettable scene where he literally looks at what his choices have wrought. In this version, he meets his mixed-race infant and the mother basically tells him he's useless and unwanted, which isn't any better. The other thing he has not built for himself is a career.

More than just having kids though, the movie explores a man who has enjoyed a lifestyle for so long that he never even experienced what it means to be in a long term committed relationship. And that is also a loss, in and of itself. Both of these experiences, parenthood and marriage, test us, challenge us, take us outside of ourselves and our naturally hedonistic self-absorbed little worlds.

What I have found though, is that you can also go too far the other way. After a while you can get so used to that self sacrificing that you forget you even have a self, which needs respect as much as anyone else. I mean, right now, I'm defintely Alfie. But, I don't find it old or empty or sad at all. Because, I have two kids, I've had a long-term marriage, I've known self-sacrifice, believe me. Once you've had all that, the Alfie lifesyle, I feel is not only appropriate, but extremely enjoyable. It's kind of shown in the Susan Sarandon character.

So, what's it all about, Alfie? Is it just for the moment we live? Sometimes, hell yeah. Too much of anything is bad. Too much hedonism - bad. Too much diligence and self-sacrifice and immersion in what we should do instead of what we want to do... also bad, just as bad.