I went to a panel discussion of film critics at the Coolidge Corner Theatre tonight. They had some well known critics including several I've read in the Boston Globe and Entertainment Weekly. Parts were interesting but it took a while to get good. Tonight's session was Introduction to the Current State of Film Critics and since it started late, the first hour was really an introduction to how these critics got introduced to criticism.
Most seemed to write from an early age and many started as music critics. I wanted to ask how many had formal training but didn't get a chance to. It wasn't at all clear from their answers. Most cited Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris as influences.
They discussed the distinction between reviewing and critiquing. Reviews are meant to be read before the reader sees the film and critiques are read after. In the reviews I've written I've struggled with this distinction. It's certainly not easy to describe enough about a film to talk about it without giving things away. And for some films I've wanted to write criticism (like I did with the Sopranos finale) but I figure my readers prefer reviews. I'd love to hear feedback on this.
I currently read very little about a film before seeing it. I usually depend on aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic to determine if I want to see a film, and then after seeing it I read reviews I find via imdb. I do this because I find trailers and reviews typically give away too much. The panel complained about trailers and said that studies have shown that audiences prefer trailers that give away too much.
I was very surprised to hear some of them writing in the mainstream press say they wanted people to read their "reviews" after seeing the film. Several described their self-imposed rules about giving things away which seemed pretty reasonable. However several then went off about spoilers and how at sometime you have to be able to talk about them. I stand by my comments from 2 years ago on the topic that spoilers are fine as long as you mark them and there is no statute of limitations because it's rude to ruin things for younger generation. If you want to write criticism to be read after people have seen the film, mark it such and give away anything you want. Usually when I read reviews after seeing the film I'm frustrated that they don't talk enough about the film.
They also spoke (and almost argued) about the effect of editors on their work. Certainly the print publications are feeling more space pressure. The space devoted to reviews is less that it was. Some complained about editorial influences on reviews but only one admitted to it actually happening to them and then it was only once. That example was for Fahrenheit 9/11 and after finding out she was writing a negative review, the editor had another reviewer write a positive one to run along side hers. While that is annoying, it didn't change her review. Some also complained about not being able to write about their favorite obscure movie vs some mainstream blockbuster of the week. Others recognized the limitations of the job. It struck me that editors were doing their jobs of, you know editing. It also struck me that the critics who were going on and on tonight could have used some editors.
They were very happy when one questioner mentioned that when they read a review that referred to an old film they weren't familiar with, they would order it from netflix. One lamented the decline of the theater experience but really appreciated that smaller films can get a larger audience. One commented that perhaps the long tail economic theory would help to employ film critics. Their other comment about the internet is that more and more people are becoming critics since anyone can write a review. One lamented that people without a knowledge of film were doing so. I'll admit to taking a bit of offense at that, particularly after so many said they started out writing reviews for themselves or small publications.
Overall it was pretty good and I appreciated the opportunity. I'll try to go to the two sessions tomorrow, if I can figure out where to park in Coolidge Corner, it's not easy.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
The Useless Internet Knowledge Quiz
I don't know as much as I thought. On The Useless Internet Knowledge Quiz I only scored 45%.
Movie Review: Michael Clayton
The reviews for Michael Clayton all say it's a movie for grown-ups with really strong performances. I agree with that. They also say it's a great film but I'm not so sure about that. I think it's better looking back on it than it was sitting through it. Though that might be influenced by the woman sitting near me in the theater wearing way way too much perfume.
George Clooney plays Michael Clayton, a "fixer" at a high powered law firm. While some describe him as miracle worker, he describes himself as a janitor that cleans up messes. He deals with the shadier parts of his clients' and firms' problems so he's not a partner in the firm. Rather he's the goto man of Marty Bach the firm's head played by Sydney Pollack who always seems to play a morally compromised man in charge. The firm is a representing U/North, an agrochemical company in a class action suit. Tom Wilkinson plays Arthur Edens, one of Clayton's friends and colleagues who has been on the case for years and Tilda Swinton plays is U/North's legal council Karen Crowder. When Arthur goes off his meds and his actions threaten the case, Clayton is assigned to fix things and Crowder has to make sure her company is protected.
So that's the plot, but in an odd definition of that word, that's not what the film is about. The film is well titled as it's about Clayton. He was a good prosecutor who became a good litigator and then found he was a great fixer. He's divorced and regularly sees his young son. He's had a gambling problem and tried to open a restaurant with his brother who had a drug or drinking problem. That failed and now he owes $75,000. Clayton seems at the end of his rope. He doesn't like where he is in life and unlike his cases, he doesn't known how to fix his life.
My issues with the film stem from the fact that we don't see Clayton's problems as much as we're told about them. E.g., we don't know anything about his divorce. It could be he worked too much, or his gambling or maybe he had an affair or anything else. Perhaps it doesn't matter, but we're in the same situation for all aspects of him. We don't know about his gambling problem, just that he had one. We don't know about the restaurant, just that it failed. We don't know about his parents or siblings, just that his brother had a problem. The film's arc is not about Clayton but about the end of the U/North case, even though we see it mostly through Clayton's involvement.
Michael Clayton is written and directed by Tony Gilroy. It's his first directing job but he's written before, mostly notably the three Bourne films. The film dives into the middle and then flashes back to 4 days prior. The first 45 minutes or so require a lot from the viewer to piece together who's who and what's going on. A lot of the conversations don't have nouns, just things like "Are we going to do this thing?" What helps is that the performances are all really strong. Clooney shows on his face all the struggles Clayton is going through. it's subtle, he's not the most emotive character but it's all there. Wilkinson has a showier role playing a manic depressive off his meds. He straddles the line of brilliant lawyer or crazy person very well. Swinton also has a juicy role as a nervous executive practicing her spoken lines and crossing the moral ones.
The story might be a little over the top but just a little. It could be something you read about in the paper and all the characters come across as real people, not mere characters. I think one reason people like this film is that no one is stupid. It's about smart people in complex and difficult circumstances. Unlike for the vast majority of films made today, there's no eye-rolling involved in watching Michael Clayton and no suspension of disbelief needed. That's not something to be discounted. But I would have liked more background on Clayton, perhaps seeing more than merely 4 days of the story. I don't need to be spoon fed but I don't like having to assume everything about a character; particularly in a character study. Stories about lawyers selling their souls for their careers (that is for money) are almost cliche, to do it well you need to bring something more to the table and not just make your viewers fill in the details how they want (that sounds like my issues with the Sopranos finale). Michael Clayton is clearly a good movie that deserves its 90% Rotten Tomatoes rating, but I'm not so sure about reviews that say it's the best movie of the year.
George Clooney plays Michael Clayton, a "fixer" at a high powered law firm. While some describe him as miracle worker, he describes himself as a janitor that cleans up messes. He deals with the shadier parts of his clients' and firms' problems so he's not a partner in the firm. Rather he's the goto man of Marty Bach the firm's head played by Sydney Pollack who always seems to play a morally compromised man in charge. The firm is a representing U/North, an agrochemical company in a class action suit. Tom Wilkinson plays Arthur Edens, one of Clayton's friends and colleagues who has been on the case for years and Tilda Swinton plays is U/North's legal council Karen Crowder. When Arthur goes off his meds and his actions threaten the case, Clayton is assigned to fix things and Crowder has to make sure her company is protected.
So that's the plot, but in an odd definition of that word, that's not what the film is about. The film is well titled as it's about Clayton. He was a good prosecutor who became a good litigator and then found he was a great fixer. He's divorced and regularly sees his young son. He's had a gambling problem and tried to open a restaurant with his brother who had a drug or drinking problem. That failed and now he owes $75,000. Clayton seems at the end of his rope. He doesn't like where he is in life and unlike his cases, he doesn't known how to fix his life.
My issues with the film stem from the fact that we don't see Clayton's problems as much as we're told about them. E.g., we don't know anything about his divorce. It could be he worked too much, or his gambling or maybe he had an affair or anything else. Perhaps it doesn't matter, but we're in the same situation for all aspects of him. We don't know about his gambling problem, just that he had one. We don't know about the restaurant, just that it failed. We don't know about his parents or siblings, just that his brother had a problem. The film's arc is not about Clayton but about the end of the U/North case, even though we see it mostly through Clayton's involvement.
Michael Clayton is written and directed by Tony Gilroy. It's his first directing job but he's written before, mostly notably the three Bourne films. The film dives into the middle and then flashes back to 4 days prior. The first 45 minutes or so require a lot from the viewer to piece together who's who and what's going on. A lot of the conversations don't have nouns, just things like "Are we going to do this thing?" What helps is that the performances are all really strong. Clooney shows on his face all the struggles Clayton is going through. it's subtle, he's not the most emotive character but it's all there. Wilkinson has a showier role playing a manic depressive off his meds. He straddles the line of brilliant lawyer or crazy person very well. Swinton also has a juicy role as a nervous executive practicing her spoken lines and crossing the moral ones.
The story might be a little over the top but just a little. It could be something you read about in the paper and all the characters come across as real people, not mere characters. I think one reason people like this film is that no one is stupid. It's about smart people in complex and difficult circumstances. Unlike for the vast majority of films made today, there's no eye-rolling involved in watching Michael Clayton and no suspension of disbelief needed. That's not something to be discounted. But I would have liked more background on Clayton, perhaps seeing more than merely 4 days of the story. I don't need to be spoon fed but I don't like having to assume everything about a character; particularly in a character study. Stories about lawyers selling their souls for their careers (that is for money) are almost cliche, to do it well you need to bring something more to the table and not just make your viewers fill in the details how they want (that sounds like my issues with the Sopranos finale). Michael Clayton is clearly a good movie that deserves its 90% Rotten Tomatoes rating, but I'm not so sure about reviews that say it's the best movie of the year.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Interview with Lawrence Lessig on Corruption
Lessig is known for having working on copyright reform for the last 10 years. He recently announced he's shifting his effort to corruption reform. This seven and half minute interview explains it all nicely.
Who Leaked the Bin Laden Video?
I still want to know Who Leaked the Bin Laden Video?. TPM's article from last Wed describing how Dana Perino kinda implied it was the Director of National Intelligence before back peddling and his denial is the latest I've seen.
Verizon Shares Your Call Data Unless You Opt-Out
Gizmodo reports Verizon Wireless Shares Your Call Data Unless You Opt-Out. Call 1-800-333-9956 to opt-out. IP has info here. I don't really understand this but I opted out.
Gore Derangement Syndrome
Paul Krugman in the New York Times on Gore Derangement Syndrome. It's a good quick read, but here are some conclusions:
"The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right...Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy."
"The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right...Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy."
Scientists Unravel Health Benefits Of Garlic
Scientists unravel health benefits of garlic "Now US researchers say they have figured out precisely why the pungent clove makes such a valuable health tonic: it boosts the body's own production of a compound that relaxes blood vessels, increases blood flow, and prevents blood clots and oxidative damage."
Team Fortress 2
I've never heard of Team Fortress 2 (or even 1) but it seems to be a video game that is an Incredibles take on America's Army. Windows only but I might be convinced. Here are 8 minutes of combined trailers. Hilarious.
Recent Torture News
Think Progress reports on CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson who quit in protest of the Bush administration’s torture policies. Apparently CIA Director Michael Hayden has started an unusual investigation into Helgerson.
The New York Times had an editorial condemning Bush's policies. "Truly banning the use of torture would not jeopardize American lives; experts in these matters generally agree that torture produces false confessions. Restoring the rule of law to Guantánamo Bay would not set terrorists free; the truly guilty could be tried for their crimes in a way that does not mock American values. Clinging to the administration’s policies will only cause further harm to America’s global image and to our legal system. It also will add immeasurably to the risk facing any man or woman captured while wearing America’s uniform or serving in its intelligence forces. This is an easy choice."
Andrew Sullivan pointed me at this account of a reunion of WWII interrogators. "'We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,' said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.'"
"I am deeply honored to be here, but I want to make it clear that my presence here is not in support of the current war," said Weiss, chairman of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy and a human rights and trademark lawyer in New York City.
"During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. "We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity."
FYI, the interrogations took place at a secret installation in Fort Hunt, VA that went only by the designation "P.O. Box 1142". 4,000 POWs were questioned for days or weeks before being registered with the Red Cross, which violated the Geneva Conventions. "During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. "We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity." In addition, none of the interrogators have mentioned anything about their top secret work until a few years ago.
Meanwhile William Quinn was a US interrogator in Iraq just a couple of years ago and he's already compelled to say Never forget that our enemies are human, too "I suspect that, when we are successful, it will be because we recognize our enemies as human and develop plans that recognize their humanity. We need to be tough, and we shouldn't back down from a fight, but we also need to learn that empathy can be as powerful a weapon as missiles."
The BBC reports not on US torture of terrorism suspects but of inmates of the US prison system. "Our findings were not based on rumour or suspicion. They were based on solid evidence, chiefly videotapes that we collected from all over the U.S. All the lawyers I spoke to during our investigations shared Carlson’s belief that Abu Ghraib, far from being the work of a few rogue individuals, was simply the export of the worst practices that take place in the domestic prison system all the time." The videos are horrible.
The New York Times had an editorial condemning Bush's policies. "Truly banning the use of torture would not jeopardize American lives; experts in these matters generally agree that torture produces false confessions. Restoring the rule of law to Guantánamo Bay would not set terrorists free; the truly guilty could be tried for their crimes in a way that does not mock American values. Clinging to the administration’s policies will only cause further harm to America’s global image and to our legal system. It also will add immeasurably to the risk facing any man or woman captured while wearing America’s uniform or serving in its intelligence forces. This is an easy choice."
Andrew Sullivan pointed me at this account of a reunion of WWII interrogators. "'We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,' said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.'"
"I am deeply honored to be here, but I want to make it clear that my presence here is not in support of the current war," said Weiss, chairman of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy and a human rights and trademark lawyer in New York City.
"During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. "We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity."
FYI, the interrogations took place at a secret installation in Fort Hunt, VA that went only by the designation "P.O. Box 1142". 4,000 POWs were questioned for days or weeks before being registered with the Red Cross, which violated the Geneva Conventions. "During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. "We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity." In addition, none of the interrogators have mentioned anything about their top secret work until a few years ago.
Meanwhile William Quinn was a US interrogator in Iraq just a couple of years ago and he's already compelled to say Never forget that our enemies are human, too "I suspect that, when we are successful, it will be because we recognize our enemies as human and develop plans that recognize their humanity. We need to be tough, and we shouldn't back down from a fight, but we also need to learn that empathy can be as powerful a weapon as missiles."
The BBC reports not on US torture of terrorism suspects but of inmates of the US prison system. "Our findings were not based on rumour or suspicion. They were based on solid evidence, chiefly videotapes that we collected from all over the U.S. All the lawyers I spoke to during our investigations shared Carlson’s belief that Abu Ghraib, far from being the work of a few rogue individuals, was simply the export of the worst practices that take place in the domestic prison system all the time." The videos are horrible.
More Frontline on Cheney
Frontline debutes a new episode tomorrow Cheney's Law. "For three decades, Vice President Dick Cheney has waged a secretive, and often bitter battle to expand the power of the presidency. Now in a direct confrontation with Congress, as the administration asserts executive privilege to head off investigations into domestic wiretapping and the firing of U.S. attorneys, FRONTLINE meticulously traces the behind-closed-doors battle within the administration over the power of the presidency and the rule of law."
Spencer Ackerman say sin TPMmuckraker "Readers of Barton Gellman and Jo Becker's Cheney series, "Angler," will be familiar with a lot of this material...But that's not to say that Frontline doesn't advance the story. It deftly ties the Ashcroft-hospital bed incident to the appointment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the subsequent U.S. attorney firings. Much of the film's final 20 minutes presents the argument that the cronyization of DOJ occurred, with Cheney's blessing, to ensure that the department didn't balk, as Goldsmith and his allies did, over torture or surveillance or indefinite detentions. 'It was an effort by the White House to gain control of Justice,' New York Times reporter Scott Shane tells Frontline, 'to make sure there's no repeat of that rebellion of 2004.'"
Spencer Ackerman say sin TPMmuckraker "Readers of Barton Gellman and Jo Becker's Cheney series, "Angler," will be familiar with a lot of this material...But that's not to say that Frontline doesn't advance the story. It deftly ties the Ashcroft-hospital bed incident to the appointment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the subsequent U.S. attorney firings. Much of the film's final 20 minutes presents the argument that the cronyization of DOJ occurred, with Cheney's blessing, to ensure that the department didn't balk, as Goldsmith and his allies did, over torture or surveillance or indefinite detentions. 'It was an effort by the White House to gain control of Justice,' New York Times reporter Scott Shane tells Frontline, 'to make sure there's no repeat of that rebellion of 2004.'"
Photoshop Wonders
jwz points to some amazing pictures with similar histograms. See his site and follow the links.
Better Iraq Numbers
The Washington Post says "The evidence of a drop in violence in Iraq is becoming hard to dispute."
"In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 -- down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004."
Gateway Pundit has some graphs and Andrew Sullivan comments too. Protein Wisdom has a large collection of good news clippings.
As I look at icasualties.org I see that there is definitely a dip but there have been others before. Violence being down is a good thing, but wouldn't you expect that with more troops? The change in Anbar is still because we left there to surge in Baghdad. And everyone still agrees there hasn't been political progress.
"In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 -- down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004."
Gateway Pundit has some graphs and Andrew Sullivan comments too. Protein Wisdom has a large collection of good news clippings.
As I look at icasualties.org I see that there is definitely a dip but there have been others before. Violence being down is a good thing, but wouldn't you expect that with more troops? The change in Anbar is still because we left there to surge in Baghdad. And everyone still agrees there hasn't been political progress.
Water on Saturn's Moon Enceladus?
The Guardian asks Is there life on a moon of Saturn? "Dark, organic-rich material is splattering the face of Iapetus as it orbits Saturn, like a car whose windscreen is sprayed with water from other cars on a rainy day.'Dusty material spiralling in from outer moons [of Saturn] hits Iapetus head-on, and causes the forward-facing side of Iapetus to look different than the rest of the moon,' said Tilmann Denk, a Cassini team member based at the Free University, Berlin. Which moon is responsible for imposing this indignity on Iapetus remains unknown, however." Images are here.
Bill Maher Last Friday
Bill Maher on his Friday show took on lapel pins in his New Rules segement:
His panel guests were Paul Krugman, Tucker Carlson and Joy Behar. Krugman started things off well. When Maher brought up the Republican debates Krugman said "But these debates are getting better. Remember in the first debate they were all competing over who was most pro-torture. Now they're back to who's, the last one just who's most in favor of bankrupting the federal government as fast as possible. That's improvement."
I haven't really seen Tucker Carlson since the Jon Stewart episode, and having seen him now I'm really happy about that. First off, he took Stewart's advice and is no longer wearing a bow tie. One constant with Carlson was that he spoke a lot, spoke quickly, and spoke loudly. His constant rhetoric was annoying. Don't show a child who's losing health insurance because Bush vetoed SCHIP because no child can be an example. Just because the government is talking about bombing iran doesn't mean anything because the Pentagon has plans to bomb every country.
He wanted to ask Hilary why health insurance should be required for everyone. Why should the government force people to buy insurance. He thought Krugman was all about choice, Krugman managed to say "not at other people's expense". Behar mentioned what about children who can't buy for themselves but no one followed up. I wanted someone to say, fine, if you don't buy health insurance, when you should up at the hospital, if you can't pay you don't get treated. I suppose unconscious people should be treated and if they can't afford it, they become hospital workers until they pay off their tab.
I really wish Maher would stop having the Carlsons and Coulters on his show. There have to be reasonable Republicans who can make their case, right?
His panel guests were Paul Krugman, Tucker Carlson and Joy Behar. Krugman started things off well. When Maher brought up the Republican debates Krugman said "But these debates are getting better. Remember in the first debate they were all competing over who was most pro-torture. Now they're back to who's, the last one just who's most in favor of bankrupting the federal government as fast as possible. That's improvement."
I haven't really seen Tucker Carlson since the Jon Stewart episode, and having seen him now I'm really happy about that. First off, he took Stewart's advice and is no longer wearing a bow tie. One constant with Carlson was that he spoke a lot, spoke quickly, and spoke loudly. His constant rhetoric was annoying. Don't show a child who's losing health insurance because Bush vetoed SCHIP because no child can be an example. Just because the government is talking about bombing iran doesn't mean anything because the Pentagon has plans to bomb every country.
He wanted to ask Hilary why health insurance should be required for everyone. Why should the government force people to buy insurance. He thought Krugman was all about choice, Krugman managed to say "not at other people's expense". Behar mentioned what about children who can't buy for themselves but no one followed up. I wanted someone to say, fine, if you don't buy health insurance, when you should up at the hospital, if you can't pay you don't get treated. I suppose unconscious people should be treated and if they can't afford it, they become hospital workers until they pay off their tab.
I really wish Maher would stop having the Carlsons and Coulters on his show. There have to be reasonable Republicans who can make their case, right?
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Weekend
I was in NJ for the weekend and drove back on Sunday. What was normally a 4 hour drive took 7. That's what happens when they close an interstate, but i had a better day than some.
Earlier in the day we visited the Morris Museum which for a small town museum was quite fun. They have one of the world's largest music box (excuse me musical automaton) collection and are opening a new wing dedicated to it. They also had an exhibit of Steve McCurry photographs which was just amazing. You can see some of his works here. In fact the exhibit was mostly what's listed there under Fine Art Prints. My favorite was Uttar Pradesh, India 1999.
Earlier in the day we visited the Morris Museum which for a small town museum was quite fun. They have one of the world's largest music box (excuse me musical automaton) collection and are opening a new wing dedicated to it. They also had an exhibit of Steve McCurry photographs which was just amazing. You can see some of his works here. In fact the exhibit was mostly what's listed there under Fine Art Prints. My favorite was Uttar Pradesh, India 1999.
Motion to Recommit and FISA
Daily Kos has an article FISA: A lobbying (and procedure) lesson describing the motion to recommit and how it affected the FISA bill in the summer.
Al Gore
Open Left has What I Have Heard On An Al Gore Run which is the best rationale I've heard. Basically he doesn't want to go against Hilary's machinery and he'll get in only if she falters.
Meanwhile the Huffington Post makes the point that people are Missing the Real Message in Nobel Prize, it's about the climate stupid, not whether or not Al runs.
Meanwhile the Huffington Post makes the point that people are Missing the Real Message in Nobel Prize, it's about the climate stupid, not whether or not Al runs.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Krugman on the Edwards Plan
Paul Krugman explains Why not single-payer? as a solution to health care. A single payer system will take longer to pass. The Edwards plan with many similarities can lead to it eventually but more importantly can pass quickly.
Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize, and...
Al Gore won (ok shares) the Nobel Peace Prize 2006 "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." Good for him.
Now people are speculating this will push him to run for president. I just don't see this happening. In the last year he's won an Oscar, and Emmy and now a Nobel Prize (among other awards). He's doing better as private citizen then he ever did as an elected one. Why run for president?
But I did find this funny: Gore Wins Nobel--Supreme Court Rules He Cannot Accept.
Now people are speculating this will push him to run for president. I just don't see this happening. In the last year he's won an Oscar, and Emmy and now a Nobel Prize (among other awards). He's doing better as private citizen then he ever did as an elected one. Why run for president?
But I did find this funny: Gore Wins Nobel--Supreme Court Rules He Cannot Accept.
Questions About the US Budget Deficit
The economic news yesterday was that the US Budget Deficit Drops to 5-Year Low. While that seems like good news I have questions I haven't been able to find answers to. I thought the war was not included in the budget that Bush has submitted to Congress. Is the cost of this war included in this deficit or not? $162.8 billion may not seem like much of a deficit (um ok, it does seem huge) but compared to the surplus Bush inherited it seems pretty bad. Republicans will no doubt blame the bursting bubble and 9/11 but isn't cause of the difference really the tax cuts and unnecessary war? Finally Bush is proud that projects show the deficit continuing to decrease until 2012 when it becomes an actual surplus (again); but the reason it goes from deficit to surplus that year is that's when his tax cut expire. Wouldn't ending the tax cuts sooner mean a switch to surplus sooner; and yet Republicans are trying to extend the tax cuts.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
How does it feel to die?
New Scientist has a Death special: How does it feel to die? which while morbid I found interesting.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Movie Review: In the Valley of Elah
Explain to me how a movie written and directed by Paul Haggis, someone who in the last 3 years has been nominated for five academy awards and won two of them, and starring the likes of Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron and Susan Sarandon, and about the war in Iraq, can be leaving theaters after just 3 weeks? It's not playing in the City of Boston. I caught it in my suburban arty theater. Explain to me how the reviews can be mixed, usually complaining about how obvious it is and yet I think they've all missed the point?
The film dives right in with Hank Deerfield (Jones) being woken up by a phone call informing him that his son Michael (Jonathan Tucker) is AWOL. Hank says he's in Iraq but he's told his unit's been in New Mexico for a few days. Hank is a retired MP and goes off on his own to find his son. After a little bit, Michael's remains are found just off a kind of barren strip of road. Michael wasn't just killed, he was stabbed over 40 times, his body cut into small pieces, doused with something like gasoline, set afire, and left for animals to pick at. This is not a way that anyone should die. It's also not how any parent should see their child and yet both Hank and his wife Joan (Sarandon) demand to do just that.
The local police begin an investigation but the MPs quickly take over. Hank is looking into it himself and after a little bit gets civilian Detective Emily Sanders (Theron) to pursue the case despite orders to the contrary. Hank seems to have better investigative skills than anyone else. He chastises Sanders for how badly the department handled the crime scene and routinely finds leads after it seems like a dead end. He even pursues and takes down a suspect that escapes from 3 cops and requires all 3 cops to get him off the suspect.
The procedural aspects of the film are a little slow and drawn out. Hank gets Michael's damaged cell phone and is having someone restore video clips which come in one a day. A package arrives at their home that Michael sent to himself but Hank tells Joan not to open it. It's obvious to anyone who's seen a cop drama that the military is covering something up, we just have to wait for Hank to get through all the roadblocks.
And yet while it seems to play out that way, it really doesn't. Hank is wrong about things and this seems lost on most negative reviews I've seen. Sure there's an obvious theme that war is hell and has a dramatic effect on the boys we send to fight them (in one scene, explicitly pimply faced boys). But the reviews that say this is anti-Iraq is missing the point. It's anti-war because of what war does to people. Hank is old school military. He is honorable and disciplined. On the way to find his boy he stops at a school with a US flag flying upside down and teaches the immigrant responsible for it the error of his ways. He remakes the hospital corners on his motel bed. For a while I thought his only character development was that he cut himself shaving.
But there are pieces to pieced together. He strikes me as lonely. His relationship with Joan is stoic at best and there are hints of previous arguments and an inability to deal with them. Only one of Hank's friends is mentioned and they haven't spoken in years; Hank didn't know he retired 14 years prior and never mentioned that his first son died. He is gruff although mostly polite to anyone who is not military. Sanders points out he's a brilliant investigator but he's spending his time hauling gravel. In one flashback we see his son call him for help and he's completely incapable of offering any. In as much as the newly returned Iraqi soldiers can't talk about what they went through, neither can Hank. He's what they will become in 30 years.
The film is deliberately put together and the mood is glum. The colors are washed out and the music depressing; as is the subject matter. The performances are compelling. Jones and Sarandon are more obvious but Theron is excellent too. Her character isn't too smart (except in comparison to her coworkers), slept her way to her current position and as a result is disliked by her colleagues and boss. She's raising her son alone and seems a good person who gets inspired by Hank's persistence. The supporting characters may be one dimensional, but they are not Hollywood caricatures.
Those inured by too many CSI episodes may miss the point that this is not a police procedural, the last scene should make that clear. As horrendous as the murder itself is, the cause of the crime is so much worse. But sadly this is nothing new to this war.
The film dives right in with Hank Deerfield (Jones) being woken up by a phone call informing him that his son Michael (Jonathan Tucker) is AWOL. Hank says he's in Iraq but he's told his unit's been in New Mexico for a few days. Hank is a retired MP and goes off on his own to find his son. After a little bit, Michael's remains are found just off a kind of barren strip of road. Michael wasn't just killed, he was stabbed over 40 times, his body cut into small pieces, doused with something like gasoline, set afire, and left for animals to pick at. This is not a way that anyone should die. It's also not how any parent should see their child and yet both Hank and his wife Joan (Sarandon) demand to do just that.
The local police begin an investigation but the MPs quickly take over. Hank is looking into it himself and after a little bit gets civilian Detective Emily Sanders (Theron) to pursue the case despite orders to the contrary. Hank seems to have better investigative skills than anyone else. He chastises Sanders for how badly the department handled the crime scene and routinely finds leads after it seems like a dead end. He even pursues and takes down a suspect that escapes from 3 cops and requires all 3 cops to get him off the suspect.
The procedural aspects of the film are a little slow and drawn out. Hank gets Michael's damaged cell phone and is having someone restore video clips which come in one a day. A package arrives at their home that Michael sent to himself but Hank tells Joan not to open it. It's obvious to anyone who's seen a cop drama that the military is covering something up, we just have to wait for Hank to get through all the roadblocks.
And yet while it seems to play out that way, it really doesn't. Hank is wrong about things and this seems lost on most negative reviews I've seen. Sure there's an obvious theme that war is hell and has a dramatic effect on the boys we send to fight them (in one scene, explicitly pimply faced boys). But the reviews that say this is anti-Iraq is missing the point. It's anti-war because of what war does to people. Hank is old school military. He is honorable and disciplined. On the way to find his boy he stops at a school with a US flag flying upside down and teaches the immigrant responsible for it the error of his ways. He remakes the hospital corners on his motel bed. For a while I thought his only character development was that he cut himself shaving.
But there are pieces to pieced together. He strikes me as lonely. His relationship with Joan is stoic at best and there are hints of previous arguments and an inability to deal with them. Only one of Hank's friends is mentioned and they haven't spoken in years; Hank didn't know he retired 14 years prior and never mentioned that his first son died. He is gruff although mostly polite to anyone who is not military. Sanders points out he's a brilliant investigator but he's spending his time hauling gravel. In one flashback we see his son call him for help and he's completely incapable of offering any. In as much as the newly returned Iraqi soldiers can't talk about what they went through, neither can Hank. He's what they will become in 30 years.
The film is deliberately put together and the mood is glum. The colors are washed out and the music depressing; as is the subject matter. The performances are compelling. Jones and Sarandon are more obvious but Theron is excellent too. Her character isn't too smart (except in comparison to her coworkers), slept her way to her current position and as a result is disliked by her colleagues and boss. She's raising her son alone and seems a good person who gets inspired by Hank's persistence. The supporting characters may be one dimensional, but they are not Hollywood caricatures.
Those inured by too many CSI episodes may miss the point that this is not a police procedural, the last scene should make that clear. As horrendous as the murder itself is, the cause of the crime is so much worse. But sadly this is nothing new to this war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)