Mmm, books.

This guy likes him some books. I'm not as compulsive as he is (I don't have 5 copies of anything, for instance), but I can't help but admire his collection, as pictured here. I like how unfussy it is. No clear, library-style book covers on anything. Just books. But a lot to read. That's actually one of the least cool things about working again: my reading time has been mercilessly reduced. Now that "Lost" is over, maybe I can catch up a little. (BTW, wasn't that an excellent season finale?) Well, I've got to get some reading in before I hit the hay. I'm into a new thriller called "Child 44." So far, very good, and one of the most frightening books set in an oppressive, totalitarian-governed country since "1984." If you've got some extra bucks and some time, pick it up, check it out.

Some Early "Hobbit" Movie News

Back when it was news, I was disappointed to learn Peter Jackson would forego the chance to direct both "The Hobbbit" (and a second, as-of-yet untitled film that will connect "The Hobbit" and LOTR), and opt instead to produce a Guillermo Del Toro-directed version of Tolkein's children's story. Sigh.

Now Guillermo's not bad. He directed the more-than-decent "Hellboy," as well as the critically-lauded (but way overrated) "Pan's Labyrinth," so odds are he's not going to mess this thing up. But as a film geek and "LOTR" fanboy, you can't help but wish Jackson would return to the director's chair to give all five movies a kind of directorial consistency. If it ain't broke and all that. Anyway. It is what it is, and though Jackson's sitting this one out, I'm definitely interested to see the Guillermo and WETA come up with.

To that end, Guillermo and Peter Jackson recently did a webchat where they answered 20 questions from readers about the upcoming production. Some of the questions are from fans who aren't well-versed in the ins and outs of filmmaking (like the fan who asked Guillermo and Jackson, before a word of script has been written, if there would be an extended version of the movies a la LOTR), but there are some interesting tidbits about who's returning, how the creative team's going to work, and when we might expect these movies to hit theaters. But in light of the high phony-quotient in "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," I thought this exchange was interesting:

WetaHost	20 - Will you be doing less location shooting this time because your set builders, digital effects teams etc have become so proficient?
Peter Jackson	Middle-earth is location, with very few structures really. It's a natural countryside and that's where a lot of shooting will take place.
Guillermo del Toro	Location will be favored and real set construction.
Guillermo del Toro	I love REAL set construction and think that sets are very important part of the storytelling and scope of a film...

Real people doing actual things in real places. How novel. So that's heartening. But this is not a near-term thing by any stretch. Here's what they said about their schedule for production:

Dear Jesslyn - at this point in time the plan is to write for the rest of this year and start early conceptual designs. 2009 will be dedicated to pre-production on both movies and 2010 will be the year we shoot both films back to back. Post productin follows one film at a time with The Hobbit being released Dec 2011, and F2 release Dec 2012. That is the schedule in about as much detail as we have ourselves at the moment.

So about 3 years before we can buy a ticket to the first one, and 4 before the second. Jackson and New Line took their time with LOTR, so the fact they're taking it slow with these two new movies is encouraging.

Sad News

Sydney Pollack died Monday at the age of 73.

Besides being an excellent director, he was, to my mind, a better actor. Every line he delivered, every gesture he made on-screen was interesting, considered and natural. His scene in the billiard room with Tom Cruise in Kubrick's last movie "Eyes Wide Shut," for instance, was one of the best things about that movie; he felt so grounded and real in that scene that Tom Cruise came off insubstantial, lost and actorly. Pollack had been busy of late, or so it has seemed watching him turn up on TV (as the disgraced surgeon in the last season of "The Sopranos"), and in the movies. Just last year he showed up as the tough, workaholic corporate lawyer in "Michael Clayton," delivering fantastic lines while making them seem as though he'd just thought of them. And there wasn't one second in that movie where he came off like a guy in his 70's (or his 60's for that matter), so news of his death (and his age!) comes as something of a shock.

Update: Here's a short and sweet look back at Pollack's career by the excellent A.O. Scott.

Bush Movie Casting is Now Complete

A big casting decision was announced recently by the producers of Oliver Stone's upcoming Bush biopic probably, but I don't think definitely, entitled "Bush." Shotgun-wielding Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney (seen below)
















will be played by 70's-era throwback Richard Dreyfuss (seen below)
















And in case you missed Entertainment Weekly's exclusive first look at Josh Brolin in his George W. get up (which includes W's distinctive lost/pissy expression and makeup), take a look:



















Not too bad. Looks a tad on the skeletal side though. Having seen and been unimpressed by Oliver Stone's recent efforts (didn't see "World Trade Center" though. How was that? Didn't look too good.), I'm not sure there's cause to be hopeful about this movie, particularly since it's being crashed through production so people can see the movie before the election, but I feel like if any formerly-great film director's due for a comeback (even of the one-movie variety), it's Stone.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" Reviewed

Here's a sign of how diminished my former film-school era enthusiasm for movies has become: I didn't even know the new Indiana Jones movie came out this week. All along I'd been thinking it comes out next week. Sure, I'd fully planned to see it when it came out on the 28th, but knowing stuff like that is a big part of being a true-blue movie nerd. When I received an IM from the wife yesterday saying it was already out, and then another IM listing the day's show times at our local AMC, I found myself wondering when precisely had I become the middle-aged guy who doesn't know about the movies playing at the multiplex. If that doesn't quite describe me yet, give me another year or so and it'll describe me to a goddamn T.

Anyway, I was unexpectedly but happily able to see "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" tonight at my usual place for filmed entertainment exhibition, and I have some thoughts I'd like to get down while they're still fresh in my head.

And yeah, this is going to be one of those reviews that's going to deal in spoilers (and be long and annoying), so to those who have not yet been exposed to the wonders of "The Crystal Skull", please read no further until you've seen the movie. The come back so you, too, can be bored and annoyed by my review.

[SPOILERS BELOW!]







Ok. It's just us.

Right now I'm struggling to decide if "Crystal Skull" is the third or fourth best Indiana Jones movie. (Fourth best would, of course, make it the worst.) Right when I think I'm about to make a decision on that score (like just now, when I was thinking it was definitely the worst), some other piece of evidence comes to mind that makes me reconsider (like Short Round and the Prince's voodoo fight in the caves beneath the palace). So for now the jury's out, but I know "Crystal Skull" doesn't lay a glove on "Last Crusade", and I know it's not in the same ballpark as "Raiders."

I think "Crystal Skull"'s biggest problem was that it was trying too hard. Perhaps with the expectations this movie was carrying, it was impossible for two ambitious, reputation-minded guys like Spielberg and, ahem, Lucas, to chill out and make an Indiana Jones movie. Instead they attempted to outdo everything they'd done before with these movies and, in so doing, created something that feels forced and obligatory. There are definitely great things about this movie, but I think some of its excesses really brought it down to where I'm not sure I'd recommend this movie.

Worst thing about the movie: Shia LaBeouf as Tarzan. Ouch. When I saw this awfulness happening right in front of my eyes, one word came to mind: "Lucas." I'll move right past the whole everything-Lucas-touches-turns-to-shit argument which I think, at this point, we could all take a pretty good hack at, and get right to why I think it is that everything Lucas touches turns to shit. It's because he misremembers his own films, and why they work. To him, the first three Star Wars films were intended for little kids who liked the space-age whiz-bang and the funny costumes; the only reason those cute little Ewoks weren't running around eating Happy Meals and singing Barney songs through all three movies wasn't because that would have been stupid, but because it just didn't occur to him. Of course the "Star Wars" films were appealing on levels beyond the comprehension of a 3-year old, but Lucas won't have any of it. He's said as much. So when he makes "Phantom Menace," he puts Jar Jar in there because he figures since these Star Wars movies are really just bedtime stories for sleepy toddlers, and those fussy tykes will probably demand an awful character with a funny voice who does "funny" things to keep them happy, he better accommodate them. And so it was with Indiana Jones. He remembers "Raiders" as a laff-a-minute parody of the goofy serials he grew up with, broad comedy in other words, and so a basket chase through the streets of Cairo, and a tossed-off murder of a scimitar-wielding Arab, and an improbable truck hijacking were all just part of this goofy rogue archaeologist gag he'd come up with. Of course, no one else saw it like that, but this is Lucas we're talking about, and it's his opinions that matter, not yours, you stupid moviegoing public you. Which brings us to Shia LaBeouf swinging through the jungle on vines in the most recent Indiana Jones movie. This moment doesn't fit in at all with any of the three preceding movies, but it sure fits in with Lucas's deeply flawed memory of those movies. If the Indiana Jones movies are broad comedy designed to be palatable to kids, then Shia swinging from vine to vine accompanied by a bunch of monkeys who've inexplicably become his allies COMPLETELY fits the preceding trilogy. I can imagine Lucas during preproduction, arguing over the script with Koepp and Spielberg, and whenever the Tarzan sequence came up for possible excision, it was Lucas standing ready to defend it, probably threatening to pull the plug on the whole thing if they took it out. He'd done it before (ask Frank Darabont). Of course, all of this is supposition, but it fits with what Lucas has said and how he operates. And after "Phantom Menace," why wouldn't you lay the worst thing in a Lucas-co-produced movie at his doorstep? Now, if I wanted to be charitable (which I'm on no mood to be), I'd say that there was always a childlike sense of adventure permeating all of the Indiana Jones movies, and that often Spielberg and Co. skirted the line between escapist action and goofy parody, and with this movie they simply crossed it for the first time. But again: not feeling charitable. Lucas did it.

Another failing of this movie is how fake a lot of it felt. Though it's probably not true, I'd guess about %50-%60 of this film was done on a sound stage. The entire Amazon multi-car, multi-truck sequence was done on a stage (or looked that way thanks to Kaminski's spotty, over-lit cinematography), the campfire sequence was done on a stage (the one that ends with the quicksand), and well, what wasn't done on a soundstage again? Some of the motorcycle stuff I guess? Even the stuff where it looks like they're outside, around and on top of the Mayan temple, was clearly just some elaborate CGI work. I'm sure the stunts were real enough, but when you stage elaborate stunts performed on a green-screen stage, and then add in the CGI cartoon around the stuntmen later, you've drained their movements of authenticity because the context of those actions and movements (their physical surroundings) are clearly phony. For instance, when Shia was balancing between two vehicles going down a bumpy jungle road getting his crotch smacked with jungle fauna, was there any tension or fear for that character's well-being? Contrast that with the stuntman who used a rope to inch himself along the bottom of a truck while being dragged in "Raiders". Sure, the stuntguy was in a shallow trench and the truck was going 10 miles an hour or so, but that movie illusion was all done in-camera and on-location. As was most of that damn thing, and that's part of why it's so great and holds up so well. Why can't our filmmakers be inventive in that way again, instead of just throwing scripts at CGI companies and saying, "Make!"?

I was also underwhelmed by the dialogue. This is more of a minor quibble compared to some of the other stuff, but I thought that in a lot of instances Koepp had set himself up to give Indiana a great line and opted instead for a merely serviceable one. Compare the wit and comedy of "Last Crusade" with this movie, and you'll see my point. In "Last Crusade" Ilsa asks Indy while they're in the catacombs, "Are you sure that's the Ark of the Covenant?" Indy answers, the picture of modesty, "Pretty sure." It played like gangbusters in the theater. Big laughs. And that was just one of many ("No ticket!"). Aside from the snake bit (which I'll get to in a second) nothing really sticks out as being terribly funny in "Crystal Skull" for me. With all the money they spent on CGI, you think they could have thrown $40K to a comedy writer to punch up some of those lines.

But before I go too far down this gloomy track, let me say what I did like. I liked the opening (though I did not understand or particularly like the prairie dog thing. What was that about? Lucas again?). I liked the sequence in the warehouse (a great idea to bring the story back there -- it's one of those places that kind of exists in the popular culture outside of the Indiana Jones movies now). I liked the rocket-car ride. I loved the nuclear test sequence. When the countdown suddenly begins with just 1 minute until detonation, it was the only time I was actually in suspense about how the character was possibly going to get himself out of the situation. His escape was implausible sure, but it was still pretty damn awesome, and the truth is I would have swallowed whatever implausibility necessary just so they could get that incredible shot of the still-firey mushroom cloud churning upward with Indiana Jones in the mid-ground looking on. My favorite single image in a movie in a long long time.

I also laughed very very hard at the quicksand sequence when Shia comes to the rescue with his ... implement. It was a perfect moment, and threw back to the earlier films in an honest, almost touching way. At that point the filmmakers finally allowed the audience to acknowledge that we all really kind of know this guy -- and if we know any one thing about him, it's that he hates snakes. The movie could have used more moments like that.

As for the aliens, I didn't mind them that much. They don't really fit into the Indiana Jones universe (or at least I didn't think they did), but now that they're there, I suppose visitors from outer space are no less supernatural than face-melting spirits in a religiously-significant gold box or evil shamans with the power to extract beating hearts without killing. But by the end of it, the 13 bethroned aliens, the inter-dimensional portal, the swirling boulders, it all seemed a bit much. I mean, I kind of liked all of its over-the-topness. The execution was a bit off is all.

Shia LaBeouf. He didn't bother me as much as I thought he would, but he didn't do anything for me either. After his giggle-inducing entrance, it's a wonder he seemed credible in any of his scenes, which he does. I get that his character is a vulnerable guy putting on a show of toughness but who's really actually tough like his dad, but I never really bought that. He just seems like a wiry actor kid to me. Underlying everything I just thought that if Shia LeBeouf is this generation's answer to Harrison Ford, we're in for some years of not-so-great movies. Man, do I sound old.

Also: why did Indy keep his double-crossing British sidekick around all the time? Even after he'd proved himself truly disloyal, Indy still risks his skin to save him. It was like all the British sidekick had to do was punch a Russian on the jeep and Indy was reappraising him and deciding he's loyal to him after all. It just seemed kind of lazy.

Bottomline: the directors and producers in charge of $100 million+ budget films need to take Industrial Light & Magic off of speed dial, and start taking moving pictures of real people doing actual things in real places. "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" would have been a nice place to start, but what's past is past. No more of this "Speed Racer" photo-realistic cartoon stuff. For the $100K Steve spent on the 5-second shot of whatever-the-hell in CGI, he could have gotten 3 10-second shots of real people doing actual things in real places. Say what you want about Michael Bay (and I can say plenty), he understands that the real deal carries a lot of weight on film, and the audience can feel that. Which is why he goes out of his way to stage real people doing real things in real places. Dare Is say Spielberg could learn something from ... Michael Bay? No, I guess I don't dare.

Anyway, that's all I've got for now. I'm interested to hear your comments. That is if anyone still reads this thing, bad as I've been with updates of late.

I hope everyone enjoys their Memorial Day weekends.

Could It Finally Be... Over?

Barack Obama won North Carolina by about 15 points last night, and lost Indiana by 2. Tim Russert said last night that Obama was now "the nominee." Stephanopolous said to expect superdelegates to start coming over to Obama "5 and 6 at a time." Hillary supporter George McGovern has already called on her to drop out, and according to HuffingtonPost, Clinton campaign officials expect more supporters to do the same soon.

Could it be the end? Could Hillary be seeing, finally, the writing on the wall?

I sure hope so. Bad campaign managers and an overall desperation has turned Hillary from a polished and decent-seeming general election candidate into a say-anything-to-win panderer trying to make less cagey Democratic voters think she's one of them. It hasn't been pretty or dignified. And now in the face of defeat in the wake of NC and IN, her people are out there on conference calls with reporters saying "We are a nation of 50 states." Meaning a.) she's going to take her fight to be president as far as she can on the basis that, somehow, the people of Florida and Michigan were "disenfranchised," and b.) reclaiming her good name isn't her priority quite yet. Trying to steal delegates from Florida and Michigan, states who broke the rules fair and square, is a weak justification to continue this fight for the nomination, but, then again, she's never actually said why she's running for president. She ought to be president, well ... well just because.

Anyway, Hillary can still, of course, redeem herself. The loser of this contest will, I believe, have much more to do with a Democratic victory than the winner because the loser will be the one most responsible for uniting the party once this process is over. If she can manage true graciousness in defeat, she'll go a long way in repairing the damage she's done to her once formidable reputation. and because I think she still cares about the Clinton "brand," once she steps aside, I expect her to get behind Barack as hard as she's been trying to beat him.

Spoiler Free, Opinion-Free Post-Screening "Iron Man" Comment

Stay through all of the credits.

Fred Simmons Clip

More Fred Simmons action. Very funny stuff.

This from Aintitcool's Moriarty regarding"Foot Fist Way":

"I can’t believe this one’s about to hit theaters finally. I’ve been singing its praises for a while now, and I think after you see it, you’ll understand why. I’m not alone in loving it, of course. It seems like every professionally funny person I know loves this. I haven’t seen this kind of genuine word-of-mouth buzz about something in the comedy world since maybe the British OFFICE."

A lot to live up to, but definitely funny enough to live up to the hype.

New York Times Gives "Iron Man" Some Love

The New York Times calls "Iron Man" "an unusually good superhero picture" that's "good in unusual ways."

Things are looking up and up. I've already got tickets for the 7:45 show tomorrow night --- I don't expect to be disappointed.

Incredible Hulk Trailer Is Up

The new full Hulk trailer's up.

I don't dislike what I'm seeing here, but nothing in this new trailer makes it obvious why we needed this Hulk reboot. It doesn't tweak any nostalgia I have for the TV show (aside from those three notes they snuck in at the end), there isn't any interesting visual stylistic flourishes going on, and judging from the animation quality of the Norton-Hulk, CG hasn't really gotten good enough in the last four years to make CG Hulk look like anything other than a semi photo-realistic cartoon. So I'm interested to see this movie, but not really excited. What I hope is going on is this: a trailer for a big expensive summer movie has to get the 12-year olds into the theaters. So that trailer has to emphasize the monsters, the helicopters, and Hummers blowing up in a park. But if the script, which Norton was deeply involved in, is actually really good, then it's quality might not be readily apparent in a trailer meant to show just action action action. So could still be great. But William Hurt looks and sounds very cool, and I'm happy to see Tim Roth back in a big movie, so color me hopeful.

(Did anyone else think the giant action scene in the park just looked like an obvious cost-cutting measure? I can think of less interesting places to blow stuff up in a movie --- oh wait. No I can't.)

Iron Man, Jeremiah Wright and South Korean Freaks with Harvard Fetishes

It's been a while, so here's some Inanities catch-up:













1.) I am completely hyped for "Iron Man." Like total DragonCon-nerd kind of excitement. I'm listening to Audioslave's "Cochise" and Sabbath's "Iron Man" all the time because they're in the trailer. Recently I picked up some "Iron Man" comics, just to see what was up with Tony Stark these days in the Marvel Universe (turns out he's now the director of S.H.I.E.L.D.. Fellow nerds will understand immediately the implications of that statement.) All this hype and anticipation is, of course, entirely manufactured by Marvel Comics (who financed the movie all by theyselves), and a week after it's out I'll have forgotten all about Tony Stark and will be looking ahead to the cinematic exploits of Banner, Jones and Wayne later in the hot months, but until Friday, "Iron Man" is looking to be a very big deal. (Also, Aintitcool's Harry Knowles and Moriarty both raved about the movie after they saw an early screening. Things are looking up for this thing not to suck.)

2.) Reverend Wright is bringing me way down. His very public, very unapologetic, very impolitic appearance yesterday at the National Press Club was all about him, I think, no matter what he says he was doing with regards to defending "the black church." Listening to snippets of his press conference on NPR on the drive home yesterday, I could hear how much fun he was having up behind the lectern fielding questions. He backed down from nothing, and only helped Obama once when he confirmed Obama's claim that Obama had not been present for Wright's most incendiary sermons. But besides that, Wright was busy plunging a chef's knife into Obama's side over and over again, defending his 9/11 comments and reaffirming his belief that the US government invented AIDS to wipe out the black race.

Mostly what Wright did yesterday was deepen the suspicion that many working-class white voters already have (a group Obama's apparently had trouble connecting with) that despite Obama's inclusive, hopeful rhetoric, Obama is an African-American of the Sharpton/Jackson/Wright mold, an angry black activist in other words, and if president, would not have their interests at heart, would in fact be working against their interests. That is, of course, a myth, but Wright helped yesterday to perpetuate it, and from a cursory viewing of all of this one can reasonably assume Wright may be attempting to sabotage Obama's bid for the White House. I can't even begin to understand why Wright would do that, but the evidence is plain. Is Obama going to be able to get out from under this guy?

3.) Who but freaks get into Harvard anymore? I read this article from the Times the other day about elite South Korean prep schools that focus like laser beams on getting their students into America's Ivy League schools. Fifteen-hour school days. Parents who scold their kids when they come home with a 98 on a test. Sixty-seven of your classmates ace the math section of the SAT. Here's a day in the life of a student at an elite S. Korean prep school:

"She rises at 6 a.m. and heads for her school bus at 6:50. Arriving at Daewon, she grabs a broom to help classmates clean her classroom. Between 8 and noon, she hears Korean instructors teach supply and demand in economics, Korean soils in geography and classical poets in Korean literature.

At lunch she joins other raucous students, all, like her, wearing blue blazers, in a chow line serving beans and rice, fried dumpling and pickled turnip, which she eats with girlfriends. Boys, who sit elsewhere, wolf their food and race to a dirt lot for a 10-minute pickup soccer game before afternoon classes.

Kim Hyun-kyung joins other girls at a hallway sink to brush her teeth before reporting to French literature, French culture and English grammar classes, taught by Korean instructors. At 3:20, her English language classes begin....

...Evening study hall begins at 7:45. She piles up textbooks on an adjoining desk, where they glare at her like a to-do list. Classmates sling backpacks over seats, prop a window open and start cramming. Three hours later, the floor is littered with empty juice cartons and water bottles. One girl has nodded out, head on desk. At 10:50 a tone sounds, and Ms. Kim heads for a bus that will wend its way through Seoul’s towering high-rise canyons to her home, south of the Han River.

“I feel proud that I’ve endured another day,” she said."

I'm not sure this is a snapshot of a future America where everyone is working in the service-industry because absolutely everything else has been outsourced to frighteningly-driven kids like this, but it may be a glimpse into how much work we may soon have to ask our kids to do just to stay competitive with the other 6.3 billion people in the world. And all that work won't be to stay ahead of the world and improve our quality of life, all that work will be just to keep our heads above water.

Hulk Smash

When Norton said he was keeping the film more in line with the tv show than with the comic, I don't think he was kidding. Ang burned me bad with the Bana/Ang Lee Hulk, but this looks like it could actually be pretty good.

Chris Matthews is Endearing

This is what I read during my lunch break today. Great article. I've always been a fan of Chris Matthews. One day he'll say something that makes my head explode with indignation, and then the next he'll say something that I totally agree with, (and I like this because I don't usually like things that challenge my assumptions). If you've ever seen his show, you probably already have a good sense of who he is, or so this article asserts. What you see is what you get with this guy. He's a loudmouth and sometimes he has to cram his foot in there. Like the time he saw Tipper Gore on-screen while he was anchoring MSNBC's coverage of the opening of the WWII Memorial and said, his admiration evident in his voice, "She's a good-looking woman." And then, immediately after, "I shouldn't have said that." Or those times he references, seemingly apropo of nothing, a scene from an old movie (like "Lawrence of Arabia" for example), never caring how long it takes to set up the scene, tie it to current events and finally make his obscure point. He doesn't seem to self-censor, and he clearly loves his job more than any political wonk on the beat. That's worthy of admiration. So to find out that he doesn't get much respect from his peers, is kind of surprising.

"Tim — as in Russert, the inquisitive jackhammer host of “Meet the Press” — is a particular obsession of Matthews’s. Matthews craves Russert’s approval like that of an older brother. He is often solicitous. On the morning of the Cleveland debate, Matthews was standing in the lobby of the Ritz when Russert walked through, straight from a workout, wearing a sweat-drenched Buffalo Bills sweatshirt, long shorts and black rubber-soled shoes with tube socks. “Here he is; here he is, the man,” Matthews said to Russert, who smiled and chatted for a few minutes before returning to his room. (An MSNBC spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, tried, after the fact, to declare Russert’s outfit “off the record.”)

Matthews has berated Russert to several people at NBC and has told friends and associates that Russert is like John F. Kennedy while he is more like Richard Nixon. Kennedy was the golden boy while Nixon was the scrapper for whom nothing came easily. It’s an imperfect comparison, certainly (Matthews is Irish Catholic, for starters, and Russert is not charismatic by any classic Kennedyesque definition), but it does offer a glimpse into how Matthews perceives himself, especially in relation to Russert. It’s also worth noting that Nixon was obsessed with Kennedy, and Kennedy could be dismissive and disparaging of Nixon."

And this:

"According to people at NBC, Matthews has not been shy in voicing his resentment of Olbermann. Nor, according to network sources, has Olbermann bothered to hide his low regard for Matthews, although when I spoke to him, Olbermann denied any personal animosity toward Matthews and told me that he appreciates his “John Madden-like enthusiasm for politics.”

The article goes on to say that with Matthews' contract is running out, some at NBC are thinking of letting him go and putting David Gregory in his place. This mystifies me. If MSNBC is in a hurry to promote pure unadulterated boring, then they definitely should replace Chris with David Gregory, the Wolf Blitzer of NBC News. But no one I know is looking for a better source for boring, so maybe that doesn't make much sense.

I don't know if Matthews is worth $5 million a year (which is how much he makes currently), but no one can say he doesn't work for it. Most weekday mornings he's up at 7am to give "his take" to viewers on "Morning Joe," MSNBC's morning talk-show, and later he does his evening Hardball shows, and then he also has his weekly "The Chris Matthews Show" which airs Sunday. The guy works. Gregory? Other than a couple run-ins with the White House press secretary, and a faux-pas or two on the unwatchable Today show, I can't remember a single interesting thing Gregory's said, or an interesting story he's reported. I kinda doubt he has. Good-looking and mediocre is preferable to unpredictable and entertaining, I guess.

Anyway, the article's great (and long! And in this case that's a good thing!), and you ought to give a bit of it a read.

And finally, click here for some "Pineapple Express" poster action. Good stuff.

Obama and the New US Foreign Policy

Former TalkingPointsMemo writer Spencer Ackerman wrote an article called "The Obama Doctrine" for "The American Spectator" magazine. In that piece, Ackerman interviews some of Obama's foreign policy advisors like Samantha Power, (she of the "Hillary is a monster" comment), and Anthony Lake, (Clinton's old national security advisor), to get a sense of how an Obama administration would approach international relations. In plain language these advisors explain how an Obama presidency could truly mark a new beginning in how we deal with the rest of the world.

"What's typically neglected in these arguments [about the efficacy of Bush's stated policy of "spreading democracy" to the exclusion of all other concerns] is the simple insight that democracy does not fill stomachs, alleviate malaria, or protect neighborhoods from marauding bands of militiamen. Democracy, in other words, is valuable to people insofar as it allows them first to meet their basic needs. It is much harder to provide that sense of dignity than to hold an election in Baghdad or Gaza and declare oneself shocked when illiberal forces triumph. "Look at why the baddies win these elections," Power says. "It's because [populations are] living in climates of fear." U.S. policy, she continues, should be "about meeting people where they're at. Their fears of going hungry, or of the thug on the street. That's the swamp that needs draining. If we're to compete with extremism, we have to be able to provide these things that we're not [providing]."

This is why, Obama's advisers argue, national security depends in large part on dignity promotion. Without it, the U.S. will never be able to destroy al-Qaeda. Extremists will forever be able to demagogue conditions of misery, making continued U.S. involvement in asymmetric warfare an increasingly counterproductive exercise -- because killing one terrorist creates five more in his place. "It's about attacking pools of potential terrorism around the globe," Gration says. "Look at Africa, with 900 million people, half of whom are under 18. I'm concerned that unless you start creating jobs and livelihoods we will have real big problems on our hands in ten to fifteen years.""

It's a totally different way of looking at things. I think if Obama's elected President, we'll have seen the last of the market-tested sloganeering that passed for foreign policy debate these last 7 and a half years.

A George W. Bush Movie in Theaters in 2008?

Oliver Stone's planned biopic of George W. Bush is moving forward at lightning speed. Word is it will be "available for distribution" before the November elections, and will definitely be released before Bush goes out of office, so this one's going to happen quick. Yesterday Stone's choice for the role of Laura Bush was announced, and today the actors who will play George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush were announced.

First, here's W:


















A choice Bush ought to be flattered by, but not much in common physically. It'll be interesting to see whether Brolin opts to do an immersive, quasi-Method approach to the role a la Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Nixon, or more of a version of Bush that will be recognizable enough for audiences to suspend disbelief -- kinda like Travolta playing a Clinton-like character in "Primary Colors." That inevitable first photograph of Brolin in his W getup is going to be very telling on this score.

Now, the long-suffering Laura:

















If it were anyone but Laura Bush, I might wonder whether Elizabeth Banks had enough range to portray a living person, but I don't think there's a whole lot going on beneath the surface with Laura Bush, so hiring a Meryl Streep-quality actress to take on the role doesn't seem necessary. Banks should do fine.

And no Bush family would be complete without its matriarch. Here's Barb:

















Ellen Burstyn is, for my money, the best actress of her generation. Her performance in "Requiem for a Dream" is all heartbreaking and tragic and scary and all that stuff that makes acting good. The only thing I don't think she can do as an actress is a southern accent (for evidence, please review "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood." On second though, don't do that.) This is great casting. Almost as good as...

Stone's choice for Bush the Elder:

















James Cromwell's played a version of H.W. Bush in "The Sum of all Fears" (and he also happens to bear a distinct physical resemblance to the guy), and he's accustomed to playing cranky patriarchs, so this is a natural choice. I'm sure he'll be great.

Here's an excerpt from an interview Stone gave to Variety about the movie, which actually does shed light on some of the questions I asked above:

"It's a behind-the-scenes approach, similar to 'Nixon,' to give a sense of what it's like to be in his skin," Stone told Daily Variety. "But if 'Nixon' was a symphony, this is more like a chamber piece, and not as dark in tone. People have turned my political ideas into a cliche, but that is superficial. I'm a dramatist who is interested in people, and I have empathy for Bush as a human being, much the same as I did for Castro, Nixon, Jim Morrison, Jim Garrison and Alexander the Great."

Stone declined to give his personal opinion of the president.

"I can't give you that, because the filmmaker has to hide in the work," Stone said. "Here, I'm the referee, and I want a fair, true portrait of the man. How did Bush go from an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world? It's like Frank Capra territory on one hand, but I'll also cover the demons in his private life, his bouts with his dad and his conversion to Christianity, which explains a lot of where he is coming from. It includes his belief that God personally chose him to be president of the United States, and his coming into his own with the stunning, preemptive attack on Iraq. It will contain surprises for Bush supporters and his detractors."

Sounds like Stone understands something about what makes Bush's story interesting, but "Frank Capra territory" seems way too whimsical a way to describe a film about a guy's rise from coddled trust-fund manchild to president and war criminal; I know Stone's trying to be careful not to get the wingnuts telling people to avoid the movie before he's even shot a foot of film, but seriously. Frank Capra?

Obviously I'm hoping the film (tentatively titled "W") is closer in quality to "Nixon" than "Alexander," but I think it's going to make big money at the box office no matter what. As much as the guy repulses about 3/4 of the country, I think most Americans, whether they care to admit it or not, find him fascinating. Repugnant, yes, but fascinating.

Indiana Jones Trading Cards

From time to time I like to just straight up steal blog posts from other blogs. Today is one of those times. So feast your eyes on some cool Indiana Jones trading cards Topps is putting out. If you follow that link you'll find 4 sheets of cards. From the illustrator's blog: "They are one of a kind original sketches that will be inserted in every box of cards (one per box), along with autographed cards by Harrison Ford, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and others who worked on the films." I'm not a 12-year old kid, so I'm not going to drop any money on these things, but what is impressive is how perfectly the artist, Patrick Schoenmaker, captures the essence of these characters with just a few well-placed lines.

My personal favorite: Melty-Face Nazi at the top.

Even Chris Wallace Thinks "Fox and Friends" Is Creepy

Sometimes, Fox News is so nakedly a propaganda arm of the Republican party, it even makes other Fox News employees uncomfortable. One of them anyway. Watch as an uncomfortable Chris Wallace, moderator of Fox News Sunday, takes the Republican mouthpieces that host "Fox and Friends" to the woodshed for spending two hours bashing Obama on the basis of a quote they'd misleadingly truncated.

It's squirmy but also hilarious. Chris Wallace comes on to tease his show tomorrow, tells the hosts they're being bad, and then each of the three hosts has to explain themselves to Wallace. Like children. Awesome. It's clear Steve Doocey (or however you spell it) is the worst of the lot, but the lady host is the most embarrassingly defensive, saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "if [Obama] wants to have conversation about race, then let's talk about the double standard for certain phrases and words." I'm not sure what she's talking about here, but it sounds like she's one of these white people who still don't quite get why they can't use the n-word. For her, that's what a "real discussion of race" is all about.

Best moment: Doocey at the end saying, "You sure got a weird way of showing it."

Shai-Hulud Will Not be Denied--Will Get Big-Screen Treatment Again in 2010; Also, Mighella; Also, Obama and Race

Frank Herbert's epic science-fiction novel "Dune" is once again getting the big-budget studio treatment. The director who's been lobbying hard behind the scenes for many a month to get the gig is Peter Berg, the actor/director who brought us "Very Bad Things," "Friday Night Lights," and, most recently, "The Kingdom." I haven't seen most of Berg's oeuvre, so admittedly I'm not the best guy to judge whether or not he's got the chops to remake "Dune," but you can color me hopeful about the result, though not really optimistic. I'm hoping his apparent passion for the novel will translate to the most faithful adaptation of Herbert's classic yet, but I have my doubts that the guy who made the execrable "Very Bad Things" can pull off an epic science-fiction film based on a beloved novel.

I love Lynch's 1984 adaptation. The little idiosyncrasies that drive some people crazy about it--the voice-overs, the over-the-top costumes, the new ending--make it a better, more interesting film to me. And even though I believe Lynch's "Dune" is one of the best science-fiction films ever made, it is not, strictly-speaking, a faithful adaptation. The miniseries produced by the SciFi Channel in 2000 hewed more closely to the novel, but it's limited budget prevented the filmmakers from truly realizing the scope of Herbert's novel. Berg has a chance here to make the definitive "Dune," which would be a boon to him personally, of course, but also to fans of Herbert's six "Dune" novels, some of which may get the same big-budget treatment by Paramount if Berg's adaptation clicks with audiences. If Berg and Paramount find a way to make "Dune"--a geopolitical novel laden with political intrigue, environmental science and philosophy--resonate with a mass audience, then they could have something resembling the "LOTR" franchise on their hands. Obviously, that's the best-case scenario. Worst-case, Berg goes back to making disappointing movies and "Dune" reaffirms its reputation as a hard-sell for mass audiences.

In other news, Oscar-winning writer and director of "The English Patient", Anthony Minghella, died today of a brain hemorrhage. He was 54.

And in political news, Barack Obama made a speech today intended to speak directly to some sermons given by Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor, and the larger issues of race in America. You can find the full text here. If you want a more stark contrast between Democrats and Republicans, look no further than this speech. Where Mitt Romney, the right-wing Republican golden child, was exclusionary in his big "Mormon speech," saying that non-religious people had no place in American life, Obama was inclusive in his "race speech" today, speaking frankly about where America stands right now on the issue of race. Here's a short excerpt:

"The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow."

Viable politicians rarely (if ever) discuss these issues frankly, which is, in part, why this speech is so fascinating. I don't know if this speech will be enough to counter the impact those grainy videos of Jeremiah Wright thundering away at the pulpit had on some voters, but I hope this thoughtful and inclusive speech will go some way in doing that. Definitely read it.

"The Comfort of Strangers" and a Recent Change in Status

I finished a novel Saturday morning and it's been stuck in my head since. It's called "The Comfort of Strangers" and it was written by Ian McEwan. He published it back in 1981 but it carries nothing between its covers that would distinguish it as a work written during that decade. At best one could place it as occurring sometime during the late 20th century, but it's difficult to get more precise than that. Not only are there no references to times or dates, McEwan never precisely identifies the city the story is set in. The city he describes is a stylized Venice, Italy, but McEwan has wrung it of all of its storied charms and infuses it instead with a dreamy quality in which dread and a kind of genteel hostility are pervasive. The result is unsettling. While some writers compose books that amount to love letters to various cities and countries, with "The Comfort of Strangers" I think McEwan has composed a hate letter to Italy.

Briefly, the plot follows Mary and Colin, two beautiful Britons, not quite married, on vacation in the aforementioned city of quasi-Venice. As the novel opens we find them cultivating mutual resentments in their lavish hotel room with passive aggressive silences and banal small talk freighted with meaning. That night they venture forth into the city to find a suitable restaurant, knowing full well they'll probably get lost in the city's twisting streets and narrow alleys. Hours later, lost and frustrated in their search for an acceptable eaterie, they happen upon a local man named Robert, who leads them to a bar patronized solely by locals. (During the extended bar scene, Robert tells them a story from his childhood that is one of the most sustained pieces of long-form dialogue I've read in fiction.) There's something off about Robert. He shares inappropriately. He's more familiar with them than is appropriate, touching them in ways that willfully ignore the conventions of personal space. Colin and Mary dismiss these faux pas as nothing more than a difference in culture, but to their detriment. Soon Robert demonstrates his peculiar gregariousness, tinged as it is with menace, is an exaggeration of the surrounding culture, but particular to him.

The novel builds in suspense as Robert manages to insinuate himself more and more into the lives of the two tourists. Much of the feeling of dread that characterizes "Comfort" emanates from what is unspoken and what is only hinted at; rarely do the characters even acknowledge the strange things they witness or the moments of probable insanity they encounter in others. It's as though the hapless tourists are sleepwalking through a nightmare for which the reader is intolerably awake. So little happens in an overt sense during the story, that the ending, which is as overt as it gets, is so shocking I read it over three times to make sure I was reading it correctly. I was, and boy is it a doozy.

And I say that "Comfort" amounts to a hate letter to Venice (and, more expansively, the country of Italy), because when we finally discover what's wrong with Robert, it's clear McEwan is making a larger statement about his views of Italian culture, namely their preoccupation with the notion of manliness and the acceptance of a role of subjugation for women (in one scene, a woman tells Mary that if a man is known for beating his wife, it gains him some measure of notoriety among his friends and acquaintances). When one adds in McEwan's characterizations of the mise en scene, this city that is and is not Venice, one gets the sense of a dying, useless city filled with malignantly self-involved people. If McEwan ever visited there (and it would appear he has), after reading the book it seems doubtful he'd ever willingly return.

(If you'd like to read a negative take on the book, read this 1981 review of the novel by John Leonard of the New York Times. Though be warned: the reviewer gives away far too much of the plot in an effort to be cruelly dismissive. With the benefit of 27 years of hindsight, howeverm I think this reviewer seems a tad short-sighted on the subject of Ian McEwan.)

This is the sixth novel I've read by him, and though I don't think it's his best, (I still think "Atonement" carries that title) I do think it's his most tightly controlled work, and one of the most successful attempts by a writer to depict in a work of fiction that intangible quality called "atmosphere". As I read through it chapter by chapter, I recounted its plot to my wife and sister -- they were as weirded out by my retelling as I was by reading it. My wife says she doesn't even want to know how it ends, which I'll chalk up to her discomfort with the lurid subject matter rather than her being bone-tired of the sound of my voice.

Interestingly, in 1990, Paul Schrader made a film of the book. Rupert Everett stars as winsome, beautiful tourist Colin, and none other than Christopher Walken plays the role of Robert. I can't wait to see it.

Anyway, sorry I've been slack on the updates of late, but I think I have an okay excuse this time.

I got a job. I started it on the 10th of this month.

It's one of those hourly-type things that spit out paychecks every couple weeks. My job title is "copy editor/proofreader"and I work for a small company in a suburb of Atlanta just north of Marietta. I wanted to be sure I managed to STAY employed for a full week before I posted up about it, and since I accomplished that, I feel fine to announce it here.

So anyway, if I'm remiss in posting up blog entries (or in returning calls), it's because I'm still adjusting to the whole working stiff thing. I'm going to try to post up an entry at least once a week to begin with. Hopefully they'll get more frequent as the weeks go on.

Also, you should know that my being a "proofreader" will not make me any more careful with the entries I post up on here than usual. Rest assured, they will be of the same slapdash quality you've grown to love.

"Tropic Thunder" Teaser Teaser, and the Writers of "The Wire" Have A Final Thought on the War on Drugs

A couple things on this Sunday.

First, a teaser for a teaser for Ben Stiller's upcoming film, "Tropic Thunder." NCSA's own Danny McBride (a.k.a Fred Simmons), co-stars in this film along with Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., and Jack Black, and gets his name in big letters (as well as a line) in this teaser-teaser. This from Moriarty's aintitcool post:

"I’ve been hearing great things about this script ever since last year’s now-legendary round-table reading, where guys like Bill Hader and Danny McBride were destroying with regularity, and where I hear this thing really came to life."

So "Thunder"'s got Robert Downey Jr. playing a self-absorbed actor doing blackface, Danny McBride "destroying with regularity", and what looks to be a hilarious cameo by Tom Cruise. Should be a lot of fun. The full teaser is supposed to be released a week from Monday. Teasing teasers teaser.

Second, the fifth and final season of "The Wire" wraps up tonight on HBO. The show's writers put out a statement this week which is, in part, an attempt to turn the questions they've asked, the angst they've felt, and the anger they've carried in researching and writing the show into political action. You can read the entire statement here; the most pertinent snippet is below:

"If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence are alleged, we will — to borrow Justice Harry Blackmun's manifesto against the death penalty — no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens."

After having seen read what I've read about the failed drug war, and after watching four seasons of David Simon's deeply-researched show, this declaration of "jury nullification" for non-violent drug offenses makes a lot of sense to me. Though some drug policy folks in Washington might sniff at the idea of TV writers sticking their nose into this complicated problem, I think they'd do well to listen closely. What these TV writers have done for the plight of the American inner city with five seasons of this show, is not dissimilar to what Dickens did for the plight of the poor in Victorian London with his many novels. For that Ed Burns, Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos, Richard Price, and David Simon (the "Wire"'s writers) have a right to weigh in on the issue, and their protest against this wrongheaded and unjust war deserves, I think, consideration.