Back from Charleston and a Question Regarding "Hancock"

Hello all. Hope everyone had a great 4th of July weekend.

The wife and I are back from our weekend stay in Charleston, South Carolina. We watched fireworks (shot off the deck of the USS Yorktown), ate shrimp (at the touristy and so-so Bubba Gump Shrimp Co.), bought books (at Charleston's sole used bookstore, the very charming Blue Bicycle Books), and ate amazing seafood (courtesy of Hyman's Seafood). Yeah, mostly we ate. What of it? We walked, drove, read and ate, but it was fun and felt like just what I needed to face another month at work.

I read in the short time I've been back that the new Will Smith movie, "Hancock" did crazy business over the holiday weekend, earning $107 million over the 5 and 1/2 days since it opened. According to Nikke Finke's article, the reviews were only 33% positive and the "buzz" only "so-so" -- so why the massive total? I heard the studio was shooting some very last minute reshoots after some worrisome test screenings and there was some serious fretting amongst executives that this was just not a very good movie, but I guess none of that trickled down to audiences.

Is it just Will Smith that packs him in? Is Will Smith the last movie star? Meaning is he the only guy or gal left who can pack them in and make serious cash for a studio no matter what movie he's opening? It sure seems like it. So was it the premise that brought everyone out? Was it the generally good weather and nothing much else to do on a hot holiday weekend? Or was it just Will Smith? I have to ask these critical questions because I like to blog about movies, and I haven't actually seen one in the theater for a record 2 weeks. I still haven't checked out "Wall-E," "Wanted," or even "Iron Man" for a second time, which I'd kind of wanted to do. Damn you job that demands the not-explicitly-asked-for-but-just-kind-of-understood-that-everyone-works-overtime overtime! I'm hoping to get to the theater sometime this week -- if I do, I'll say something about it right here. Stay ... signed on?

Happy Fourth of July

Happy Independence Day! If all goes according to plan, I'll be watching fireworks up in lovely Charleston, South Carolina tonight after having eaten a bunch of seafood and buying a ridiculous number of books I'll never have time to read. Should be fun. I hope everyone has a great weekend.

A Frozen Moment Post-Clinching, Pre-Shifting

I meant to post up about this, but forgot about it till now.

This is a really cool shot from the Detroit Free Press of the Obama rally where Al Gore officially endorsed Barack Obama for president. I'm actually as impressed by the coolness of the 360 degree aspect as by the hugeness of the crowd. I was a little disappointed that Al Gore waited until his endorsement would have no actual impact to endorse Barack, but better late than never.

Brolin's Bush Looks Scary

Um, is this one of the scariest photos ever taken, or is it just me? Why exactly does Josh Brolin's head look so enormous in this shot? It's almost like the thing Mike Myers did in the trailers I saw for "The Love Guru" where Myers put his own massive head on a kid's body for a flashback. Just weird.

In the article Brolin and Stone talk about how fairly their film treats our duly selected president. Brolin says that had the screenplay been what he expected it to be, a "far-left hammering of the president," as he puts it, then he wouldn't have done it. I think it's good that the movie won't be that. If done well, a fair and generally honest treatment of W. won't spend 2 hours showing what a despicable person George W. Bush is, but rather how his life's experiences drove him to seek the highest office in the land, but also shaped him into a person almost entirely unsuited to it. This is another one I'm looking forward to.

Questions

Obama's the nominee. Hillary wrapped up her campaign, made nice, gave a totally adequate concession speech, and then threw her full weight behind Obama's candidacy at a rally.

In the last couple of weeks, though, Obama's started to make some moves to the center that have been somewhat worrisome to his more progressive supporters.

1.) While he's always seemed somewhat ambivalent about NAFTA, he always skewed his rhetoric towards opposing it. Now his rhetoric has shifted so that he doesn't really see what the big deal about NAFTA is.

2.) In years past he appeared to support the right of cities to ban handgun ownership, but after the Supreme Court affirmed the right of the citizen to bear arms last week, Obama's come out in support of the decision.

3.) In Illinois, he was part of the commission that halted Illinois's capital punishment regime. Last week when the Supreme Court decided that any crime that does not result in death does not warrant the death penalty (the crime at issue being child rape), Obama came out in opposition to the decision, saying the State should have the right to execute child rapists.

4.) Before, he said he'd filibuster any bill that contained a provision for immunity from prosecution for the telecommunications companies complicit in the government's illegal wiretapping program. Now, he has come out in support of a compromise bill that contains exactly that immunity.

5.) Before he didn't wear that goddamn flag lapel pin because he knew it was cheap, meaningless, and stupid. When someone's running for office, particularly for the highest office in the land, isn't that person's "patriotism" beyond reproach? Has anyone who's ever been accused of not being patriotic enough during an election season actually not loved their country? And who gets to define patriotism? Republicans? Obama showed all of that political silly season stupidity the door. Except ... As you can see in his photo from the cover of Rolling Stone, he's started to wear the flag pin regularly.

My question is this: how much of these shifts are necessary to win the general election, and how much do these shifts to the center dilute his powerful brand?

For myself, the places Obama has shifted to don't bother me much. NAFTA's never been much of an issue for me. I'd have to read about 5 dry economics books to understand half of what people are arguing about, and I'm not interested enough in the issue to do that. I also supported the Supreme Court's decision to decriminalize posession of firearms in one's own home, so Obama's new position is pretty much in line with my own. As for the capital punishment decision the Supreme Court handed down last week, I agreed with it, but I understand that as political theater, it's probably better for a candidate to come down on the side of killing child rapists than to oppose it, no matter their governmental philosophy. But the telecom immunity shift does bother me -- I think we need to know as much as we can about this illegal breach of citizen privacy and now Obama's said, in effect, that no, we don't. And the flag pin, well, that's just disappointing.

The cumulative effect of all this shifting is that I don't feel confident I know where Obama stands on any given issue anymore. On the flip side, I no longer doubt that he has the steely resolve required to win and to govern a divided nation. He's no Jimmy Carter, no McGovern. He's more like JFK. Thoughtful, liberal, but ruthless.

Though I still think Obama's a fantastic politician and one of the best candidates I've had the chance to vote for, I am a little worried that his recent shifts to the center and to the center-right aren't over, and that in his zeal to win over independents he's going to alienate his base and end up being the president we all knew Hillary would have been: just another poll-driven centrist. I hope I look back on this post in a few months and laugh at how alarmist and knee-jerk I was. All I can do is continue to watch and hope.

Blog Update and My Current Art-Crush: "Sweeney Todd"

Man was that book post getting old. You'd think I shut this blog down it was up there so long.

As you all know I've been working at a 9-5 job for the first time in 3 years. It's actually an 8:30 to 6:30-7 job, but who's counting hours? When I wasn't working I really had no excuse not to post up a little something every day or every other day. But now it's gotten to be a legitimately difficult thing to find time to do. With my former oceans of spare time, I was able to read a shitload of books, blog, and even write a little. Now that those oceans of spare time have drained to puddles, I have to be more discriminating as to how I spend my time.

But I am quite hesitant to shut this thing down. I've gotten twice as much out of it as I've put into it, and I'm loathe to abandon a venue where I can have discussions about movies, politics and whatever else with my friends and random websurfers who've stumbled over it. So, it may seem shut down from time to time, and a time may be coming when I'll just have to level with myself that blogging is one of those things that has to go by the wayside for a while, but today's not that day. It's Sunday, it's prime writing time and I feel like procrastinating. So it's blogging time.

So here's one thing that's been going on:

1.) Me and the wife went to Atlanta's famed Fox theater some weeks back to see the latest staging of Stephen Sondheim's musical, "Sweeney Todd." I'd seen the movie late last year and thought it was a mixed bag. I thought the visuals were stunning, but overall it kind of bored me. I was excited to see the musical live, but, as with the movie, I was left unmoved and a little bored with the show itself. But then those goddamn songs wouldn't get out of my head. Tired of hearing annoying snippets sound again and again in my head while at work, I bought the original cast recording from the Broadway production.

Now I kind of love it. I've been listening to it a lot. The story, the interpretation, the songs, the whole deal. All the excesses of musical theater that have always bothered me, the homely melodies, the undemanding singing, the overcooked acting, all seem to work in "Sweeney Todd"'s favor. Maybe because the musical's plot is more operatic than most, having everything be a bit overdone kind of makes sense. Or maybe because a story about a barber who slits throats and puts the corpses into meat pies for hungry Londoners makes up for a lot of the usual musical goofiness. Now I want to know the entire story of Sweeney Todd. How and where it originated, how it developed from a novel to a play to musical, how the idea to reinterpret the story occurred to Stephen Sondheim, what were its influences, what did he see going on in the world when he was writing it that pushed him to make it so dark and pessimistic?

I scanned a bit of the "book" that started it all at Borders the other day, and found that it originated in the 19th century and was originally published as a serial in 4 parts. Most of the hallmarks of the story were present in its original incarnation (the 2nd story barbershop, the pie shop below, the trick barber's chair, the cannibalism) but there must be some mystery as to its author because the cover made no mention of the writer, only a compiling editor. I could have bought the book and answered some of these questions for myself, but the edition looked like a novelization of the screenplay (even though it wasn't), complete with movie poster cover, and I couldn't bear to mar my shelves with such an ugly book. Maybe I'll look for a more respectable edition on eBay.

One last thing: While looking for a good "Sweeney Todd" image to use, I stumbled on this, a full list of all productions of Sondheim's musical complete with full casts over the years. In the first production on the list, Angela Lansbury played Ms. Lovett. Weird, huh?

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.