"The Wind That Shakes the Barley" is certainly the most overrated movie of last year. Ken Loch has in-done himself.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the plot (most people probably haven't even heard of it), the story takes place during the Anglo-Irish War that lasted from around 1918 to 1921. It ended with Irish victory, independence and civil war (between those who wanted Northern Ireland and those who thought a headless Ireland was better than no Ireland at all.)
The problem with the movie is that it has no center and no heartbeat. The main character of the story--whose name I don't remember--is played with utter forgettableness by the usually creepy and intense actor, Cirian Murphy. As a young Irish physician who joins Shin Fein (if that's how it's spelled) after his cousin is murdered by Black and Tans, Mr. Murphy plays his character without any nuance or complexity. It is intriguing as watching the WorldWatch staff at work.
The movie is not saved by being an insipid political allegory either--Ken Loach, the director, has stated, in so many words, that he wants the movie to be a commentary on British involvement in Iraq--because the political debates in the movie never rise above the level of a History 101 class. More about bad things happening to poor people, the rich landowners, names beginning with O or not, are the devil, and the Roman Catholic Church is on their side. At times, watching the characters is like having to grade an eighth grade debate team.
The action sequences aren't even realistic or entertaining. I got the feeling that Ken Loach was making the scenes that he had fantasized about for years, but they look more like they were filmed as part of a high school project.
Here's your projects back, children; you all get F's.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Fraudulent Folksiness
The people in this primary season who have pretended to be the most folksy are John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. The ironic thing is that John Edwards and Mitt Romney are the richest men in the race.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
On the Night of John McCain Winning in Florida
John McCain has won in Florida! As you know, I intend to tell no one how to vote, but I think that this is good for the Republican Party to say the least because, in spite of what Mitt Romney thinks, it is the Arizona senator who will make a greater agent for change. Mr. Romney says that they need an outsider to fix Washington. ("Washington is broken!") That, right now, is the last thing that they need. Mitt Romney fails to note that Washington was broken by an outsider from Texas who had apparently been a popular and/or effective governor who also came from a political family. Both men's fathers even ran for president. Forget Washington, because there's more than one Washington. For the moment, I just want something that is different.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
"There Will Be Blood": My Favorite Movie of 2007
"There Will Be Blood" works. To say that is high praise, I think, given that I can't think of any Thomas Paul Anderson movie up until this one that I liked. "Punch Drunk Love" tried to survive on quirkiness, but the concept grew tired after twenty minutes. I haven't been able to finish "Magnolia." But "There Will Be Blood" is an epic Californian tragedy which will outlive these movies, and, hopefully, the movies of his mentor, Robert Altman.
"Blood" is a Californian picture, but it is a different California from the California of, say, "Sunset Boulevard". This is not the California that Wallace Stegner meant when he said that the golden state was like the rest of America, only more so. This is a California which in which deprivation is the only thing ravaging the landscape and the only thing that needs to. The only evidence that anything had been there before the Midwestern looking settlers who inhabit its desolate edifices is the oil that comes seeping from the ground, lifeless and black.
It is hard to imagine anybody looking on this landscape and seeing opportunity. But, then again, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis in his best role to date) is not anybody and no sooner has an inhabitant of a barren township called Little Boston told him that oil comes up from the ground, than he has packed his belongings, company and adopted son and established himself as a community leader.
This would hardly seem irregular or unnatural, but I do not recall having a feeling through the movie that could be described as either natural or regular. There is something in the seeping of the oil, the nodding of the grasshopper pump, the inanimate pools of black gold waiting to be shipped to their final resting place, that endues the movie with a sense of horror. The audience always knows something is going to happen--an earthquake, a falling object--but they never know what.
Daniel Day-Lewis matches the movie's sense of creepiness almost perfectly. His dialogue rolls off the tongue with a fullness and eloquence that is not seen too often anymore and, while we are not seduced by him, we get a sense of why his those who deal with him may be. He is reckless, insensitive and alcoholic, but communicates the sense that, beneath there exterior is a tortured and confused human being. An idea that is both touching and frightening.
The film covers several decades, but, unlike Mr. Anderson's best known earlier work, "Magnolia," this movie has the advantage of focusing on one central character. This does not mean that the other characters are not interesting. Plainview's main antagonist, Eli Sunday (Paul Dano) does a good turn as a charlatan Pentecostal minister; the type who would assert that vengeance belongs to God and that he is God's vengeance. In a movie year which has produced many memorable villains, Dano's Sunday will have to take his place alongside some of the worst produced by Flannery O'Connor. The final confrontation between him and Plainview is one of the best character interactions in recent memory.
But it is Mr. Day-Lewis whose performance is the most memorable. I can hardly think of a single materialist who seemed so spirited and it is he, as well as Mr. Anderson, who makes "Blood" the best movie of 2007.
"Blood" is a Californian picture, but it is a different California from the California of, say, "Sunset Boulevard". This is not the California that Wallace Stegner meant when he said that the golden state was like the rest of America, only more so. This is a California which in which deprivation is the only thing ravaging the landscape and the only thing that needs to. The only evidence that anything had been there before the Midwestern looking settlers who inhabit its desolate edifices is the oil that comes seeping from the ground, lifeless and black.
It is hard to imagine anybody looking on this landscape and seeing opportunity. But, then again, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis in his best role to date) is not anybody and no sooner has an inhabitant of a barren township called Little Boston told him that oil comes up from the ground, than he has packed his belongings, company and adopted son and established himself as a community leader.
This would hardly seem irregular or unnatural, but I do not recall having a feeling through the movie that could be described as either natural or regular. There is something in the seeping of the oil, the nodding of the grasshopper pump, the inanimate pools of black gold waiting to be shipped to their final resting place, that endues the movie with a sense of horror. The audience always knows something is going to happen--an earthquake, a falling object--but they never know what.
Daniel Day-Lewis matches the movie's sense of creepiness almost perfectly. His dialogue rolls off the tongue with a fullness and eloquence that is not seen too often anymore and, while we are not seduced by him, we get a sense of why his those who deal with him may be. He is reckless, insensitive and alcoholic, but communicates the sense that, beneath there exterior is a tortured and confused human being. An idea that is both touching and frightening.
The film covers several decades, but, unlike Mr. Anderson's best known earlier work, "Magnolia," this movie has the advantage of focusing on one central character. This does not mean that the other characters are not interesting. Plainview's main antagonist, Eli Sunday (Paul Dano) does a good turn as a charlatan Pentecostal minister; the type who would assert that vengeance belongs to God and that he is God's vengeance. In a movie year which has produced many memorable villains, Dano's Sunday will have to take his place alongside some of the worst produced by Flannery O'Connor. The final confrontation between him and Plainview is one of the best character interactions in recent memory.
But it is Mr. Day-Lewis whose performance is the most memorable. I can hardly think of a single materialist who seemed so spirited and it is he, as well as Mr. Anderson, who makes "Blood" the best movie of 2007.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Conservative and Progressive Hypocrisy
I have something to say to both conservatives and liberals.
First, last night I came across a column by Ann Coulter criticizing John McCain for, among other things, being concerned about income inequality, believing that terrorists should be tried in civilian courts and be granted full civil rights, suggesting that the government should instigate policies which will counter global warming and supporting immigration reform which would make it possible for illegals currently working in the country to get on the path toward citizenship.
Second, "the New York Times" (to which I subscribe) declared that Mike Huckabee should be disqualified as a presidential contender because he brought religion into his campaign.
I'll deal with Ann Coulter first.
John McCain may be, as some people have said, a "maverick" Republican, but he falls well within the mainstream of the Republican fold. Yes, he opposed the Bush tax-cuts because of income inequality. What's wrong with that? Maybe, at the time, the tax cuts helped to bolster the economy, but, at the same time, deficits doubled and quadrupled. This is debt which will take years to pay off, and will require much higher taxes than the ones that Bush cut. Furthermore, income inequality is a legitimate concern of even the most pro-business candidate, if nothing else, because income inequality will very likely lead to the implementation of much worse tax policies should it come to be a dominating issue in financial discourse.
Second, there is the issue of the terrorists. Yes, they are terrorists and, as they do not subscribe to any particular country, may or may not be eligible for the rights granted by the Geneva Convention. But we are not legalists. We ought, instead, to look to the reason that such laws were created; in the words of John McCain, "what are Americans" (I think that's it.) More importantly, what will our allies or the rest of the world think of us if we, who have every reason to have the greater moral capital against our enemies in the war on terror, squander it to put behind bars a guy who might have driven Osama bin Laden to a linen goods festival.
As for global warming, I am an agnostic. But, if Friedrich Hayek, prince of libertarians, were here, I don't think that he would have felt an obligation to doubt that it was a real phenomenon merely because the Democrats believed in it. After all, it is better to have regulation and not need it than to need regulation and not have it. In short, I think that we ought to assume its existence until we can prove otherwise, which does not mean that we have to be reactionary like Al Gore. We need to introduce new measures to assuage our dependence on oil without gobbling up all of our arable farmland. It will take a prudent leader to accomplish this and, as he has devoted more time to the question than anyone else, I believe that Sen. McCain is the man for the job.
Which brings me around to the question of illegal aliens. First, I cannot think of a single economist that believes that illegal immigration is bad for the country. It is true that we need to defend ourselves against terrorists, but the least that we could do is make people pay outrageous fees to get across the southern border. People will cross the border, and, therefore, we need to implement policies which will make it easier for them to do it legally. Until then, why not talk about shamnesty? Who's hurt by it?
Now for the "New York Times"
Somewhat oddly, they've endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. She has been, more or less, a supporter of the war in Iraq from the beginning even though she lied about her opinion of General Petraeus to satisfy MoveOn.org. A more natural endorsement for the Times to make would be Barack Obama. But . . . they know he won't win and they'd rather compromise their principles than back a loser.
As for their comments about Governor Huckabee, I wouldn't endorse the governor myself. But bringing religion into the race is an age-old tradition. I see no reason why we should abandon it now. John Adams, for example, exploited the fact that Jefferson had no particular religion in the election of 1800. For his times, Adams was somewhat of a big-government candidate (more so than Jefferson, anyway). If the NYTimes had existed then--and existed then with the same editors that work for it now--they would undoubtedly have endorsed his candidacy. More than this, the prince of the progressive populists, William Jennings Bryan also told his constituents that they should not vote for his opponent William Taft. Why? Because he was a Unitarian. If, at that time, the NYTimes opposed Bryan's candidacy based on this statement, I would be interested in seeing that editorial. Not that it matters, because it was a different paper then. But the paper that exists now would probably be backing Bryan 110%.
First, last night I came across a column by Ann Coulter criticizing John McCain for, among other things, being concerned about income inequality, believing that terrorists should be tried in civilian courts and be granted full civil rights, suggesting that the government should instigate policies which will counter global warming and supporting immigration reform which would make it possible for illegals currently working in the country to get on the path toward citizenship.
Second, "the New York Times" (to which I subscribe) declared that Mike Huckabee should be disqualified as a presidential contender because he brought religion into his campaign.
I'll deal with Ann Coulter first.
John McCain may be, as some people have said, a "maverick" Republican, but he falls well within the mainstream of the Republican fold. Yes, he opposed the Bush tax-cuts because of income inequality. What's wrong with that? Maybe, at the time, the tax cuts helped to bolster the economy, but, at the same time, deficits doubled and quadrupled. This is debt which will take years to pay off, and will require much higher taxes than the ones that Bush cut. Furthermore, income inequality is a legitimate concern of even the most pro-business candidate, if nothing else, because income inequality will very likely lead to the implementation of much worse tax policies should it come to be a dominating issue in financial discourse.
Second, there is the issue of the terrorists. Yes, they are terrorists and, as they do not subscribe to any particular country, may or may not be eligible for the rights granted by the Geneva Convention. But we are not legalists. We ought, instead, to look to the reason that such laws were created; in the words of John McCain, "what are Americans" (I think that's it.) More importantly, what will our allies or the rest of the world think of us if we, who have every reason to have the greater moral capital against our enemies in the war on terror, squander it to put behind bars a guy who might have driven Osama bin Laden to a linen goods festival.
As for global warming, I am an agnostic. But, if Friedrich Hayek, prince of libertarians, were here, I don't think that he would have felt an obligation to doubt that it was a real phenomenon merely because the Democrats believed in it. After all, it is better to have regulation and not need it than to need regulation and not have it. In short, I think that we ought to assume its existence until we can prove otherwise, which does not mean that we have to be reactionary like Al Gore. We need to introduce new measures to assuage our dependence on oil without gobbling up all of our arable farmland. It will take a prudent leader to accomplish this and, as he has devoted more time to the question than anyone else, I believe that Sen. McCain is the man for the job.
Which brings me around to the question of illegal aliens. First, I cannot think of a single economist that believes that illegal immigration is bad for the country. It is true that we need to defend ourselves against terrorists, but the least that we could do is make people pay outrageous fees to get across the southern border. People will cross the border, and, therefore, we need to implement policies which will make it easier for them to do it legally. Until then, why not talk about shamnesty? Who's hurt by it?
Now for the "New York Times"
Somewhat oddly, they've endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. She has been, more or less, a supporter of the war in Iraq from the beginning even though she lied about her opinion of General Petraeus to satisfy MoveOn.org. A more natural endorsement for the Times to make would be Barack Obama. But . . . they know he won't win and they'd rather compromise their principles than back a loser.
As for their comments about Governor Huckabee, I wouldn't endorse the governor myself. But bringing religion into the race is an age-old tradition. I see no reason why we should abandon it now. John Adams, for example, exploited the fact that Jefferson had no particular religion in the election of 1800. For his times, Adams was somewhat of a big-government candidate (more so than Jefferson, anyway). If the NYTimes had existed then--and existed then with the same editors that work for it now--they would undoubtedly have endorsed his candidacy. More than this, the prince of the progressive populists, William Jennings Bryan also told his constituents that they should not vote for his opponent William Taft. Why? Because he was a Unitarian. If, at that time, the NYTimes opposed Bryan's candidacy based on this statement, I would be interested in seeing that editorial. Not that it matters, because it was a different paper then. But the paper that exists now would probably be backing Bryan 110%.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
A Heath Ledger Tribute: A Good Actor with a Small Resume
More people in America probably know that Heath Ledger is dead than know that John McCain won the South Carolina primary. While this (if it is true) speaks to how poorly informed all of us are about the current state of affairs, I feel obligated, since I have been saying so much about politics in recent weeks, to take a break and write something about Heath Ledger.
First of all, he was a great actor. This is hardly news. Anyone who had seen movies such as "Ned Kelly" or "Brokeback Mountain" could have told you the same thing. But, more importantly, he was an animating presence in films which, otherwise, were not great. "Brokeback Mountain," alongside "Crash," is one of the most overrated movies of the decade. I hope this has nothing to do with its politics, though it might. But, in my defense, I enjoyed the novella "Death in Venice" which, I feel, is even more explicitly about homo-erotic love. The problem with "Brokeback Mountain," I feel, was not that it dealt with homosexuality, but that it was unwilling to deal with homosexuality honestly. Instead, the movie presented the affair like a conventional Hollywood love story when they should have concentrated more on the theme of masculinity. But I digress. For all of the movie's flaws, Heath Ledger gave a flawless performance as the narrative's protagonist, Ennis del Mar (an unfortunate name, if ever there was one.) The performance was one that was great not because of the passion that it poured forth, but rather because of the passion which it held in. Ledger seamlessly communicated the repression; he actually seemed to feel it, and we thought that we could, too.
"The Four Feathers" is the only movie in which Ledger appears that I have seen before and will want to see again. The movie was savagely mocked, particularly for the casting-directors decision to give Kate Hudson a leading role as an English aristocratic girl. This criticism has merit. It was one of her worst performances to date. But Ledger and Djimon Honsou (or some such spelling) were capable enough leads to make the movie into a memorable experience; the movie also has some excellent, if also infrequent, action sequences.
There were other movies as well. The aforementioned revisionist western, "Ned Kelly," was probably the other notable of those that I have seen. Not that this movie merits repeated viewings. It was (and will continue to be) overshadowed by another Australian western, "the Proposition." Nonetheless, Ledger did a good job of making a heroic and charismatic figure out of a bank-robber. I still remember the emotional intonations of his lines.
And then, of course, there is "The Dark Knight." As you know, if you visit this blog from time to time, I have already predicted that Heath Ledger will be the best Joker to date, and considering that Jack Nicholson played the Joker, that isn't saying nothing. Of course, the audiences will flock to see what may be the last movie in which Heath Ledger appears (there were other projects in production, but these may or may not be shelved depending on where they are in the process). Even so, it's tragic that there wasn't more.
First of all, he was a great actor. This is hardly news. Anyone who had seen movies such as "Ned Kelly" or "Brokeback Mountain" could have told you the same thing. But, more importantly, he was an animating presence in films which, otherwise, were not great. "Brokeback Mountain," alongside "Crash," is one of the most overrated movies of the decade. I hope this has nothing to do with its politics, though it might. But, in my defense, I enjoyed the novella "Death in Venice" which, I feel, is even more explicitly about homo-erotic love. The problem with "Brokeback Mountain," I feel, was not that it dealt with homosexuality, but that it was unwilling to deal with homosexuality honestly. Instead, the movie presented the affair like a conventional Hollywood love story when they should have concentrated more on the theme of masculinity. But I digress. For all of the movie's flaws, Heath Ledger gave a flawless performance as the narrative's protagonist, Ennis del Mar (an unfortunate name, if ever there was one.) The performance was one that was great not because of the passion that it poured forth, but rather because of the passion which it held in. Ledger seamlessly communicated the repression; he actually seemed to feel it, and we thought that we could, too.
"The Four Feathers" is the only movie in which Ledger appears that I have seen before and will want to see again. The movie was savagely mocked, particularly for the casting-directors decision to give Kate Hudson a leading role as an English aristocratic girl. This criticism has merit. It was one of her worst performances to date. But Ledger and Djimon Honsou (or some such spelling) were capable enough leads to make the movie into a memorable experience; the movie also has some excellent, if also infrequent, action sequences.
There were other movies as well. The aforementioned revisionist western, "Ned Kelly," was probably the other notable of those that I have seen. Not that this movie merits repeated viewings. It was (and will continue to be) overshadowed by another Australian western, "the Proposition." Nonetheless, Ledger did a good job of making a heroic and charismatic figure out of a bank-robber. I still remember the emotional intonations of his lines.
And then, of course, there is "The Dark Knight." As you know, if you visit this blog from time to time, I have already predicted that Heath Ledger will be the best Joker to date, and considering that Jack Nicholson played the Joker, that isn't saying nothing. Of course, the audiences will flock to see what may be the last movie in which Heath Ledger appears (there were other projects in production, but these may or may not be shelved depending on where they are in the process). Even so, it's tragic that there wasn't more.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The Shortest Presidential Run in Recent Memory
Fred Thompson finally dropped out of the presidential race. I wonder if they're going to pick him as a vice-presidential runner. One can only hope not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)